Herman Cain - Does not mix Personal Views with Political Duties - image: Saberpoint blog
Herman Cain is coming under fire for remarks he made during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan earlier this week: The segment in its entirety is available here on Youtube To those activist in Iowa who are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water (and elsewhere for that matter over pro-life issues (see: Huffington Post, Herman Cain Abortion Comments”) understand that when one is being interviewed, a sixty second sound bite (as are most of the anti-Cain anti-abortion videos which have been truncated) is simply not fair, and in fact, without watching the entire segment one finds a slightly different version – one that is more pro-life than those that would see Cain fail in his bid for the GOP nomination.
As those who have read this blog and understand this point of view on the subject, being unabashedly pro-life, (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty) the following is offered: When choosing the leader of the Free World, their personal views are, of course, of import, they go to character. Herman Cain is personally opposed to abortion on any level, taking the hard line. However, Herman Cain is a realist, understanding that, from a constitutional standpoint, the President, having less power than say a Governor, could issue an executive order banning abortion, which would be challenged and rightly so by the Courts, but most importantly by the people. Those who happen to be pro-life, the majority are also pro-constitutionalists, and do not care for Executive Orders. Therefore, actually watch the video segment to understand Herman Cain’s Position is spot on.
Speaking of Governors, to understand how points of view change (and by no mean am I judging a man by what he may have said fifteen years ago, or more, but to illustrate those points of view on Abortion have been a political football since Roe Vs. Wade was signed into law. It is true that in some states, Governors have taken steps to reduce abortions, while the majority defers to their individual courts and state constitutions (or Commonwealth if that may be the case).
In a debate held in 1994, between then newcomer Mitt Romney who challenged Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, comes this transcripts via the New York Times archives:
(New York Times)
THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney
Published: October 26, 1994
Following is an excerpt from the debate last night between Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, at Faneuil Hall in Boston, as transcribed by The New York Times.
Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?
ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.
Therefore, Iowa, and Christian Voters in general, the fact that a candidate personally holds that abortion is a sin, and abhors the practice, should be the litmus test. The only candidate that should be under extreme scrutiny is a judge, either state or federal, and about to be appointed (or in some cases, voted in), as that individual does have the power to change (in some states based on state constitutions. Further, on the federal level, that individual obviously may weigh in and make a change to Roe Vs. Wade.
Herein is the question: In the years since Roe vs. Wade had been deemed a right granted protection under the constitution, why has not one Pro-Life group successfully challenged, and brought the suit to the right forum? The Supreme Court?
Herein lays the problem: Instead, one finds shortened clips of candidates, and a lot of disinformation bandied about based on a sound clip of less than half an answer – framing the entire debate. It is not up to Herman Cain, and it is not up to Mitt Romney (who has since changed his position to pro-life circa 2008), it is not up to a Senator or a Congressman, it is up to the Supreme Court.
Of course, the argument that the Justices are vetted by Congress and appointed by the President is consistently brought to the forefront of the pro-life argument, and that is where the individual’s viewpoint may make a difference. Therefore, if one believes in following the dictates of the Constitution and does not wish to abuse power by issuing mandates (Those Executive Orders that most Christian Conservatives and anyone with any sense, despise) from the White House, circumventing the Congress, and at the same time is personally opposed to abortion and has the ability to appoint justices, who may one day in a future far away see Row Vs. Wade challenged. What on earth is your problem with Cain?
From a strong pro-life, feminist (yes, same sentence – (and for my left of center pro-choice friends, you know that abortion is only one issue that effects women, we can work together on other issues that actually are not political footballs and can improve life!) point of view, Herman Cain exemplifies the perfect Conservative Candidate, and as a Christian, I have no right to judge a man/or woman, (according to one small book, most Christian’s have one). For those "activists" or those holier than though (or those using Mr. Cain’s sound bites as a political weapon – that is a break with the Holy Law, especially if one is judging as a Christian!). Therefore, to this point of view, Mr.Cain's answer satisifed two litmust tests: That of a principled moral future public servant, and one who understands and respects teh Constitution.
As to Mitt Romney’s change of heart: as a Christian one is supposed to be happy for the man who has found a good path, no matter how that individual arrived in that place, and not continue to cast judgment on what no one but God in Heaven Himself can possibly know – what the heart contains.
Stop being used by the right.
Same goes for Gay Activists.
Different subject – same football. (see previous blog posts and arguments regarding that issue.)
No comments:
Post a Comment