Herman Cain

It does kind of seem to be rewarding many of the people who got us into this mess. I dunno.

Now Cain has really stepped in it. He crossed the moral conservatives. Is his affair with being the Republican front runner over? Much like Bachman and Perry?

Article link at the Daily Beast

On Wednesday evening, Cain gave a rather baffling interview about social issues to CNN’s Piers Morgan. “I believe that life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances,” he said, echoing previous statements. But moments later, responding to a question about rape and incest, he suggested that he doesn’t intend to impose his personal beliefs on the country. “What I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make,” he said. “Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family… I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”

I appreciate his more libertarian comment at the end. I could only hope that more Republicans practice what they preach about less government in your life. This includes less government interference in matters such as abortion and drug use.

In reply to Xceler8x:

I saw that. Even though I don't like Cain, I was ignoring his faux pas (conservative faux pas anyway) because I hate it when politics becomes politics of abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Xceler8x wrote: Now Cain has really stepped in it. He crossed the moral conservatives. Is his affair with being the Republican front runner over? Much like Bachman and Perry? Article link at the Daily Beast

On Wednesday evening, Cain gave a rather baffling interview about social issues to CNN’s Piers Morgan. “I believe that life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances,” he said, echoing previous statements. But moments later, responding to a question about rape and incest, he suggested that he doesn’t intend to impose his personal beliefs on the country. “What I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make,” he said. “Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family… I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”

I appreciate his more libertarian comment at the end. I could only hope that more Republicans practice what they preach about less government in your life. This includes less government interference in matters such as abortion and drug use.

Wow. I like that last statement. Man's got balls.

Being a moral conservative, I don't have a problem with his statement. I agree with the first statement, and the second. +1 for Cain.

It's none of the federal government's business to be either pro or against abortion. It should be a non issue. Trying to legislate morality is the stupidest thing the feds can do.

Toyman01 wrote: Being a moral conservative, I don't have a problem with his statement. I agree with the first statement, and the second. +1 for Cain. It's none of the federal government's business to be either pro or against abortion. It should be a non issue. Trying to legislate morality is the stupidest thing the feds can do.

That's a very reasonable position, and I think pretty much my own feeling. But I have to ask if you're really a "moral conservative". I'm not questioning if you're moral or consercative, but I believe the two words used together typicall mean that you would like to see laws passed that make abortion illegal. And if you believe it should be illegal, you can't then say "but it's up to the family". And if you believe that moral issues are not the within the sphear of government then there is no need for a lable of "moral conservative". You're simply moral and conservative.

The other odd thing about Cain's answers is the uncatagorical "party line" in the first exchange. He said "abortion under no circumstances". Then he gave the more reasonable second answer. Now, to me, the two make perfect sense. But if I'm of the mind that abortion should be illegal, I'm going to feel like Mr. Cain was playing me in the first answer. I'm going to think he was misleading me to believe he would persue the agenda I'm in favor of when in fact he has no intention of doing so.

He's right on, but it does feel like he was playing the old switcheroo.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: He's right on, but it does feel like he was playing the old switcheroo.

Or, in one statement, he's affirming his personal belief AND confirming that he won't force that belief on anyone else.

Such a position might cost a few votes from the hardcore anti-abortionists but it's a positive message for more moderate-minded voters.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: That's a very reasonable position, and I think pretty much my own feeling. But I have to ask if you're really a "moral conservative". I'm not questioning if you're moral or consercative, but I believe the two words used together typicall mean that you would like to see laws passed that make abortion illegal. And if you believe it should be illegal, you can't then say "but it's up to the family". And if you believe that moral issues are not the within the sphear of government then there is no need for a lable of "moral conservative". You're simply moral and conservative.

I see what you are saving, but it is very possible to have a strong moral code that is not conservative. So just saying "moral" does not mean that someone believes abortion is inherently wrong. His morals are conservative. Or perhaps he is a conservative with a strong sense of morals, and would then be a "moral conservative". Maybe he's morally conservative or has conservative morals. I'd say he is correct in saying that he is a "moral conservative" but not a "Moral Conservative" just like lots of people on this board are libertarian but not Libertarian.

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: He's right on, but it does feel like he was playing the old switcheroo.

Or, in one statement, he's affirming his personal belief AND confirming that he won't force that belief on anyone else. Such a position might cost a few votes from the hardcore anti-abortionists but it's a positive message for more moderate-minded voters.

It all depends on who gets ahold of it and spins it first/loudest.

In reply to Salanis:

Abortion is a deal breaker for a lot of people in the South. They love the Tea Party and Libertarian banners, just as long as it only pertains to economic issues.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Salanis: Abortion is a deal breaker for a lot of people in the South. They love the Tea Party and Libertarian banners, just as long as it only pertains to economic issues.

Not really, dude. Some of us think that you have to stick up for the "LIFE" part, as well as the liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can be a social libertarian and still be very against abortion on a legal level.

tuna55 wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Salanis: Abortion is a deal breaker for a lot of people in the South. They love the Tea Party and Libertarian banners, just as long as it only pertains to economic issues.

Not really, dude. Some of us think that you have to stick up for the "LIFE" part, as well as the liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can be a social libertarian and still be very against abortion on a legal level.

As the OP I'm going to have to say we stop here with the abortion discussion. No quicker way to lock a thread.

Topic:

Herman Cain - would it be entertaining to have him on the ticket?

After seeing the debate the other night I'm still pretty sure Herman would be great entertainment on the ticket. Although, Ron Paul got a few laughs out of me as well as Newt.

It doesn't help that Ron looks like Mr. Magoo:

Does he have phrases as catchy as "9-9-9" for the other two phases of his tax code restructuring? Phase 1, "Whack back the max"? (from 35% to 25%). Phase 2 is "9-9-9". Phase 3 is, well, he does have a catchy name for that one. "Fair tax"; A 30% national sales tax in lieu of all other taxes.

More usefully, does anybody have a link to Cain's own description of all three phases? Everything I'm finding has some degree of editorializing. I got the above from MinnPost.com, which I know nothing about, and which for all I know could be chock full of lies...

In any case, apart from the issue of rewriting the tax code thrice, I would think at least that all three phases should get discussion, and find it odd that there's so much emphasis on phase 2, when it's neither what we start with nor what we'd be left with when all was said and done... Dang catchy tag, though.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Definitely conservative, possibly more libertarian with a dash of anarchist thrown in for good measure. My default position on most things is it's none of the government's business. Particularly when discussing the federal government.

To name two hot buttons to the left and the right.

Abortion? Not the federal government's business. If the religious right want's to stop abortion, they should do what the Bible says and teach, not rule.

Gay marriage? Why exactly is the government in the marriage business to start with. As far as I'm concerned, you're married if you say you are. Don't really care what you have hanging or not. See above about teaching.

The The religious right wants to legislate morality. The left wants to legislate "fairness". Both of those are none of the government's damn business.

Most of us just want to be left alone. If your morality isn't exactly the same as mine, I don't have a problem with it. The problem with the extreme right and left is they want their version of "right" legislated and there in lies the problem.

In reply to Toyman01:

Well said, sir. Well said.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

I was more referring to how easy it would be for a loud-mouthed pundit to spin his statements as "flip-flopping". "First he says we shouldn't have abortions and immediately says we should allow them. This guy is just just another politician who can't make up his mind and how best to cater for votes." As opposed to how most of us are reading it.

In reply to Salanis:

Somehow, I think Cain will flourish with that kind of attack and do better than someone like, maybe, Hank Williams Jr..........

In reply to Toyman01:

Amen.

In reply to Toyman01:

Yeah, that's a good post. I have to say, though, I do think it's the government's job to "legislate 'fairness'". Being free implies that freedom will be assured. I mean, our courts and police exist to legislate fairness. I buy a car in a free country, there should be something to keep a guy from just coming along and taking it. The alternative is anarchy. So I agree with what you say- "The religious right wants to legislate morality. The left wants to legislate "fairness". " But I don't agree that "Both of those are none of the government's damn business." One of them clearly is the government's business. In fact, it's hard for me to think of any function of government that isn't designed to insure some degree of fairness to someone.

Jefferson said "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

I disagree that the right wants to legislate morality, actually.

Can you murder someone legally? Can you steal from someone legally? Can you beat someone legally?

Are those laws governing morality, or just ensuring that you are entitled to not have anyone infringe upon those rights of yours?

I would argue abortion is much the same, it's not legislating morality, it's ensuring freedom.

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Friday redefined his tax plan to exclude the poorest Americans and to allow some deductions, abandoning the zero-exemption feature of his "9-9-9" proposal that helped win headlines but would have meant a tax increase for 4 out of 5 Americans

OK, since he hasn't backed away from his desire to exempt investment income from taxation, it certainly appears that the exemptions will come at the expense of the middle class. Either that or he intends to collect less income.

Otto Maddox wrote: Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Friday redefined his tax plan to exclude the poorest Americans and to allow some deductions, abandoning the zero-exemption feature of his "9-9-9" proposal that helped win headlines but would have meant a tax increase for 4 out of 5 Americans OK, since he hasn't backed away from his desire to exempt investment income from taxation, it certainly appears that the exemptions will come at the expense of the middle class. Either that or he intends to collect less income.

He still left capital gains alone. Why won't anyone dare tax capital gains at the same rate as other income? Why is that a sacred cow?

tuna55 wrote: I disagree that the right wants to legislate morality, actually. Can you murder someone legally? Can you steal from someone legally? Can you beat someone legally? Are those laws governing morality, or just ensuring that you are entitled to not have anyone infringe upon those rights of yours? I would argue abortion is much the same, it's not legislating morality, it's ensuring freedom.

Yup, with you all the way (as far as following your logic). But then you get to the gay rights issues, public display of religion and teaching biblical principals in public schools and it starts to break down pretty quickly...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I disagree that the right wants to legislate morality, actually. Can you murder someone legally? Can you steal from someone legally? Can you beat someone legally? Are those laws governing morality, or just ensuring that you are entitled to not have anyone infringe upon those rights of yours? I would argue abortion is much the same, it's not legislating morality, it's ensuring freedom.

Yup, with you all the way (as far as following your logic). But then you get to the gay rights issues, public display of religion and teaching biblical principals in public schools and it starts to break down pretty quickly...

Fair enough, but I'll bet the majority of those on the right care a lot more about the basic ones than any of the ones you mentioned.

I guess I am more libertarian than right, but I would attack those you put forth as follows:

Marriage should not be viewed as a part of the state at all. Who cares who it is.

You should be able to publicly display any religion

There should be no public schools