Cain Interview Transcript [Is Cain Pro-Choice]

[TMC]

On Piers Morgan’s show last night, Herman Cain made comments that some people are interpreting as saying that although he personally opposes abortion, he would be pro-choice as President (in the Kerry/Obama mode of saying he is personally against it, but favors the Government staying out of the decision). Others say he only meant that he would allow exceptions for rape and incest, even though he personally thinks abortion is always wrong. I am providing the entire exchange so people can make up their own minds. His campaign has thus far declined to clarify what he meant (its only been about 18 hours.)

archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/19/pmt.01.html

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why –

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates – some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but –

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying – again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You’re mixing –

MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively – you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. 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 social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure –

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: – from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

 

[seekerz]

On Piers Morgan’s show last night, Herman Cain made comments that some people are interpreting as saying that although he personally opposes abortion, he would be pro-choice as President (in the Kerry/Obama mode of saying he is personally against it, but favors the Government staying out of the decision). Others say he only meant that he would allow exceptions for rape and incest, even though he personally thinks abortion is always wrong. I am providing the entire exchange so people can make up their own minds. His campaign has thus far declined to clarify what he meant (its only been about 18 hours.)

archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/19/pmt.01.html

“Interesting departure indeed.” Methinks, Cain was just being a politician and trying to please the whole electorate: pro-life, pro-choice, independents, libertarians… I think he is finding that hard to do while still holding on to the “no exceptions” banner he recently seemed to be flying. That has to be a really hard dance to execute and if he can pull it off he may be a much more skillful politician than I had imagined.

 

[seekerz]

On Piers Morgan’s show last night, Herman Cain made comments that some people are interpreting as saying that although he personally opposes abortion, he would be pro-choice as President (in the Kerry/Obama mode of saying he is personally against it, but favors the Government staying out of the decision). Others say he only meant that he would allow exceptions for rape and incest, even though he personally thinks abortion is always wrong. I am providing the entire exchange so people can make up their own minds. His campaign has thus far declined to clarify what he meant (its only been about 18 hours.)

archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/19/pmt.01.html

“Interesting departure indeed.” Methinks, Cain was just being a politician and trying to please the whole electorate: pro-life, pro-choice, independents, libertarians… I think he is finding that difficult to do while still holding on to the “no exceptions” banner he recently seemed to be flying. That has to be a really hard dance to execute and if he can pull it off he may be a much more skillful politician than I had imagined.

 

[Mijoy2]

I saw the interview and immediately thought he made a pro-choice profession.

He also flubbed IMO on the homosexual question Morgan posed. Chris Christie (again IMO) flubbed this question in an interview I saw him engaged in.

You’d think catholic and non-catholic politians could rehearse a good answer to social questions based on thier beliefs.

For Christie, at least, being a catholic he has an easy answer to his stand on homosexual lifestyles. He could just say that he holds the same position with homosexuals as he does with heterosexuals. Marriage is between one man and one woman. We hold this belief from implicit and explicit teachings from the Church through Her Tradition and through Holy Scripture. Marriage is for one amn and one woman and sex, is for marriage. Homosexuality not even mentioned.

If asked your feeling on if 2+2 =3 you can simply state 2+2=4, you don’t have to elaborate on why 2+2 does not equal 3.

This is not only a truthful answer based on one’s catholic faith, it is also an easy way out of the very sticky homosexual social questiion/debate in our society today. With the above answer, the catholic politician needs to go no further.

I find an easy answer to the abortion issue too without mentioning abortion. “Killing a human being should be against the law of our land…period”. Abortion not even mentioned.

Not, that the politician should avoid the issue. Just that the politician should have the answer, that comes from his faith, ready. If he/she answers with the above answers, he/she needs not elaborate. Any followup becomes unnecessary.

Pass this on, if they have any questions tell them they can contact me directly

 

[Cider]

He has been waffling on a lot of things. Now it’s life issues. Yes, he clearly made a pro choice statement. He can try and spin it all he wants. What he said is classic moral relativism.

 

[mlund]

He has been waffling on a lot of things. Now it’s life issues. Yes, he clearly made a pro choice statement. He can try and spin it all he wants. What he said is classic moral relativism.

No, not really. He was specifically questioned about the “extreme” cases - rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother’s life, and the other odd question he was posed (the one he expounded upon) was:

“MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”

To which Herman Cain objects that Mr. Morgan is conflating two things. Actually, he’s conflating two sets of two things. First he’s mixing up the abortion issue (giving birth) with the adoption issue (“bring up that baby as her own”). Then he’s conflating how far Herman Cain’s personal beliefs go with how far Herman Cain’s belief in the reach of government should go. Mr. Cain should’ve remained poised and sat Mr. Morgan down and untangled the questions being asked first. He shouldn’t feel pressured into giving “yes” and “no” answers when a questioner begins with a false premise, it makes things ugly and “reporters” and “hosts” are really fond on doing that sort of thing to politicians they dislike.

Herman Cain tweeted out this morning as follows:

“I’m 100% pro-life. End of Story.”

The problem with that is most people aren’t familiar with any of his pro-life work before his campaign or his positions running for Georgia Senate, so you could still read that interview as saying “I’m personally Pro-Life, but it isn’t the government’s job to tell people they can’t kill babies.”

I’m hoping that perhaps Sean Hannity will get a straight answer on this tonight when he sits down with Mr. Cain.

• Marty Lund

 

[Sabda]

No, not really. He was specifically questioned about the “extreme” cases - rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother’s life, and the other odd question he was posed (the one he expounded upon) was:

“MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”

To which Herman Cain objects that Mr. Morgan is conflating two things. Actually, he’s conflating two sets of two things. First he’s mixing up the abortion issue (giving birth) with the adoption issue (“bring up that baby as her own”). Then he’s conflating how far Herman Cain’s personal beliefs go with how far Herman Cain’s belief in the reach of government should go. Mr. Cain should’ve remained poised and sat Mr. Morgan down and untangled the questions being asked first. He shouldn’t feel pressured into giving “yes” and “no” answers when a questioner begins with a false premise, it makes things ugly and “reporters” and “hosts” are really fond on doing that sort of thing to politicians they dislike.

Herman Cain tweeted out this morning as follows:

“I’m 100% pro-life. End of Story.”

The problem with that is most people aren’t familiar with any of his pro-life work before his campaign or his positions running for Georgia Senate, so you could still read that interview as saying “I’m personally Pro-Life, but it isn’t the government’s job to tell people they can’t kill babies.”

I’m hoping that perhaps Sean Hannity will get a straight answer on this tonight when he sits down with Mr. Cain.

• Marty Lund

That’s what I got out of it as well. I didn’t watch the interview but from what I can tell of the transcript it sounded like Morgan didn’t bother to give Cain any real time to answer the questions. That’s seems to be how it goes when the interviewer is opposed to the interviewee.

 

[Cider]

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision

Try and spin it all you want, but that is clearly a moral relativist answer that is pro choice. No one put those words in his mouth.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cain has released a statement:

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion. My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Lifenews summarizes it with this:

Cain appears to be genuinely pro-life but is clearly not thoroughly well=-versed or comfortable on discussing the issue of abortion. His past history spending money on pro-life advertisements and railing against the racist nature of Planned Parenthood and its abortion agenda suggests he clearly opposes abortions and wants to protect unborn children under the law. But Cain will have to become more articulate on explaining those pro-life principles and doing so in a way that does not involve using typically “pro-choice” phrases such as government not making decisions for women if he wants to be taken seriously as a possible Republican presidential nominee by the majority of Republicans and Americans who are pro-life

lifenews.com/2011/10/20/cain-releases-clarifying-statement-im-pro-life-on-abortion/

 

[Alan55]

I think he was attempting (poorly) to distinguish his personal views – no abortion, no exceptions – from his political view – no government regulation of abortion. When Biden, Pelosi, and others tried to make the same distinction, Catholic bishops criticized their position. If he adopts this position consistently, he would not favor state regulation of abortion either, it seems, although Republicans have generally wanted to reduce federal government regulation while permitting state regulation. Let’s hope Mr. Cain clarifies his views so that voters can choose their candidate knowledgeably.

 

[mlund]

I think he was attempting (poorly) to distinguish his personal views – no abortion, no exceptions – from his political view – no government regulation of abortion. When Biden, Pelosi, and others tried to make the same distinction, Catholic bishops criticized their position. If he adopts this position consistently, he would not favor state regulation of abortion either, it seems, although Republicans have generally wanted to reduce federal government regulation while permitting state regulation. Let’s hope Mr. Cain clarifies his views so that voters can choose their candidate knowledgeably.

The statement above directly contradicts what you inferred from his response to a rather obtuse interviewer. Mr. Cain says he’s going to advance the Pro-Life cause by using the office of the president as outlined under the Constitution - by appointing Pro-Life justices to the Supreme Court and passing or vetoing legislation related to abortion as is proper to the office.

What he won’t do is pretend he’s allowed to just bypass the other two branches of the government and issue executive orders to do whatever he wants. Circumventing the other two branches of government with executive orders is something that earned President Obama and former President Bush a whole lot of criticism.

At least he’s honest. If you want to end Roe. v. Wade you’re going to need to give President Cain a Pro-Life Senate to go with him in 2012, otherwise whoever he tries to put in there is just going to get Borked.

• Marty Lund

 

[CMatt25]

Maybe Cain was just confused because he thought Republicans wanted government out of people’s lives. In which case he just forgot the anti - government crowd make an exception when it comes to abortion.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I tend to interpret Cain’s statement as similar to Paul’s opinion-----------“I’m personally totally pro-life, but it should ultimately be left to the states----------let the federal government stay out of it. If a state wants to ban abortion, they should. If a state wants to keep abortion, let them. As long as the federal government does not deal with it.”

The problem with this positiion is (like Paul’s position) not one most staunch pro-life conservatives will support.

Of course they want abortion banned nationwide.Period.

That is how I personally interpret this, at least.

Good post.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe Cain was just confused because he thought Republicans wanted government out of people’s lives. In which case he just forgot the anti - government crowd make an exception when it comes to abortion.

You can’t keep out of somebodys life who has been denied the right to life.

 

[gilliam]

Cain is very good at debates, he is lousy at interviews.

 

[seekerz]

If people know what they really believe and know that they will be questioned on those beliefs, why would they have difficulty articulating them? Explaining one’s genuine views on abortion should not require a teleprompter. .

The problem is that we have become somewhat embarrassed to admit to certain stances that are not wildly popular among the general public (such as bearing a child conceived through rape or incest) as well as perhaps also unconsciously subscribing to the widely popular perception of babies as “burdens” or “punishments”.

I can help Mr Cain:

On a personal level, the same compassion which makes me empathize with the victims is what makes me oppose abortion on demand even in the cases of rape and incest. If elected to the presidency I would work to outlaw abortion on demand regardless of the reason, in the same way that I might work to prevent wrongly accused people from being executed - because life is an inalienable right.

On abortion in general:

I fully support a woman’s rights to make choices regarding her body. Pregnancy however, involves two bodies, not just hers.

If further clarification is sought:

I understand it is a difficult ordeal for any woman and every support should be given to her, including swift justice, but particularly if it was my daughter involved, that baby would be my grandchild, precious, unique, and guilty of absolutely nothing.

There, that hardly took me 30 minutes. It might not get him elected, but it might best reflect that it means to be pro-life.

 

[ishii]

Maybe Cain was just confused because he thought Republicans wanted government out of people’s lives. In which case he just forgot the anti - government crowd make an exception when it comes to abortion.

You’re being disingenuous, Cmatt. By your reasoning if a Republican wanted the police to get involved in stopping a robbery they’d be “wanting the government to get involved in controlling our lives” and according to you would be contradicting themselves because they are for small government. Please. One would hope that a Christian would understand the government’s legitimate obligation to help the most vulnerable in our society (hint: its the unborn humans). I am frankly saddened by the desire of pro-abortion types who take every opportunity to poke fun at pro-life folks. I wonder what motivates them?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

“Interesting departure indeed.” Methinks, Cain was just being a politician and trying to please the whole electorate: pro-life, pro-choice, independents, libertarians… I think he is finding that difficult to do while still holding on to the “no exceptions” banner he recently seemed to be flying. That has to be a really hard dance to execute and if he can pull it off he may be a much more skillful politician than I had imagined.

Nice try, seekerz. Cain is a less than polished candidate getting tripped up by a canny interviewer. Cain clarified his views on the Hannity show. He said, unequivocally that he would nominate constructionists to the federal bench (i.e. would vote to overturn Roe v Wade) and would elimate govt. funding for PP. In other words, Cain is a disappointment for liberal catholics because he would promote the sanctity of life and the protection of the unborn than he would promote useless liberal govt. spending programs that “help” the poor.

***Cain is pro-life. ***

Ishii

 

[Dranu]

It seems like he is talking about adoption not abortion (“conflating two issues”). Of course one could interpret it in the most uncharitable way imaginable and assume he made a pro-choice comment, but given his STRONG pro-life stances he has taken, I think its not even reasonable to make the uncharitable assumption here.

The devil loves to sow confusion, so lets stick to our common sense and not be shifted about by just every small remote possibility.

 

[seekerz]

Nice try, seekerz. Cain is a less than polished candidate getting tripped up by a canny interviewer. Cain clarified his views on the Hannity show. He said, unequivocally that he would nominate constructionists to the federal bench (i.e. would vote to overturn Roe v Wade) and would elimate govt. funding for PP. In other words, Cain is a disappointment for liberal catholics because he would promote the sanctity of life and the protection of the unborn than he would promote useless liberal govt. spending programs that “help” the poor.

***Cain is pro-life. ***

Ishii

You wouldn’t happen to know why getting “tripped up” by interviewers might make it difficult for a pro-life politician to embrace the idea of a grandchild/great-grandchild regardless of the circumstances of conception, would you? Ah well, at least he didn’t refer to his potential grandkids as “punishments”. That dubious distinction will forever remain Obama’s.