From the beginning of his race for president, Herman Cain had gone to great lengths to portray himself as an ally of Israel. Then, in an interview, he said he supported negotiations for the “right of return” for Palestinians: “They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make…. I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning.”
Cain had unwittingly stepped on a landmine — one of the most controversial issues in the Middle East conflict. It doesn’t matter at all what your views on Israel or the Palestinians are — here was a candidate who had no clue what he was talking about, not even enough to spout the right talking points for the side he meant to support.
Recommended Stories
At that time, Cain was practically a non-entity in the polls for the Republican nomination for president. It really didn’t matter that much. Even staunch Zionists wrote the incident off with a laugh. But when Cain suddenly surged in the polls, my thoughts went back to this incident. Cain had already shown that he was an accident waiting to happen when it came to policy. How long would it take for him to blow himself up with another, more consequential muddleheaded comment?
He might have done it last night with his comments in a CNN interview on abortion, which echo earlier incoherent comments he had made in an interview with John Stossel. In each case, it’s not quite clear whether Cain is adopting a pro-choice position, or whether he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Last night’s interview, which I wrote up here, is very difficult to square with the beliefs of a pro-life candidate. And if Cain isn’t pro-choice, he appears to be so confused about abortion as a political issue that he probably isn’t ready for the race he’s entered.
After his CNN interview, and after a day of avoiding the issue on Twitter, Cain finally released a statement, which I reproduce in whole here:
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.
Taken out of context, this might work. As with Cain’s other statements on the topic, it contains all the right talking points. But in the context of the interview he gave, this fails to cohere logically. Cain said that the choice of abortion is one for individuals and their families to make. He appeared to say that government has no role in protecting human life in such situations. His own account of the interview — that he was being asked whether he should “order” someone not to have an abortion from the West Wing — does not square with any reasonable reading of the interview’s actual content.
Abortion hasn’t become a top-tier issue yet in the 2012 race, but it remains crucial all the same. If Cain isn’t pro-life, he’s finished in Iowa, and his momentary surge in the polls for the GOP nomination will be just that. Opposition to abortion on demand is also a net winner for GOP candidates in general elections, whatever the other issues in each particular race. In 2000, Mark Shields once noted, 14 percent of American voters told exit pollsters that abortion was their most important issue, and 58 percent of these chose George W. Bush over Al Gore. Shields estimated from this that the issue was a net winner for Bush by 2.5 million votes.
Whatever Herman Cain believes about abortion, this incident, like others before it, is a rather frightful one. Think about him going toe-to-toe with President Obama. Mitt Romney will have enough trouble defending his record on the issue, but at least his flip-flops are in the past. Just imagine the trouble Cain will have if he continues to speak this incoherently.
Republicans have nominated a lot of bona fide conservatives in recent elections who were completely clueless about issues and had no idea what they were talking about — Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle come to mind. With President Obama’s blood in the water, this probably isn’t the year for them to nominate a presidential candidate who shares that problem. Herman Cain is going to have to do a lot better than this if he wants to prove he gets it, and it might even be too late already.
