Yesterday he came under attack for his views on abortion. Cue backpedaling:
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.
It seems to me, based on his interview with Morgan, that he's obviously pro-choice, as that position is usually understood in our current culture. He didn't just reference the president having power to permit abortions. He cites "politicians" and "bureaucrats" and insists that the choice to have a child or not must be left up the individual family or woman. I fail to see how this isn't, in fact, the Cuomo position: moral opposition to abortion in all cases, but criminalization only after the first trimester. Allahpundit makes a similar point:
No one on either side is arguing that the president has a constitutional power to issue executive orders barring women from having abortions. I’ve never heard even a diehard pro-lifer suggest that, so in essence, he wants you to believe here that he was responding with a point that no one disputes to a question that no one ever asks. Which means either he’s lying about what he understood Morgan’s question to mean or he’s so unacquainted with the most basic terms of the abortion debate that he genuinely felt obliged to reassure Americans that he won’t be sending the FBI to pregnant women’s homes to make sure they carry to term. Bad, bad news either way.
Worse news: the way in which Cain simply ends the controversy by absurd explanations and tweet fiats: "End of story." No, Mr Cain. It's the end of the story when we say it is – not you. Democracy is not like corporate life. You can't fire the voters or the journalists.
The Dish 