Cain says he wouldn't support an FMA; I don't believe him
Just this weekend on "Meet The Press," sudden GOP frontrunner Herman Cain expressed his opposition to seeking a constitutional marriage ban:
But not only does that go against what Maggie Gallagher claims Cain told her in private, but also goes against what Cain himself said back when the subject of an FMA was in its real world, Bush era form:
In fact, Cain even ran for the U.S. Senate that year with a radio ad that drummed up this same FMA fervor.
So the question: Why should voters trust him on what he says now? If he's going around telling Maggie in private that he could get behind an FMA, and if he was an ardent supporter back when such a measure seemed plausible, why wouldn't be believe that a theoretical President Cain would get behind a similar effort to tarnish the U.S. Constitution circa 2013? Because what, did his opinion on the Founding Fathers change that much in seven years? Or did he have a change of heart leading him or realize loving gay couples actually aren't like compass-less ships, so therefor not in need of federal harpooning? I mean, seriously -- what changed from the Cain that used exclamation points in 2004 to the Cain who wants to seem more moderate, other than the polling?
comments powered by Disqus