All Talk and No Action

I think that miniskirts should not be readily accessible or targeted to today’s youth; however, I do not believe as a CEO in one of today’s leading Fashion Week Companies, that I have the power to do anything about it. Although I do not think that preteen should be wearing miniskirts, since I am not God and cannot make the 11^th commandment “Thou shall not buy miniskirts for teens,” I will nothing about it. This is an excuse, to get a certain group of people on your side, by saying you support a cause, without really doing anything to assist in making a change other than addressing that you agree that it is a problem. As a CEO in a fashion week company, you have a major influence over what today’s youth wear, you help them to decide what is cool and what is not. If you stopped making miniskirts, or made them a thing of yesterday and replaced it with something new you single handedly would help to not illuminate but reduce how many teens are wearing miniskirts. This case introduces what this article will be about: Saying you support a cause, or addressing a problem but do nothing to change or improve the issue. This “all for the cause, as long as I don’t have to do anything” mentality can be seen with Cain and his stance on abortion. 

Are we to trust the fate of our nation to a man who does not even know what he means to say most of the time? In the last few months, he has misunderstood more reporters, and has needed to clarify his remarks with “what he meant to say,” more than once.

Last week, Cain said on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" that that he was against abortion rights, but when asked about rape or incest, said the government should not have a say on those issues and the decision should be left to the family. He also stated that while he is pro-life and thinks abortion is wrong, he would not as President do anything to stop women from having abortions.

Since then Cain has clarified his stance on abortion by saying "I am pro-life from conception, period," on the CBS program "Face the Nation." According to redstate.com Leon Wolf wrote that Herman Cain’s abortion position sounds much like that of the mythical pro-life Democrat, or like those Democrats who try to cast themselves as “personally” pro-life, but who would not do anything to actually change the law.

Cain’s attempt to clarify his statement: (He released a statement on CBN News Blog)

    “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.”

Redstate.com states that this is the second time in as many days where Herman has walked something back claiming to have misunderstood a reporter’s questions. As a presidential candidate, how many mix-ups can one make? In the campaign for the highest elected office in the country, can we trust a candidate who can barely understand questions asked by reporters, to lead us out of a recession? Will his stance on a cause from a far, be the solution to Americans empty wallet? Is Cain spin on things limited to all things cheesy?