I understand just what Sarah Palin means when she says, “I like Herman Cain, even hearing his name." I'm one of the many people who had never given a moment's thought to Herman Cain before the first GOP debate, but who came away thinking, "Goodness, he's likable." 

But alas, I don't think he's ready to be president. Since we're talking clueless comments about Israel, here's one that should really make people think: 

“The right of return?” he said. After Wallace explained the Palestinian demand to return to the homes they were “thrown out of” [sic!] in 1948, Cain said that would be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians. “I don’t think Israel has any problem with Palestinians’ returning,” he said.

I feel a bit crushed, actually. I like him and want so much to like someone. But that's too clueless.

Comments:



Joined
Nov '10
Elizabeth Dunn
Mike LaRoche: I recall a wise bit of advice from Morton Blackwell: "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." · May 22 at 2:13pm

Actually, it belongs to Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.


Joined
Jan '11
Michael Shockley

Yeah, he misspoke.  I think the bigger story is "Who gives a damn about Palestine?" We let Coptic Christians die in Egypt, We let Priests get murdered in Turkey, we sit by while generations of African Christians are whipped out by Arab Usurpers in Africa, why do we care so much about these Palestinians that were treated like hell by all these dictatorships that now champion their cause now?  "Their friends have oil!"

Well so do we.  And who the hell are they going to sell the oil to anyway if they don't sell it to us?  "Their friends are on the verge of having nuclear bombs!"  We already have them.  Screw Hamas and whatever other bastard organization the Palestinians love this week.  Enough.  I am sick of all this hand wringing about Palestine.  They have behaved like untrustworthy dogs, they have never negotiated in good faith, and they always lie. 

[This comment has been redacted by an editor.]

Edited on May 23, 2011 at 3:37am
Pat in Obamaland
Joined
May '10
Pat in Obamaland

Removed.

Edited on May 23, 2011 at 2:32am
cdor
Joined
Jun '10
cdor

Pat in Nomansland, I concur that to be sold on Herman Cain is highly premature. But to throw him out now, which is closer to this conversation's point, I believe, is equally premature. The Tea Party, whatever that is, does have a mixed record. Uh, kinda like the Republican and Democrat Parties, don't ya think?

Pat in Obamaland
Joined
May '10
Pat in Obamaland
cdor: Pat in Nomansland, I concur that to be sold on Herman Cain is highly premature. But to throw him out now, which is closer to this conversation's point, I believe, is equally premature. The Tea Party, whatever that is, does have a mixed record. Uh, kinda like the Republican and Democrat Parties, don't ya think? · May 22 at 5:42pm

Thanks cdor, I thought this would make a good member feed post so I moved it.  Sorry for deleting it while you worked on a reply.

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

Herman Cain is an extremely likable candidate, but he's not ready for prime time.

We are only now finding more and more about his foreign policy positions.

you have to forgive him claire, but he's a tea party candidate. foreign policy isnt really what's on their minds these days.

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

If obama got justifiably criticized for suggesting israel return to pre-1967 borders, cain should expect the same treatment for supporting "right of return" to palestinians.

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson
John Marzan: If obama got justifiably criticized for suggesting israel return to pre-1967 borders, cain should expect the same treatment for supporting "right of return" to palestinians. · May 22 at 6:04pm

He didn't support it - he just didn't know what it was, until Chris Wallace explained what it was. He left it to the Israelis to decide, as he should.

Del Mar Dave
Joined
Oct '10
Del Mar Dave

 I saw the interview, too, and was deeply disappointed at his lack of preparation.

Still, nobody gets my '12 juices flowing.

<sigh>

R. Craigen
Joined
Nov '10
R. Craigen

Hmm, you're right.   But what is the right framework to give this perspective?  How would you say this compares to Obama's current blunders.  I would contrast being somewhat uninformed a year before a potential run for president, all on one's own, to being uninformed 2.5 years into a presidency, getting daily briefings and being surrounded by supposed policy experts.  I think Cain comes out over B.O.

Perspective, Claire, maintain perspective.  Two main things matter here:  What the president's general orientation to the U.S./Israel relationship is (I'll assume he gets A+ on that one); and whom he picks for Sec State -- that will remain to be seen.  I've heard mention of Palin.  Though I love Palin and, like Cain, she's got her heart in the right spot on Foreign Affairs, I think she'd be a bad pick because this isn't her strong suit.  Put her in charge of Energy, or restructuring, or rooting out corrupt officials any number of other domestic fronts.  Schwartzkopf maybe?

dittoheadadt
Joined
Oct '10
dittoheadadt

katievs

dittoheadadt

No, what I mean is, he's not running to BE president tomorrow. He doesn't need to be fully versed and fluent in these issues tomorrow. The office of POTUS won't be vacant until 2013. · May 22 at 10:42am

I know what you meant.  In that sense, no one has to be ready until the day he's sworn in.  But a candidate has to be ready to run for president.  That means, among other things, being aware of his weak spots and working to shore them up.

The voters don't have leisure to wait and see if he turns out to be capable and discerning in such vast and critical areas · May 22 at 1:59pm

It's May 2011, Katie!  I think that means there's time for him to work on shoring up his weak spots.  If he's not drawn and quartered first.

dittoheadadt
Joined
Oct '10
dittoheadadt

That's what I meant about not running to be president tomorrow.  As for whether the voters have the leisure to wait and see, I kinda think it's only political junkies like we who are hanging on every candidate's every word.  By the time the mass of primary voters start paying attention...he'll have shored up his weak spots or he'll be gone. No need to run him out of town on a rail already.

StickerShock
Joined
Jun '10
StickerShock

 "Not ours (the US) - unless you consider the removal of the Little Satan a threat for the Big Satan. But, for Israel, 4-5 million Arabs immigrating might be an issue."

We are talking about a candidate for the US presidency, not for PM of Israel.  Of course Israel is a nation whose existence we must support, and Arabs overrunning would be bad.  But the danger that right of return brings is not the pre-eminent issue in our national security or Middle East policy.  That's why Cain not having an opinion on the issue at the ready does not make him clueless.  Clearly he supports Israel.

"Other Arab countries have not taken them precisely so that they remain an issue, and a possible means to "wipe Israel off the map".

That's not the only reason Palestinians have been rejected by other Arab nations.

Paul DeRocco
Joined
Aug '10
Paul DeRocco

The appeal of a political neophyte is understandable--he's unlikely to be infected by certain vices that seem to afflict most people who've lived inside the beltway for a long time. This comment shows the flip side: how vulnerable someone is to manipulation if not well-versed in all the issues he'll be confronted with.

But it's worse. Powerful leftist forces emanate from all the culture-making institutions, and if a President doesn't know the nature of the Left inside-out, they'll run circles around him. If President Cain is faced not with some reasonably fair-minded reporter like Chris Wallace but with a protest from C.A.I.R., or denunciation from the Arab League, or a shout-down when he delivers a commencement address at P.C.U., will he know how to fight back, or will they eat him up like a slice of Godfather's pizza?

Ocean Kayaker
Joined
Nov '10
Ocean Kayaker

Herman Cain's lack of knowledge on the "right of return" is definitely disappointing, but given what we have now in the White House: a president who understands what "right of return" means but from all indications is on the opposite side of the issue from anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist, I'll take the guy with the lack of knowledge on the issue and trust that he, when brought up to speed, would come down on the right side of it.


Joined
Mar '11
Jennifer Gray

Last night on Hannity, Cain told Sean that he was uneducated on "right of return" matter and said that he was now more informed on the issue. He is a novice on these important issues, but I commend him for being upfront about it.  I am not willing to discount him yet.

Bereket Kelile
Joined
Oct '10
bereket kelile

I was wondering what Claire thought about Cain's comments in the interview with Hannity. I remember Claire commending him in the debate for saying that he doesn't have the information to make a judgment on a foreign policy issue (I forget which).

He can't get away with this again but I wonder if this really sinks his campaign. I mean, he only has to get informed on the issues and the criticism loses its effectiveness over time. You can't criticize him for a bad answer he gave almost a year ago if his performance has been good over that time. 


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In