Video: Herman Cain on the right of return

posted at 8:54 pm on May 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

D.G. Myers of Commentary thought it was a huge gaffe, Jonah Goldberg was “underwhelmed” by Cain’s performance, and Jim Geraghty thought the resulting kerfuffle over the “right of return” answer was much ado about nothing. I’m somewhere between Myers and Goldberg. Jim’s right that this is, for 90+ percent of the public, a boutique issue that won’t affect how they vote. It’s hardly disqualifying. But then he says:

All Cain’s comment did was reveal that he hasn’t given more than a moment’s thought to what the Palestinians — you know, the folks who elected Hamas to run their government and who danced on 9/11 — are demanding. I suppose that if you cling to the idea that only thing holding back peace in our time is a sufficient number of White House all-nighters on creative cartography, then yes, you would want a president familiar with “right of return” and the whole cavalcade of Palestinian demands. If you think the root of the problem is a culture that celebrates suicide bombers more than doctors and entrepreneurs, then this looks like small potatoes; all the presidential familiarity in the world with the “right of return” argument won’t make much difference.

It’s one thing to hear the argument and to rule it out as a red herring, it’s another never to have heard it in the first place — in which case, how can you make the sort of bold pronouncements about Israeli/Palestinian negotiations that Cain’s making here? Watch what he says at the very end of the clip, after he blanks on the phrase “right of return.” Quote: “I don’t think they [i.e. Israel] have a big problem with people returning.” Really? They have an existential problem with people returning, actually; Bibi himself made that point in the course of his now-famous lecture in the Oval Office last week. Cain obviously cares passionately about this issue, but then so do a lot of conservatives and yet somehow they’ve seen fit to acquaint themselves with the “right of return.” Are the writers at Commentary, say, poorer advocates for Israel because they know the Palestinians’ arguments? Was Bush?

This wasn’t the only case where Cain took a de facto pass on foreign policy either:

GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain said Sunday he doesn’t have a plan for the war on terror and won’t share his thoughts with voters until he gets into the White House.

“The right approach is that the day I’m elected, I would start on that plan,” he told “Fox Sunday News.”

Mr. Cain, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, said he can’t make those decisions until he sees intelligence files that he is not privy to at this point.

How would an Obama/Cain presidential debate on foreign policy and counterterrorism proceed if he can’t outline a plan until he’s sworn in and starts getting CIA briefings? As Reason’s Mike Riggs recently noted, there’s an odd dynamic here where on the one hand Cain is modest almost to a fault about making any commitments abroad until he has maximum information from U.S. intel, and on the other hand he’s fiercely pro-Israel despite seemingly not knowing the most basic basics about the Palestinians’ most basic demands. Why?

I’m curious to see where commenters come down on the Myers/Goldberg/Geraghty spectrum. There were a lot of facepalms in yesterday’s Headlines thread about this, but whether that’s because people agree with my take here or whether our very large, very strong Palin constituency is eager to score points on Cain before he poses a serious threat in Iowa, I don’t know. Let’s find out!

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I’m voting Mickey Mouse if he’s the only option other than Obama. Of course, I have my preferences, but in the end, it’s ANY ONE but Zero. But God please, no RINO’s in 2012. I’ll have to hold my nose pulling the lever, but pull it I will.

SoldiersMom on May 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Cain has only one chance to recover, and as a former high-level executive, he might have the moxie to do it. If he comes out and says – in effect – “Holy crap! Did I blow that one! I didn’t know the specifics of right of return, but now that I do…[etc].”

eeyore on May 23, 2011 at 11:35 PM

He did all that on Hannity tonight

AH_C on May 23, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Herman Cain may be a good man of solid character, competent and capable in business, but he just doesn’t have the stuff to be President.

troyriser_gopftw on May 23, 2011 at 9:39 PM

True, and Trump’s a businessman, and Obama has a fair sprinkling of them (and former bankers) working for him. The “experienced, successful businessman” thing only gets you so far.

No matter how you cut it, a politician (even if a former businessman) is managing other people’s money, not money they did anything to earn themselves. So they have two choices: act as if it is their money and deny reasonable government services while erring on the side of being stingy, or figure out a way to feather their own nest.

True public servants who feel a constant responsibility concerning taxpayers’ money with little or no thought of personal/political gain is rare.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I had the privilege of attending a Heritage Foundation event today where Donald Rumsfeld was the featured speaker. Someone there quoted “If you get domestic policy wrong, people will lose jobs. But if you get foreign policy wrong, people will lose lives.” I hope Cain gets some wise foreign policy advice quickly. Heritage Foundation would be a good place to start.

parteagirl on May 24, 2011 at 12:12 AM


Ronnie on May 24, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Oh my, he doesn’t know what “right of return” was…good grief, I could care less if someone doesn’t know a “term”.
What I want is someone to put people back to work…I bet he knows what “unemployed” means, I bet he knows what “energy independence” means, I bet he knows what “less government” means, that puts him ahead of most every other candidate.

right2bright on May 24, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Cain ran afoul of the neocons. Such a shame.

keep the change on May 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

This is just one example of why he shouldn’t be POTUS. He needs to pay his dues first. Win a local election, then something at the state level, then perhaps the #1 job.

We need a conservative version of John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s governor. He was a geologist, small business owner of a successful brew pub, Denver’s mayor for 8 years and now governor, probably for 8 years. That’s the kind of experience I expect to see in a POTUS candidate.

Just because you can run a business doesn’t mean you’re qualified to run the country.

Haven’t we suffered enough with a neophyte in the White House?

Common Sense on May 24, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Cain ran afoul of the neocons. Such a shame.

keep the change on May 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

How does my debt plan won’t work that I proposed five days ago have anything to do with neocons?

He doesn’t know what he is doing.

sharrukin on May 24, 2011 at 1:05 AM

keep the change on May 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Huh? It was neocons who thought that the Palis would elect a democratic govt, remember? And they were shocked! shocked when they voted in Hamas; it’s the neocons who have pollyanna thoughts about the Palis. Cain made himself sound like a neocon by acting like it would be just fine if a million Palis moved into Israel. No, Cain ran afoul conservatives yesterday. And the sad thing is, I know he didn’t mean to — given his other statement that he wouldn’t give anything to the Palis.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM

What Cain learned – the same thing Palin learned two years ago – is that any gaffe by a Republicam is major. Gaffes by Democrats: “my Muslim faith,” which perhaps wasn’t a gaffe; “57 states” and “Roosevelt went on television to address the American people” are brushed under the rug by MSM and quickly forgotten by the majority of voters.

bw222 on May 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM

the press will ask him foreign policy question after question now. It has exposed a wweakness and the MSM will use it to hammer him with…

unseen on May 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM
Yeah but that could be a good thing.

He gets six or more months of questioning from the press and the punditry so he can educate himself and gets baptised before primary season.

catmman on May 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

both very good points.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Yes. But where is he on the 57 state question?

The ‘Teutonic Shift’?

Does Mr. Cain know any “corpse-men”?

Does he have any “Special Olympics” skills?

So Cain “acted stupidly”?

I could go on…

catmman on May 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Cain may not be “clean and articulate” enough for Biden.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 1:44 AM

I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think the 2012 campaign/election will be about glamor or excitement. I think people have had enough of that, and they’d kill for some “real” and “tough.” Even if the package it comes in isn’t the standard-issue polished rock.

J.E. Dyer on May 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I agree with you. A diamond in the ruff is still a diamond, not a piece of coal. Just need to dig it up and cut and polish it and it will shine. It takes a little time and Cain still has some time left. No need to throw a diamond away just yet till we know for sure if it has value or not.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Cain’s heart is in the right place and it’s not a game-ender by any means. It was a flub to be sure, a face-palmer, but I hear politicians getting things wrong about this issue all the time.

All he needs is to spend a day with Allen West who knows all this stuff backwards and forwards, inside and out to get him up to speed.

Cains core principles and gut feelings on the Middle East are right, and if he continues to listen to his heart he’ll come out okay on this, IMHO.

pupik on May 24, 2011 at 2:13 AM

I’d be willing to give Cain the opportunity to get smart on this. The measure of him as a potential candidate will be whether he learns and gets better.
Cain has no history of uttering freighted buzzphrases, positive or negative, about anything related to Israel or the Palestinian Arabs. This issue actually makes a good test of his theme about getting the right advice and properly identifying problems and solutions. He obviously starts from a less briefed-up state on this topic than many other candidates do. Let’s see where he goes with it, and if the kind of background and advice he makes use of produces the answers conservative Israel-supporters want to hear.

J.E. Dyer on May 23, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Well AllahP, I tend to agree with J.E. Dyer on this
J.E. Dyer on May 23, 2011 at 9:21 PM

And I’d also point out an important nuance that you may have missed owing to your most likely eye-popping reaction to Cain’s ignorance on the “right of return”.

Paraphrasing an exchange between he and Wallace:

Wallace: “What will President Cain offer the Palestinians to come back to the table?”

Cain: “I’d offer them nothing!“, after which he went on to point out that the Palestinians have been fundamentally acting in bad faith for decades now, and how matters like that should be left to the Israelis and Palestinians, who, you know, are the ones actually doing the negotiating!

He pointed out that the best the US can do is facilitate such negotiation.

Now regardless of anything else he said in the interview, he gets BIG points for candor and for articulating a conservative position; that the US can aid, but not dictate to our allies in matters of foreign policy.

So he’s got that going for him. He’s a smart guy; the kind that Adams and Jefferson often referred to as “aristoi” who would step forward to lead when needed, as opposed to the professional politicians that by and large populate the halls of government. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt personally.

My Regards

RocketmanBob on May 23, 2011 at 10:02 PM

I agree with both of you. Especially about Cain saying the Palestinians deserve to be offered “nothing” at this point in peace talks. They take and do not give. They don’t even agree that Israel has the right to exist! How do you negotiate with people like that? Like Cain said, he doesn’t think they serious about the give and take needed for peace.

Cain does have the right instincts and viewpoint. Something that cannot be learned or bought.

I felt a little better listening to Cain on Hannity tonight. And his honesty about not knowing something was refreshing. Then he said he brushed up on the topic and learned what he needed to know since yesterday. A move in the right direction.

Big blunder, but he may be up again from this fall. Time will tell. It’s still early. No need to dismiss him yet. Let’s see how he does from here. He has too many qualities we need to write him off yet. We don’t want to throw away any of our Conservative assets just yet. You never know when they will be needed or what will happen to our other candidates.

Otherwise my future could be a redo of the NJ primary election in July, 2008 when my only choices left at that point were Romney and McCain. Neither one would have beaten Obama in 2008. And I don’t think they would beat him in 2012 either.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 2:21 AM

AP: Well, you certainly don’t understand me, and I am a Palin supporter because I believe she is the best for America. The second I don’t believe that, I won’t support her anymore.

I am not playing a “Palin FTW or I’m going home” game by any stretch of the imagination. I am playing a “Conservative FTW or I’m going home” game. I want America to win the 2012 election, and the actual candidate is secondary.

If you think this is looking for offenses, I am sorry. However, I would think that good customer service would err on the side of politeness. Please note that I am not asking you to be polite to Palin herself; she is a politician. Simply as a sign of good customer relations, though, I think that you would check to make sure that you do not give unwarranted offense to people who come to your site.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 9:57 PM

This +a gazillion.

miConsevative on May 24, 2011 at 2:30 AM

Palin is unelectable and shouldn’t discussed for a possible nomination by the party.

I have nothing against Palin but those are just the facts and folks have to live with that.

TimeTraveler on May 23, 2011 at 10:05 PM

And these are the sorts of “discussions” we take offense to – as should anyone if it is said against their candidate at a website for those supposedly somewhat knowledgeable about the issues.

People state an opinion with no supporting facts, call their opinion fact and expect everyone to just agree.

Sure there are some supporters who have canonized her – and they make even us ‘regular’ supporters cringe – but most of us beg to have debates on her based on the facts – we’re even willing to talk about perceptions and whether she can change them or not – but all we get is crap like above almost exclusively.

By and large, we get people saying, “Sarah Palin has poopy pants” over and over again and somehow we’re overly sensitive when we tell people to just grow up.

miConsevative on May 24, 2011 at 2:37 AM

. . . . His foreign policy on Afghanistan is a cop-out though. I have no problem with him saying he won’t make a decision on what to do until he gets into office but he should at LEAST say what goals he would have for Afghanistan (Finish the job or bail out). If that means saying “I’m going to bring an end to it one way or another” then say THAT but don’t just say “No opinion”.

Skywise on May 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I agree with much of what you said in your whole post. As to this part, Cain’s Afgan answer to Chris Wallace was TERRIBLE.

But I have no problem with how he explained it in his statement last week.

Herman Cain:
When asked about what I would do about our involvement in the war in Afghanistan during the debate, I answered by asking the questions that should have been asked before we got involved many years ago. What is our mission? How does it serve our interest? Is there a path to victory? If not, then what is our exit strategy?

I ask these questions instead of “shooting from the lip” because there is obviously a lot of classified information to which I do not have access. There are dozens of experts and military leaders I would need advice from before I could make an informed decision about a real clear plan for the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, a real clear strategy for every country with which we have relationships would be developed, regardless of whether or not we are involved in a military conflict.

To be clear, I want to be out of Afghanistan and all war-torn countries as much as the next person. But I am not going to propose a half-baked plan based on half the information I would need to make the right decision, just to pretend I know everything.

On the other hand, I do know enough about our solid relationship with Israel from decades of observations that I would make it even stronger, which isn’t just about dollars. And, I would not be hesitant to let the rest of the world know that we will stand by and with our friends.
I succeeded in business for over 40 years by asking the right questions of the right people about the right problems to get to the right solutions. That’s what most successful people do, and I would do the same thing as president of the United States of America.

Cain needs to formulate a one minute general qualifying non-answer to this question. You can sound like you are answering when you really aren’t answering. He is used to facts and truth. That doesn’t cut in it in politics.

But he can’t and shouldn’t give specifics to this question.

Stay in Afgan? Send more troops? Counter insurgency or counter terrrorism plans? Pull out troops immediately? Pull out troops by a certain time? Pull out troops when something else happens in the future?

No, he’s right about not promising anything a year and a half in advance to an ever changing scenario, especially when no candidate has all the facts until the day after they win the election.

Also, I don’t want a President who telegraphs everything to our enemies.

Other than Ron Paul (who I disagree with on this), have any of our other Republican contenders given a specific detailed plan? No. Including Sarah Palin. Palin’s published general guidelines and Cain’s guidelines are the same and I agree with both of them. They both are capable and I would sleep well knowing either one of them was in the Oval Office.

In a debate our candidate can criticize Obama for his mistakes and dithering and incompetence and lack of leadership. Cain would be one of the few with the guts to do that to his face.

But Cain can and should give some parsed non specific answer that lets people know his basis ideas, viewpoint and values. I can tell them from things I’ve heard him say on related topics. And I am extremely comfortable with him in charge of our foreign policy. But he needs to give some meat to the general public looking at his candidacy.

Will he do what he needs to do and say what he needs to say? We shall see. I hope so.

Because even if I wanted one of our moderates to win the Presidency, I don’t think their changes are good in the general. And the conservatives I do like will have a tough road ahead and may not win in the general.


I hope Rick Perry runs. We need him. None of our good conservatives have perfect conservative records (including Sarah). But you can be a true but imperfect conservative. Perry is a successful and true conservative, and the one I see winning the general election the easiest. We can’t take any chances this year.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 3:00 AM

…why exactly are we making such a big deal about a bunch of murdering savages think? Right of return? The Palestinians can all rot in a pit for all I care.

R. Waher on May 24, 2011 at 5:25 AM

I like Herman Cain very much and would vote for him in a heartbeat.So what if he not up to speed at this moment on foreign policy. He will have people around him to inform him. I am sickened by all the nitpickers shooting down decent candidates while they are still in the starting gate. Obama is informed about foreign policy and he embraces our enemies and abandons our friends.
Herman Cain is for limited govt., lessened regulations, less taxes(fair tax), energy independence(drill baby drill) and protecting our borders from illegal immigrants. Give the man a break and listen to his heartfelt convictions. We don’t need more politicians, we need strong moral leaders with common sense and love of country.

geo11 on May 24, 2011 at 6:34 AM

Cain didn’t have a clue what they meant by Right of Return (either did I). Geraghty’s point is right on, but so is AP’s. Obama still doesn’t know what it means, but he has the entire Federal government payroll available to help him find out.

Jaibones on May 24, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Jaibones, since it has to do with the Palestinians, you bet Obama knows all about “Right of Return” and supports them 100%; afterall, he wrote in his book that he wouls “always take the side of the Palistinians”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 24, 2011 at 6:40 AM

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 9:57 PM

IOW, boo freaking hoo.

MJBrutus on May 24, 2011 at 6:54 AM

Hasn’t he also that the Fed is fine?
He’s either really naive or … something else entirely.

scrubbiedude on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Accept Cain’s point that until he IS privy to all intelligence reports, there’s no wisdom in conjecture.

Cain’s PREVIOUS announcement speech already stipulated his strong support for Israel’s sovereignty.

Netanyahu’s PREVIOUS news coverage already stipulated that Israel outright refuses to accept the burdens of Palestinian Refugees from surrounding Arab states, those burdens belonging to the surrounding Arab states which eschew the Palestinian populations within their borders and want to dump them on Israel so late in the game.

The so-called “right to return” phrase as being “honored” by neoconservatives held against Cain is an MSM fabrication. More to the point is the Bush fan club’s efforts to “disqualify” anyone opposing Obama.

I think that the accomplished CEO Cain could make a great POTUS, and I’d be willing to support him with my vote, TBD as I do my own research. I don’t think I’ll ever vote for another trained globalist pony for public office when set against an intelligent constitutional supporter. More so publicly with voter turn-out, whatever idiotic race-card mindset got Obama elected and would stick with Obama may well only be defeated in ’12 by Cain. We should be thanking our lucky stars that Cain is running FOR our Constitutional Republic against Obama, against INSANE SPENDING, and against authoritarianism. There should be more than a single candidate from which we decide at the GOP primary election.

maverick muse on May 24, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 3:00 AM

Then you would define a true conservative as an authoritarian that directs the complete removal of all non-adult children from an entire community on a false charge fabricated by his own administration, effectively and unconstitutionally kidnapping the children for re-education without the facilities to house them with sanitation, not to mention that the children and parents were refused any communications and some of the children were lost in the state’s CPS “system”. Perry also issued an executive order requiring all girls to be immunized for genital warts providing himself with a massive kickback, without any concerns for harmful side effects BEGINNING WITH HIS OBTUSE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Perry also fails to honor the concept of Private Property.

He may have charm and a full head of hair. But Perry is a globalist who has harmed local small businesses in Texas while providing foreign industry Texas tax funds and Texas public works contracts. Perry evades rule of law and functions to usurp the Tea Party.

maverick muse on May 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM

If you’re going to blast Obama for not handling an issue correctly, you need to understand that issue yourself. It’s not “gotcha journalism” when you’re the person bringing the issue up.

Cain’s not running for Mayor. A large part of a President’s job involves foreign policy. Cain’s foreign policy is, basically, to do what the generals and State Dept. tell him to do. Is that what we want?

Further, my guess is that a lot of times ‘the experts’ have disagreements. How would President Cain handle those disagreements?

hawksruleva on May 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Hasn’t he also that the Fed is fine?
He’s either really naive or … something else entirely.

scrubbiedude on May 24, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Cain was on the board of the Kansas City Federal Reserve.

hawksruleva on May 24, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Cain does have the right instincts and viewpoint. Something that cannot be learned or bought.

I felt a little better listening to Cain on Hannity tonight. And his honesty about not knowing something was refreshing. Then he said he brushed up on the topic and learned what he needed to know since yesterday. A move in the right direction.

Elisa on May 24, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Well said. I don’t think this one gaffe should disqualify him for the nomination. And it is refreshing that he learned from this. My guess is that now, Cain will get a lot of foreign policy questions by the liberal press. It’s his Achilles’ heel, and they’ll gladly use it to tear him down.

hawksruleva on May 24, 2011 at 9:09 AM

I like Herman but it suggests he’s woefully out of touch.

Good god man, my 14 year old nephew knows about the right of return.

rickyricardo on May 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM

What right of return? Rights? This is crazy. Israel endured and survived three wars to eliminate them by surrounding Muslim populations and yet Israel is suppose to commit demographic suicide to make their enemies happy? Do the Muslims accept the right of return of the many Jews forced out of Muslim lands? Wars always change things and there is just no going back.

Chessplayer on May 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM

I know this election is going to be about domestic matters, but the issues of national security/defense and international relations are very important to me and are among the top issues that decide my vote. Cain is not ready in the slightest for prime time and, in my opinion, not particularly interested either.

Even worse than not knowing about the right of return was his sloughing off legitimate questions about Afghanistan. I’m afraid he’s going to have to do better than “I don’t have the necessary intelligence to answer that question; get back to me when I’m president.” Surely the man has some core values and views about America’s role in the world and our relationships with other nations that would guide and shape his foreign policies. He needs to share them with us and at least act like he’s engaged.

I need evidence that he knows and understands what goes on in the wider world and will take his roles as leader of the free world and commander-in-chief seriously.

SukieTawdry on May 24, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Been looking into Cain since I had to admit I didn’t know much about him earlier, but what I’m finding isn’t making me very excited. His attitude toward Afghanistan is disturbing; a candidate who doesn’t get how important that fustercluck is does not get high marks from me.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 24, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Cain is good for a pizza.

Not ME peace deals.


profitsbeard on May 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM

maverick muse on May 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Very well said. There are many reasons Perry has earned the moniker “Slick Rick”.

Dominion on May 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Being a government outsider, the foreign policy might be Cain’s area of weakness. Bolton as his running mate would certainly help that.

noodlehead on May 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Cain may not understand Israel/Middle East particulars, but his instincts are correct. Any peace must be resolved between Israel and its neighbors with USA as facilitator. USA presently seeks to coerce, extort, and bribe to achieve peace under Chicago rules. Peace under such circumstances may provide short term political benefit, but will not last.

Still, Cain will need to become better informed in order to emerge victorious. Also, with this apparent weakness revealed, the mainstream media will be looking to hook him up with a “Couric” interview. So he will need to get up to speed quickly or avoid unfriendly media altogether, impossible for a Presidential candidate.

For now, this is much ado about nothing, but Cain will probably need to do better. But, it is the economy, stupid. Maybe he can survive on that if he is regarded as VERY strong on domestic economic policy.

exdeadhead on May 24, 2011 at 12:45 PM

noodlehead on May 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM

or maybe Allen West

exdeadhead on May 24, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Most Americans won’t even understand the term. Most won’t care or even remember this interview in a month, let alone in a year.

sothinbelle on May 24, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Never mind the ME questions, does Herman Cain have a crease in his pants? Will Mr. Cain’s running a campaign will give him experience on the ME as it did for Obowma?

I’m schocked they’re different standards for democrats and conservatives?

dthorny on May 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM

I saw Herman Cain the other day. Two things bothered me. One was his use of sun glasses, which is very impolite, and the other was his lack of knowledge regarding the right of return…to which, after some fumbling, he gave the right answer.

He was on TV the last night and he was asked about those very things.

Regarding the sunglasses his explanation was that he normally wears auto-tint glasses and he did not expect it to be so bright. He would not have worn sunglasses at such an event. Good enough for me.

Regarding the right to return he said the question was from out of left field and he admitted he did not know about the right of return. HOWEVER, he also said that afterword he researched the subject and now knew what it meant and he stood by he answer. He went on to state the history of right to return and he got it right. He proved he knows he does not know everything and will admit it, and can learn. Learning is much more important than getting it right for some talking head.

I have doubts that Herman Cain will get the nomination because the system demands mediocrity and also because the Republican Party is not very smart.

However, until he is turned down he has my support.

The man is great.

PS I also like John Bolton. I will support him for any office. Secretary of State would be great.

enginemike on May 24, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I saw Cain on Hannity last night and thought his response was perfect. He admitted being completely caught off guard and said he wasn’t familiar with the phrase.

I found it refreshing; at least he didn’t try to blame it on the interviewer or some other factor, he just blunty admitted that he was ignorant about that phrase and that he later educated himself on it.

I can’t think of a politician who would be humble and honest in the face of that embarrassing episode.

I still won’t vote for him, but I found it very refreshing.

Amy Proctor on May 24, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Of course it’s a big gaffe. He’s running for President, he’s giving his opinion on Israel and the Middle East, and he obviously has never actually studied the issues, or he would have recognized the question.

Unrecoverable? Probably not. But combined with having no opinion on Afghanistan, where many Americans have had friends and family deployed at one time or another, he’s not looking good.

But he’s going to have to do some serious work to study up on foreign policy.

didymus on May 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Cain is doing a fine job.

And he knows what year it is, too.

The year of return is when Obama is voted out of office and returns to his home . . . homes . . . er . . . Indonesia, Hawaii . . . er . . . Kenya? Chicago? No! er Ireland!!!!

According to the Obama Calendar, that would be in 2009.

Cain is doing fine.

Sherman1864 on May 24, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Can`t wait to hear that Memorial Day address. There is gonna be one, right? That should be fun! Might see some ghosts again, who knows? Yeah, out there in the crowd.

Cain could do that better, too.

Sherman1864 on May 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Right of return? Is this the group that evacuated the area at the Arabs request so that they could kill everyone without the worry about killing an Arab? The ones that made the agreement that they would get the spoils after the Arabs killed all the Jews. Well, they made their deal with the devil and they lost, isn’t that how it normally works? there is no right of return for the co-conspirators of the ’67 war.

rgranger on May 25, 2011 at 9:55 AM