Herman Cain: Sure, I can see myself releasing everyone at Gitmo in exchange for one U.S. POW; Update: I misspoke, says Cain

posted at 7:10 pm on October 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler and Guy Benson, if this answer doesn’t destroy him, nothing will. I get the sense watching it that he’s so unsure of how to answer this exceedingly easy question that he defaults to Netanyahu’s position on the assumption that prisoner swaps must always be the wise, statesmanlike, conservative thing to do. The alternative, that he knows what he’s talking about yet is still sincerely inclined to release the guy who planned 9/11 plus dozens upon dozens of other jihadi fanatics in exchange for one G.I., is even worse. I’d bet 95 percent of people asked on the street could answer this correctly, yet somehow our frontrunner not only blows it but feels obliged to hedge weakly by noting that he’d need all the facts to make a proper decision. Here’s a fact: Khaled Sheikh Mohammed blew up the World Trade Center. What other facts do you need?

And to think, I thought this would be his worst foreign-policy answer of the week:

Halfway through the question about the electric fence, Cain butted in with “it was a joke!”

“Let me first say it was a joke, and some people don’t think that it was a good joke, and it’s probably not a joke that you’re supposed to make if you’re a presidential candidate,” Cain continued. “I apologize if it offended anyone. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.”

Only, it might not be a joke, he later said, before finally saying he just doesn’t want to offend anyone.

“I don’t like to offend anyone…however, I don’t apologize for using a combination of a fence. And it might be electrified — I’m not walking away from that,” Cain backtracked. “I just don’t want to offend anybody. It was a joke to the extent in the context of the views of that speech, but in terms of what we need to do, I fully intend to do so because I’m more sensitive to our citizens being hurt.”

Ace flags a few other giant gaps in Cain’s foreign-policy knowledge and asks, “Has ‘homework’ and ‘thinking things through, in advance’ become ‘un-conservative’ over the past year?” When I hear him give answers like the one he gives below about Gitmo, it makes me wonder why he wants to be president in the first place. If you’re this disengaged from one of the executive’s core duties, why would you want those duties at all? It’d be like me trying to get hired at an accounting firm because I think I can “make a difference” even though I know zip zero zilch about accounting. Normally I hate pop-quiz foreign policy questions that candidates get like “Who’s the prime minister of Nigeria?”, but after all these gaffes I’m thinking the media’s well within its rights at this point to test Cain on basic stuff. And I don’t mean who the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is. I mean stuff like, “Is Iran a Sunni or Shiite country, and why does that matter?” Anyone who’s read the news intermittently over the past 10 years should be able to offer a basic answer to that one. I’d be curious to hear Cain’s.

This isn’t his only new problem, either. A study by the Tax Policy Center that’s out tonight claims his 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households. If you don’t trust their analysis, try Ramesh Ponnuru’s skeptical take on Cain’s plan in Bloomberg today or Grover Norquist’s misgivings about it when talking to ABC yesterday. In fact, Stephen Moore, who helped Cain devise the plan, has already started to walk back part of it, saying that the sales tax aspect should be dropped in favor of a nine-percent payroll tax instead. Exit question: Have we seen Cain’s high-water mark now come and go?

Update: I didn’t see it happen live, but Guy Benson tells me that Cain was interviewed again by Blitzer shortly after the debate and said he “misspoke” in his Gitmo answer. We’ll have to wait for the clip tomorrow for his full response.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

I would suggest that Allah was in here because he argued emotionally and presented an argument of omission and was trying to justify it.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I was quite specific that I didn’t like the answer, and I’m in Cain’s camp. I just don’t think it’s a OMFGWTF!!!!! problem and I already stated why for both.

CrankyTRex on October 18, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Yeah there were like a couple of people who said he “stumbled” here – but that is not why Allah Pundit was posting like a madman in this thread.

Go back and read Allah’s posts – they’re spot on the double standard of the Cainlusionals.

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I would suggest that Allah was in here because he argued emotionally and presented an argument of omission and was trying to justify it.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

His argument was that – if these comments had come from Obama – you all would have screamed to high heavens in condemnation.

And … we ALL know he was right now don’t we? ;)

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM

If there’s ever a President who’s “ready for the nuke keys” I would suggest that is exactly the person who should never get their hands on them.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I’m not a Perry supporter anymore – I’m on to Newt … LOL – I don’t know why, he just seems the logical alternative to Romney now that Perry is gone and Cain is blowing up.

Wait a minute, weren’t the previous Perry supporters saying that the softness of support from one candidate to another way a bad thing?

And then the Perry supporters go soft and shift for Newt.

Herman Cain’s policy is Herman Cain’s policy.

When he spoke, I gave you my honest assessment of his opinion as was presented and what possible scenarios under which it might be possible, but highly implausible for such an exchange.

Herman Cain has since said he spoke in error, and that he was more focused on Israels decisions when making his commentary. It was at the end of the Blitzer segment and it was a bit rushed to get in, so some wires crossed, essentially.

And all of this occurred in a period of: 6 hours.

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

This was the winning post of the entire thread … it’s kind of sad that Cain’s supporters can’t look at the bulk of the evidence, connect the dots – and realize he’s a deeply flawed candidate.

And … this post doesn’t even address Cain’s sad inadequacies in fund raising and organization – nor does it address his failure to campaign in the early primary states in favor of doing a book tour …

So let’s see:

Doesn’t know what “right of return” is.
Doesn’t know that “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution.
Thinks “loyalty oaths” based on religion are a good idea…or not.
Doesn’t know what a “neo-conservative” is, even months into the campaign for POTUS.
Wants a fence on the border that can kill people.
Doesn’t want a fence on the border that can kill people.
DOES want a fence on the border that can kill people.
Complains that Social Security is unfavorable to black people, doesn’t like that his money is “[being transferred] to white people”. (Can link that one if you need it.)
Uses words to describe Americans like “stupid” and “nuts”.
Carves out an exception in his tax-raising plan for inner-cities, leaves rural poor/retirees to figure out how to afford food, medicine.
Raises taxes on 84% of American households (study out today).
Telegraphs a very good reason for terrorists to kidnap Americans.
Won’t reveal who his sooper-sekrit advisers are.
Buys books with campaign cash from his own company.
Threw the race card on an innocent man.

People honestly need more reasons not to nominate Herman Cain?

He’s making us look like everything the media says about us. Is it a lie, or isn’t it? I say it is – which means Cain cannot be our standard-bearer.

I’m sorry but this is awful.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 8:08 PM

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM

This guy is not ready for prime time and he’s damn sure not ready for the nuke keys.
HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Who are u ?? George Will??? He pulls this stupid line all the time. Dumb.

Cain survived the day in spite of you…a party of 1.

gracie on October 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Honda,

We both know that Obama or any democrat would NEVER be presented with that question in that manner.

“You say you support Israel. . .the Israeli prisoner swap. . . Can you see yourself in that situation”

It was a gotcha question, he fumbled and recovered.
He admitted the fumble. People intentionally omitted the recovery.

His fumble doesn’t justify Allah’s and other’s argument of omission nor your ad hominem.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Wait a minute, weren’t the previous Perry supporters saying that the softness of support from one candidate to another way a bad thing?

And then the Perry supporters go soft and shift for Newt.

Herman Cain’s policy is Herman Cain’s policy.

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Herman Cain’s policy is releasing terrorists under certain circumstances.

Herman Cain’s policy is buying books from his own company with campaign funds.

What are the poor Perry supporters to do here? We’re too smart to drink the Cain koolaide – and if Perry is a blowout – then who’s left?

Honestly – Newt looks the best to me.

By the way – I won’t support Herman Cain in any way shape or form. I don’t believe that replacing one inexperienced President with one who’s even more inexperienced in government is a very good thing at this time in our history.

Honestly – if you held a gun to my head I’d vote for Romney over Cain – but you’d need a gun.

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

I would suggest that Allah was in here because he argued emotionally and presented an argument of omission and was trying to justify it.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Agreed.

And again, Cain is a scientist. Hypothetical questions are almost guaranteed to get an “anything is possible” response. In science, often times, you accept the possibility of an outcome if the impossibility of it has NOT been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe it’s called null hypothesis. Anyway, he’s apparently clarified his response so let’s see the clarification before we keep crying about this.

MisterPundit on October 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Well I can imagine why you’re enthralled with capitalist piglet’s post.

After all, he makes a living on these boards making excuses for Perry’s benefit gifties and goodies for illegals and is a professional at lying about Herman Cain.

The fact half his points are about the electrified fence and Herman Cain insulting the American people as stupid and nuts should clue you that you’re not reading anything based in reality.

Herman Cain has been viciously assaulted on air by liberal pundits and has not said a negative word. It is simply not in his nature to categorically assault the American people.

But such is the way of base creatures. Judge a man by the company he keeps, and Perry keeps some pretty ugly company. They’re so ugly that they even abandon him when they smell his blood in the water.

They’re really a lot like Barack Obama. – Under the bus, Governor Perry! -

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Honda,

We both know that Obama or any democrat would NEVER be presented with that question in that manner.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Right … tenant two of the Cainlusional creed – which holds …

“That whenever Cain puts his foot in his mouth – it must not be his fault. He’s not to blame. The Lame Stream Media and their double standards are to blame – or those aweful anti-Cain people are really at fault because … CAIN CANNOT BE AT FAULT.”

Do you guys listen to yourselves? I don’t give a rat’s ass if the question was flawed or not – Cain went on Blizer’s show voluntarily – with no gun held to head. He didn’t complain about the question when he was asked it – he didn’t say the question was unfair.

HE ANSWERED IT TRUTHFULLY … or maybe not … or maybe he was joking … “hehehe … I was kidding about releasing those gitmo prisoners – I actually want to put a electric fence around them! Ohhhhh Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! Mea fool!”

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Almost every single point of piglet’s is the result of false argumentation.

Cain bought books from his publisher to take on tour because the distributors were out.

You can argue without the ad hominem.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:50 PM

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 8:08 PM

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Get Aslan’s girl in here and you could have a threesome…what with the same lines coming out of each other’s mouths…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Almost every single point of piglet’s is the result of false argumentation.

That’s a lie.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Well I can imagine why you’re enthralled with capitalist piglet’s post.

After all, he makes a living on these boards making excuses for Perry’s benefit gifties and goodies for illegals and is a professional at lying about Herman Cain.

The fact half his points are about the electrified fence and Herman Cain insulting the American people as stupid and nuts should clue you that you’re not reading anything based in reality.

Herman Cain has been viciously assaulted on air by liberal pundits and has not said a negative word. It is simply not in his nature to categorically assault the American people.

But such is the way of base creatures. Judge a man by the company he keeps, and Perry keeps some pretty ugly company. They’re so ugly that they even abandon him when they smell his blood in the water.

They’re really a lot like Barack Obama. – Under the bus, Governor Perry! -

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Perry never said he’d release terrorists.

Cain did.

Sorry – this is just an unfortunate circumstance you have to deal with.

I really can’t condemn Perry for saying this – because, heh – CAIN is the one that said it!

But keep trying.

Tenant three of the Cainlusional Code:

“When “The Godfather” does screw up – make sure you paint it on some other candidate”.

Okay so Perry calls conservatives who don’t believe in educating illegal kids “heartless”.

And Cain says he could definitely release terrorists.

I know which one of those statements I’ll take over the other.

But I don’t have to make that choice because Perry’s gone and he ain’t coming back.

Enjoy Romney. He’s going to love you guys on his campaign!

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Yeah there were like a couple of people who said he “stumbled” here – but that is not why Allah Pundit was posting like a madman in this thread.

Go back and read Allah’s posts – they’re spot on the double standard of the Cainlusionals.

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I didn’t see a double standard. I saw people arguing that this was not nearly the big deal that Allah’s headline and post made it out to be. It was not a good answer, but Cain was not playing Let’s Make a Deal.

Cain’s problem is always that he answers the question asked and not the question implied. It’s what got him in trouble on the Muslim thing and what got him in trouble with the Perry thing.

In this case, the question was “Can you see yourself authorizing that?” Why yes, I can. The people you’re talking about pointed out circumstances in which someone could see themselves potentially authorizing it. Would those circumstances ever come to pass? Not likely.

The problem is the implied question of “are you willing to negotiate with terrorists to make that swap?” If you say yes you can see yourself authorizing such a swap under some unforeseen circumstance, people assume you mean yes to this question too, which is why I wanted Cain to say “but I don’t negotiate with terrorists so I don’t see any reason why it would ever happen.”

He still clearly demonstrated he wasn’t comfortable with making that deal by immediately going to “but”, it was just the wrong “but.”

And yeah, I would say the same if Obama said it. This is a common problem in politics today and in this election specifically. All these people are getting hosed because everybody blows all this stuff out of proportion.

CrankyTRex on October 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

I stated clearly that he fumbled a gotcha question and also recovered in his entire answer.

Don’t misrepresent my statements. I don’t do that to you.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Smells like a HA lynching going on…guess we will have to see how the REAL WORLD, as opposed to the HA world thinks…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

MisterPundit on October 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Right – I LOVE this rationalization.

Cain’s “squishienss” is a virtue because – he’s a scientist and stuff.

LOL

You guys defend Cain when he gives a decisive answer – and you defend him when he makes an incoherent one.

Love it!

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Smells like a HA lynching going on…guess we will have to see how the REAL WORLD, as opposed to the HA world thinks…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

OH MY … RACE CARD DEALT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF THE DECK!

Good job there man. Does the Cainlusional brigade give out awards for calling their enemies “racists”??

Thanks … and stay classy!

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Sep of C n S

It is a matter of precedent that separation of church and state is constitutional.

I won’t take the time to demonstrate your false arguments from my phones at this time, but I will when I hit a real keyboard.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

This was the winning post of the entire thread

Thank you. I could document every single thing on that list, but I still get called a liar for posting it.

Oy.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM

After all, he makes a living on these boards making excuses for Perry’s benefit gifties and goodies for illegals and is a professional at lying about Herman Cain.

Take a big swig of that koolaid, honey.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Too bad your guy’s toast.

gracie on October 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Or he could always call the base heartless racists.

Is this where you want to take the fight?

kim roy on October 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

You totally lack all perspective if you think that Perry’s “don’t have a heart” is anywhere near Cain’s “I’ll consider negotiatin with terrorists”. You have to be DEEEEEEP in the tank for Cain if you think that these two remarks are even in the same universe as each other.

One was wrong and one would literally put our SOLDIERS’ LIVES in DANGER.

No comparison, none.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

I didn’t call you a liar. I said your points were the result of false argumentation.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Thanks … and stay classy!

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Damn, you almost cost me a new laptop…Imagine, YOU complaining about being classy!!! You are just too funny…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

False argumentation see link below

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Thank you. I could document every single thing on that list, but I still get called a liar for posting it.

Oy.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM

And it’s all written on that rock you are pulling around with you…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I didn’t call you a liar. I said your points were the result of false argumentation.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Well, we’ll just let people decide for themselves what they think of that stuff.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

In that case you owe me an apology.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:08 PM

And it’s all written on that rock you are pulling around with you…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:04 PM

What you seem to be saying is that I won’t forget or ignore what a despicable thing Herman Cain did to a fellow human being, a fellow Republican.

Is that supposed to bother me or something? Because if it is, you’re really, really wasting your time.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Update: I didn’t see it happen live, but Guy Benson tells me that Cain was interviewed again by Blitzer shortly after the debate and said he “misspoke” in his Gitmo answer. We’ll have to wait for the clip tomorrow for his full response.

And we will have to wait and see how the rest of the world decides about this little gaffe…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM

In that case you owe me an apology.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:08 PM

[Looks around.] Surely, you’re not talking to me.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Well folks, we have a new record:

Old Perry supporters (who are now spinelessly supporting other candidates and throwing Perry under the bus) have a political attention span of no greater than 6 hours.

The goldfish I had as pets when I was a kid are more attentive than these folks.

So using their same logic and attention span:

Perry is a racist because the media says he was, and he did not respond within 6 hours. Since that is beyond the attention span of Old Perry supporters, it must be true.

Perry is an incompetent incapable of throwing a political punch, because he was unable to land a hit on Mitt Romney after failing miserably in each debate performance within 6 hours. Since this is beyond the attention span of Old Perry supporters, it must be true.

Perry believes the entire Republican base is heartless, because he told us all so in a debate and did not clarify his remarks within 6 hours. Since this is beyond the attention span of the Old Perry supporters, it must be true.

I could go all day on this, because Perry (or whoever your preferred nominee is now, Newt shot himself early too) is a gift to mankind when it comes to ineffective political offense and defense.

I actually have much more disdain for the Holdren loving Romney, but I just love illustrating the ugly, base tendencies of Perry supporters because they are absolutely useless during this primary process, serving only as single-minded trolls accumulating lists of potshots while contributing nothing and shifting their alliances endlessly.

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Oh yes, “despicable”…pull that rock along so more, playing the victim really doesnt become you…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Wow, the Cain Train derailed big time, didn’t it?

Punchenko on October 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Piglet,

You do realize that Cain was already in the studio when the Wapo piece dropped and he responded to Amampour’s misrepresentation of the event right?

Amanpour’s the only despicable on in that exchange.

Amanpour made a “failure to state” argument and Cain responded to it. Point your anger at Amanpour for lying to Cain.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:17 PM

What you seem to be saying is that I won’t forget or ignore what a despicable thing Herman Cain did to a fellow human being, a fellow Republican.

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Obviously you don’t know what a dirty business pollitics and the business world is…you are acting like your beta male hero, Perry.

Is that supposed to bother me or something? Because if it is, you’re really, really wasting your time.

Obviously it does, cause you whine about it incessantly…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Gingrich calls Ryan’s Medicare plan “right wing social engineering”, Perry says anyone who thinks illegal immigration is wrong is heartless, and now Cain says he’d release terrorists who’ve killed Americans. Unfreaking believable. These people are idiots. I think I might just start supporting Ron Paul after all.

TulsAmerican on October 18, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Smells like a HA lynching going on…guess we will have to see how the REAL WORLD, as opposed to the HA world thinks…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

OH MY … RACE CARD DEALT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF THE DECK!

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Good lord. Your cheese really has slid off your cracker.

MadisonConservative on October 18, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Well piglet.

I didn’t call you a liar.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Punchenko on October 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Pokemon crawls out from his rock…oh wait, from piglet’s rock…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Wow. Again, all this back & forth about who would, who wouldn’t do this…blah, blah, blah. I am sick to DEATH of it all!

FACT is, we believed Bush would never release terrorists from GTMO, but he DID. Or that our military in Iraq wouldn’t allow terrorists to be handed over to the Iraqis solely to be exchanged for hostages, but they DID. Or that Bush would never allow our so-called allies to take billions meant to fight terrorism but was used to fund them, but he did.

Do I like this comment from Cain? HELL NO. But I’m not naïve enough to believe there’s even ONE candidate in whom I fully trust.

I frankly marvel that I’m even surprised at how many of you are willing to display yourselves in such a fashion. I thought that blind faith in politicians was reserved for the Left.

Miss_Anthrope on October 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Good lord. Your cheese really has slid off your cracker.

MadisonConservative on October 18, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Honda lives out where the trolleys don’t run.

KingGold on October 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM

I could go all day on this, because Perry (or whoever your preferred nominee is now, Newt shot himself early too) is a gift to mankind when it comes to ineffective political offense and defense.

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM

The most amusing thing about this is that the words “I will negotiate with terrorists” and “Rick Perry is a racist” never actually came out of Cain’s mouth, while the words “don’t have a heart” actually did come out of Perry’s.

I have to say I hate this primary season. I’m sick of this sound bite “what did he mean by that!?” back and forth crap.

CrankyTRex on October 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Right – I LOVE this rationalization.

Cain’s “squishienss” is a virtue because – he’s a scientist and stuff.

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Are you really this STUPID? It has nothing to do with “squishienss”. It is about a well know, well defined scientific theory called the Null Hypothesis.

One last time … Cain was asked a hypothetical question – if it would be possible that he would authorize a similar prisoner swap. Since such a prisoner swap has JUST occurred, involving similar players, involving similar emotions and arguments for and against, as a scientist, his response was almost inevitable!

MisterPundit on October 18, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Whatever. Cain provided a quick answer when he should have passed until speaking with more knowledgeable advisors. He is not a foreign policy buff, but will be well informed when time for a 3am decision. This is no BFD.

Jobs and a growing economy are what people care about. This is useless distraction.

But note the humility — “I misspoke.” A politician who will admit and reverse error, oh wait, he’s not a politician.

Romney is bought. Cain is not. End of story.

Herman Cain! Herman Cain!

exdeadhead on October 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM

HondaV65 on October 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Good lord. Your cheese really has slid off your cracker.

MadisonConservative on October 18, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Yup…worked itself up into a lather. Hose it.

gracie on October 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I like Herman, but with all the airplay that that line is gonna’ get…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMvqPffzDMQ

Dopenstrange on October 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM

capitalist piglet on October 18, 2011 at 8:08 PM

You’ve compiled almost all of his Cloward-Piven like inundation of gaffes. Whew.

I’ll add two: he called Pawlenty and Bachmann “panderers” for reciting Scripture at an event while HE’s allowed to say, “We need to make room for the Holy Spirit” and brag that he’s a Baptist minister (some animals are more equal than others?) and saying that he could never support a fellow Republican for POTUS, while simultaneously wanting to be the head of the Republican party.

Aslans Girl on October 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Funny, Drudge doesnt think it’s of any import…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Or he could always call the base heartless racists.

Is this where you want to take the fight?

kim roy on October 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

You totally lack all perspective if you think that Perry’s “don’t have a heart” is anywhere near Cain’s “I’ll consider negotiatin with terrorists”. You have to be DEEEEEEP in the tank for Cain if you think that these two remarks are even in the same universe as each other.

One was wrong and one would literally put our SOLDIERS’ LIVES in DANGER.

No comparison, none.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

They both misspoke and both walked it back. There’s no way ANY of the GOP candidates would open up the gates of Gitmo.

It was a badly handled answer. Nothing more. You really honestly believe intellectually that Cain would do that? If you do, then you need to gain some perspective. Don’t build up your candidate by smearing another one for showing his gross inexperience in politics.

kim roy on October 18, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Funny, Drudge doesnt think it’s of any import…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Because it wasn’t really. It was a bad answer on a hypothetical scenario that has almost zero chance of happening. It wasn’t a policy position or an economic plan or any of the other things that actually matter.

CrankyTRex on October 18, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Coward license is about the best way possible to describe that list.

A series of false arguments based on pure partisanship with no intellectual truth to their content.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Coward license — Coward-Piven

Autocorrect for the lose. Times up for me phones battery dying.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Although I do like the sub of coward for c(l)oward

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Would you like extra cheese with that pizza? Red pepper or Parmesan? Coming right up!

Mason on October 18, 2011 at 11:56 PM

It is amusing to see the froth the Cain-haters are working up…the lather is visibly dripping off them. This is a nothing issue, where’s the Luntz focus panel?

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Coward license is about the best way possible to describe that list.

A series of false arguments based on pure partisanship with no intellectual truth to their content.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

And you think I should apologize to you. If you had any interest in “intellectual truth”, you would admit your candidate has a tendency to say absurd, foolish, disqualifying things he has to walk back just about every other day.

So get out of here with your “pure partisanship” nonsense. You can’t even admit the slightest truth about Cain.

It is amusing to see the froth the Cain-haters are working up…the lather is visibly dripping off them. This is a nothing issue, where’s the Luntz focus panel?

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Funny. Is anything more than a “nothing issue” to some of you Cain supporters?

Rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM

kim roy on October 18, 2011 at 11:37 PM

You and Cain are the ones who need to gain perspective. Gaffes are bad enough, but actually contemplating risking our soldiers’ lives is simply outrageous.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Funny. Is anything more than a “nothing issue” to some of you Cain supporters?

Rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Well I’m not a big fan of Perry’s Gardasil initiative. Or Romneycare. Oh, you meant with Cain?/

gryphon202 on October 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Coward license is about the best way possible to describe that list.

A series of false arguments based on pure partisanship with no intellectual truth to their content.

Jason Coleman on October 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Yes, it is a Cloward-Piven like list of gaffes; I’ve been calling it that all evening. Cain makes so many gaffes, we are literally inundated with them and some (I’m looking at you) are obviously getting ennured to them. That’s exactly how Cloward-Piven works — it numbs people and desensitizes them.

What Cain did today was an atomic bomb-sized mistake. He can’t recover.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:14 AM

but actually contemplating risking our soldiers’ lives is simply outrageous.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Straw dogs anyone?

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 12:16 AM

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I’m still a Perry supporter, then Newt.
Cain is off my radar. I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee-ditto w/Mitt…but I’d rather not.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

What Cain did today was an atomic bomb-sized mistake. He can’t recover.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Well, considering the size of your one-track mind, it would be to you. To some of us–looking at the big picture–not so much. I think this is much ado about nothing…we will have to wait and see what happens tomorrow.

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

You and Cain are the ones who need to gain perspective. Gaffes are bad enough, but actually contemplating risking our soldiers’ lives is simply outrageous.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:11 AM

He’s going to have to contemplate risking soldiers’ lives every single time he makes any military decision of any kind.

Further, even taking his statement by itself, he said he would be considering the facts to determine if they supported the swap. Obviously the risk to other soldiers would be one of those facts, and probably one that would break the deal in the unlikely event that this hypothetical situation ever even came up in the first place.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

I thought Cain’s answer was fine in context. He was thinking along the lines that Netanyahu, who is neither a pushover nor soft on terror, had reasons to release 1,027 Palestinians to get one Israeli. These chess games can get very complicated and Netanyahu must have believed that, all things considered, that this trade was the right one for Israel.

In theory, a scenario could arise in which it would make sense for an American president to release everyone at Gitmo for one American soldier. However, I think that such a scenario is so extremely unlikely that Cain might as well have said no.

Cara C on October 19, 2011 at 12:20 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on October 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

And somehow, I’m not surprised…heh.

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Of course there is always Lizard Man.

Bishop on October 18, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Perhaps Oliver North will answer my pleas and throw himself in the race, I’m running out of candidates.

Bishop on October 18, 2011 at 9:37 PM

So Ollie is a V alien? Who knew?

platypus on October 19, 2011 at 12:21 AM

He’s going to have to contemplate risking soldiers’ lives every single time he makes any military decision of any kind.

Further, even taking his statement by itself, he said he would be considering the facts to determine if they supported the swap. Obviously the risk to other soldiers would be one of those facts, and probably one that would break the deal in the unlikely event that this hypothetical situation ever even came up in the first place.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

I should’ve said “needlessly” risk soldiers’ lives.

Taking the statement by itself, just “considering” negotiating with terrorists is an atomic bomb. Hundreds of years of US policy is that we don’t because it encourages kidnapping. Israel does these swaps all the time because it encourages it.

Oh, and the very fact that he said this, shows the terrorists that, should he become POTUS, he’d “consider” it; duh! The terrorists’ first action of a Cain Admin. would be to kidnap our soldiers. It was the most dangerous thing I’ve ever heard a Republican candidate say.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Cara C on October 19, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Israel has a different policy from the US. Cain is running to be President of the United States, not Israel. Israel is always doing these swaps because their policy encourages it (it’s about the only thing I disagree with Israel about). It’s literally ASKING for trouble.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:29 AM

And somehow, I’m not surprised…heh.

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 12:20 AM

I’m nothing if not predictable. LoL
Pinky/Brain 2012!

annoyinglittletwerp on October 19, 2011 at 12:30 AM

The best question to ask is which candidate is more likely to do good things for the country on a consistent basis.

Right now, it’s Cain. The debate tonight showed that Perry cannot control his emotions. That makes him risky, even if we like his policies.

Romney would make a great Secretary of Debate, if we had such a candidate position.

Michele Bachmann would make a great Town Crier, if we still had such a position.

Santorum would make a great Secretary of Social Standards and Traditional Values, if we had such a cabinet position.

Ron Paul would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury, and that is a cabinet post that we DO have.

Huntsman would make a great ambassador to China, a position he has already held and should still be in.

And Sarah Palin should stay quiet in Wasilla.

platypus on October 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM

platypus on October 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Yes, it would be so good for the country to have a POTUS who alerts terrorists to the fact that if they want to free their buddies, why, just kidnap a US soldier! It’s also good for the country to tax the poor and the middle-class in the middle of a Depression.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

The debate tonight showed that Perry cannot control his emotions. That makes him risky, even if we like his policies.

platypus on October 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM

LOL… You seriously have to make up your mind.

Perry stays relatively quiet in a debate and it is – Ah! He is so dumb and lethargic!

He comes out swinging and delivers some body shots to Mitt and it is – That was so unpresidential!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

I think I prefer a President that will fight passionately for what he believes in than a ‘Presidential’ plastic mannequin.

TheRightMan on October 19, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Pokemon crawls out from his rock…oh wait, from piglet’s rock…

lovingmyUSA on October 18, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Cain is finished and everyone knows it. The conservative national security establishment will never, ever line up behind a know-nothing that would put our country, our people, and our men and women in uniform in jeopardy the way Mr. Cain would. I suggest you find a new candidate to rally behind — preferably one capable of thinking before he speaks.

Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 12:53 AM

I should’ve said “needlessly” risk soldiers’ lives.

Taking the statement by itself, just “considering” negotiating with terrorists is an atomic bomb. Hundreds of years of US policy is that we don’t because it encourages kidnapping. Israel does these swaps all the time because it encourages it.

Oh, and the very fact that he said this, shows the terrorists that, should he become POTUS, he’d “consider” it; duh! The terrorists’ first action of a Cain Admin. would be to kidnap our soldiers. It was the most dangerous thing I’ve ever heard a Republican candidate say.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Ask Ron Paul what he thinks about “needlessly” risking soldiers’ lives by having them overseas in the first place. “Needlessly” is entirely relative.

Further, Cain never said he would negotiate or consider negotiating. He said he could see himself authorizing a swap in some hypothetical situation that wasn’t even outlined where it’s assumed he’s already negotiating. That’s why I was displeased he didn’t indicate he wouldn’t have gotten into negotiations in the first place, but Herman Cain did not say he’d be opening negotiations with somebody who grabbed one of our guys.

The simple fact is it would never get to a point where POTUS would have to make that kind of decision because even if we did negotiate, it certainly wouldn’t be between POTUS and whomever. So it’s a moot point anyway.

That’s why it isn’t a big deal. It’s like asking Herman Cain if he would choke a puppy to death in order to stop nuclear war. If Herman Cain says “well, I could see myself doing it but I’d really have to have all the facts before I’d do that”, it doesn’t mean Herman Cain is going to start choking puppies when he gets into office.

It’s a bad answer. A silly answer. But nothing on the order of magnitude you make it out to be.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 1:03 AM

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Spin all you want, but the terrorists heard that a President Cain would think about it. We would be in SERIOUS trouble in that case. Oh, and are you a Paul supporter? Because, “needlessly” is only relative in a Paulbot’s universe.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Yeah, they are going to run right out now, based on what a presidential “candidate” said…right…

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 12:53 AM

I’m not as shallow–nor much of a knee-JERK–such as you. This is a non-story…and now I’m LOLing that both you and Aslan think this is like a national security “invitation” to the enemy. Hurry, kidnapp a soldier cause a presidential candidate said something that HE WALKED BACK, and srepeated in the debate–that we dont negotiate with terrorists.
We’re going to need more dead chickens if you two keep this up….

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Spin all you want, but the terrorists heard that a President Cain would think about it. We would be in SERIOUS trouble in that case. Oh, and are you a Paul supporter? Because, “needlessly” is only relative in a Paulbot’s universe.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM

No, “needlessly” is always relative. Whether or not a risk is “needless” is precisely the calculation you make when you make military decisions. To Ron Paul, having soldiers overseas at all is a needless risk. To others, having them in Iraq and Afghanistan is a needless risk. I happen to disagree in both cases, but that’s because my risk vs. reward calculation is different.

And there’s no spin from me. I already said repeatedly I thought it was a bad answer, but I also am not going to read all these things into that answer that weren’t said and aren’t applicable.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 1:18 AM

And you think I should apologize to you. If you had any interest in “intellectual truth”, you would admit your candidate has a tendency to say absurd, foolish, disqualifying things he has to walk back just about every other day.

So get out of here with your “pure partisanship” nonsense. You can’t even admit the slightest truth about Cain.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Yes, I do think you should apologize. I didn’t call you a liar, simple as that.

I admit more about Cain that you do. I recognize that he fumbled the answer, I admit that he’s said things which others have taken offense to, some rightly some wrongly. Is that “absurd”, no it’s not absurd. Saying something off the cuff and having it taken wrongly or even stating it wrongly or making a legitimate and admitted mistake is not absurd.

Here are some “Absurd” things — saying you didn’t put something in your book when it’s most certainly in the first printing is absurd. Relaying an anecdote about vaccines causing retardation is absurd.

Even making a joke about an electric border fence could be considered absurd (although it should be noted that in times past, American border fences have indeed been electrified, DHS tested Electric border fencing in 2007, the Border Patrol electrified fencing in the 90′s and even before that.).

Foolish statements exist in all campaigns, always have always will, there are too many historical examples to list.

Disqualifying statements? If one can state with conviction that they’ve been to 57 states “with a few to go”, there’s really no such thing as a “disqualifying statement”. Can statements build up to such an event. . . possibly, but unlikely, there’s alot more to go into disqualifying a candidate than off the cuff interview statements.

As for “pure partisanship”, I can either chalk up your statements to that, or I can call you seriously ignorant, or perhaps I could call you intellectually dishonest, if you prefer. None of which are necessarily lies, unless you are intentionally trying to deceive. Are you?

Your Sep of Church and State is an example. . . through precedent, Separation of Church and State is indeed found within the context of the Constitution, you may not like it, and you might want to to go by a hyper-literal interpretation of the Constitution, but the fact is that this nation does not recognize a hyper-literal interpretation of the Constitution. This nation does recognize the Constitutionality of Separation of Church and State.

NeoCon – Cain was pretty obvious that he doesn’t accept the distinction, and frankly, neither do I. When I hear someone talking of neocon(s), I know two things, the person talking/asking about it is usually a liberal and second, they are usually trying to make thinly veiled anti-semitic argument. The exception here would be if they’re going back to the 1970′s in their context and talking about the Scoop Jackson wing. I think most at Hotair would agree that when anyone brings up neocons today, they aren’t talking about Scoop Jackson Democrats.

Won’t reveal his advisors — It’s been made quite clear that the super-majority of Cain’s advisors are private sector individuals and not politicos. To reveal such individuals would most likely place their current employment in jeopardy. It’s also important to note that in modern political races of the last 40 years, it’s been normal to NOT reveal advisors who are otherwise employed outside of government for this very reason. The insistence that Cain reveal every individual who he consults with is in fact ABSURD at this point in a primary campaign as it would necessarily prevent such individuals from joining another campaign openly should their primary drop out. He did name Lowrie, he’s named others, he doesn’t have to name all of them for every policy position, nor should he at this point.

Cain’s statement’s about Perry’s Dad’s Rock — Cain was in studio with Amanpour when the Wapo piece dropped, he hadn’t seen the piece, and quite frankly the piece was full of blatant lies, misrepresentations, and lies of omission. Amanpour presented a false statement of fact to Cain and asked for his reaction, he gave the reaction as anyone would when presented with that information, if any candidate, white or black had been told that the word ni**er was painted on a rock and they didn’t IMMEDIATELY denounce the word and anyone who used it, then THAT would be cause for alarm, not Cain’s reaction when fed a lie. To suggest that Cain should have vetted out an article that was dropped while he was in make-up for “This Week” is ABSURD.

Amanpour was the one who tarred Perry, not Cain.

Some Americans are indeed NUTS and STUPID, there’s nothing wrong with stating so. Frankly if a candidate for president said that there weren’t stupid and nuts Americans, THAT would be a disqualifying statement right there, because they don’t have a grasp on reality. One only has to look at OWS to see stupid Americans, and Cain only had to look to his right to see one that was at times “nuts”.

Books — The distributor for Cain’s book is OUT of copies. Cain’s on a book tour, it’s normal, in fact it’s part of a book tour for the the tour itself to take books with them on the tour in case the location you are visiting runs out. Romney, Perry, Palin, Newt and most other authors on book tours do and have done the same. They will continue to do the same as the publisher, printer and PR firms are usually separate companies, and in many cases the authors are their own company as well, they can’t just legally trade around copies at will, that’s an accounting nightmare and opens up allegations of fraud.

I could dissect your points further, but they almost all flawed in their argumentation, and all of their flaws boil down to what is best considered partisan hackery. Or I could be not so generous and state that your intention was to deceive and that you yourself made the false arguments, I’m not going to give you credit for them, because they didn’t originate with you, you’re just the tool willing to repeat them for whatever gain you think you will accomplish.

There are PLENTY of legitimate points to argue against Cain. One could honestly challenge the wisdom of a sales TAX in Cain’s 999 plan. That’s a fair and honest argument to be had. Calling it a VAT, is not a valid argument, nor is calling the 9 corp TAX a VAT a valid argument, but it’s a simplistic argument, and people like using simple arguments in partisan debates, even if they are false and even if they are lies. I would hope that we can strive to be better than that though.

One could attack his lack of government experience as a legitimate point against him, although some will see that as a plus, it’s a legitimate point of attack. Making a false argument about Perry’s Dad’s Rock is not a valid argument unless you’re going to go after the WAPO’s dishonest reporting and prove that Cain knew it was dishonest to begin with.

So yes, Piglet. I think you owe me an apology. I never called you a liar. I said that the list was the “result of false argumentation”, which it largely is.

I didn’t even claim that YOU were the one that made the false argument. I was giving you the doubt that you were ignorant to their false and illogical claims of argumentative truth.

Yet. . . you did call me a liar. However, I don’t expect you to be man or woman enough to realize your mistake or take responsibility for it. I’ve watched you argue this way for some time and you revel in your use of ad hominem, misrepresentation, appeals to authority, ambiguous assertions, psychogenic fallacy and your arguments of personal astonishment. These are all false arguments, and when you make them, you disrespect yourself.

Does that mean you told a lie. NO, it doesn’t. Unless your intent was to deceive, and while I have my personal doubts, I’ll still give you the benefit of that doubt.

So yeah. Piggy, I think you owe me an apology, but I won’t hold my breath for you to be honorable enough to offer.

Jason Coleman on October 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Everyone was warned Cain would collapse. (He already has once)

This election is Romney v. Perry, and only that because Perry has a few rich Texan’s giving his campaign money.

scotash on October 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM

I think I prefer a President that will fight passionately for what he believes in than a ‘Presidential’ plastic mannequin.

TheRightMan on October 19, 2011 at 12:49 AM

That’s a non sequiter. Perry lost his temper and in doing so he violated the rules of civil behavior. Just because our society is so dumbed down that we accept this sort of rude behavior doesn’t make it right.

And I never criticized Perry for being quiet (that I can recall). These debates are stupid (in my view) and are basically no win situations.

Anyway, we have another year of this fun to look forward to.

platypus on October 19, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Out of his league.

We are so screwed with this election.

WisCon on October 19, 2011 at 1:37 AM

Amanpour was the one who tarred Perry, not Cain.

See? Right there – not true. Not. True.

Not going to bother with the rest of your “it depends on what the meaning of is is” list. If you have to walk back your crazy, stupid remarks as often as he’s had to,you’re not qualified to be president.

Hear those crickets? There’s your “apology”.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Israel has a different policy from the US. Cain is running to be President of the United States, not Israel. Israel is always doing these swaps because their policy encourages it (it’s about the only thing I disagree with Israel about). It’s literally ASKING for trouble.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Yes, Israel’s policy is quite different. They let the prisoners go, get their guys back and then they go out and assassinate the ones they think are still a threat. It’s like a game for the Mossad.

That’s pretty much exactly what they have done the last three rounds of these lopsided swaps.

Given that the number and severity of terrorist attacks on Israel proper have SIGNIFICANTLY dropped since they first started this “policy”, I can’t find much to disagree with it on.

Of course the US never does anything like this. . . we just happen to accidentally drop hellfire missiles on released jihadis who get within 200 miles of a battlefield. Our policies are so different.

For the record, I completely agree with releasing prisoners from gitmo when their intelligence value drops to zero. I also agree with dropping hellfire missiles on said jihadis if they get within 200 miles of a battlefield. I don’t see this as needless risk so much as I do see it as drone-practice. I’d rather they be run into Gitmo’s electric fence, but Reapers and Predators gotta eat too.

Jason Coleman on October 19, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Spin all you want, but the terrorists heard that a President Cain would think about it. We would be in SERIOUS trouble in that case. Oh, and are you a Paul supporter? Because, “needlessly” is only relative in a Paulbot’s universe.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Every time you think Cain says something insane enough to finally discourage some people, they come right back and justify whatever clownish thing he’s said this time.

Pretzel logic around here. Honestly – it’s scary.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Oh yeah – there was another Cainism I just remembered.

He stated one position on killing an American terrorist in May, then the completely opposite position after it was done. When called on it, he said he didn’t remember ever having the first position.

He just can’t keep it all straight, which makes you wonder whether even he knows what he thinks, let alone whether we do.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Jason Coleman on October 19, 2011 at 1:43 AM

If you’re so comfortable with this dangerous policy, you just go right on ahead and support Cain. But the rest of America heard this today, too, and they won’t be comfortable with it.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 1:53 AM

AMANPOUR: … and a hunting lodge that belonged to his family, bought in the 1980s. And on a rock apparently near the entrance there, there is a word that is a very ugly racial word, a slur.

Again, Amanpour fed Cain the story, the WAPO story was later shown to be bogus in the extreme. Cain was in studio when the story dropped. All he had to go on was the WAPO story and Amanpour’s lede.

CAIN: My reaction is that is very insensitive. . .

WAPO and Amanpour slandered Perry, not Cain. Cain’s not the one who stated that “on a rock apparently near the entrance there, there is a word” That’s the WAPO and Amanpour.

“This Week” starts taping at 9AM. Guests are usually required to be there 2 hours in advance for make-up and pre-tape discussion. The WAPO story dropped that morning. Everything that Cain got about that story, he got from WAPO and more accurately from Amanpour in pre-tape.

So exactly what are you claiming I lied about.

Jason Coleman on October 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Which of the current candidates and the current occupier of the White House could answer any of AP’s questions?

No? Obama and Romney couldn’t answer that question? I’ll take that bet.

Any Hot Air commenters want to try answering my extremely difficult question about why it matters whether Iran is Sunni or Shia? Apparently, it’s beyond the ken of all of our presidential candidates.

Allahpundit on October 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I’ll take “Ancient power struggle between Shia and Sunni Moslems for over a thousand years, and Iran is the only leading Shia power, putting them in conflict with the major Sunni Moslem countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt” for $1000, Alex.

But I have no idea how to phrase it in the form of a question.

Seriously, how hard is it to answer, “Our nation has always had a policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, and I support that.”

It’s weird how Cain is so brilliant at so many things, but misses some of the very basics of foreign policy. I can only assume he’s never been interested.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 19, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Every time you think Cain says something insane enough to finally discourage some people, they come right back and justify whatever clownish thing he’s said this time.

Pretzel logic around here. Honestly – it’s scary.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 1:44 AM

I found it quite discouraging. However, that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous to blow it so far out of proportion that people are actually saying that as a result of that answer, jihadis would go out and capture US soldiers and then demand we empty Gitmo should Cain be elected.

For my part, I came to terms with the idea that Cain isn’t going to have the perfect answer all the time quite some time ago. That’s because I find it inconsequential if he gets caught in a stupid question and instead of refuting the stupid question’s stupid premise, actually answers it. The reason for that being I know that none of us are going to remember or care about anything any of these people said during the campaign by the time they are sworn in as President.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 2:00 AM

If you’re so comfortable with this dangerous policy, you just go right on ahead and support Cain. But the rest of America heard this today, too, and they won’t be comfortable with it.

Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Which “policy” are you referring to? Cain didn’t offer a policy statement, he responded to a hypothetical, a set-up hypothetical at that.

As for the Israeli policy? By empirical evidence, it works for the Israelis.

To call Cain’s response a statement of “policy” is absurd.

If you want to make every off-the-cuff statement by a candidate a direct delivery of “policy”, I’m going to have to ask who your candidate is then Aslan’s Girl?

Jason Coleman on October 19, 2011 at 2:03 AM

I’m not as shallow–nor much of a knee-JERK–such as you. This is a non-story…and now I’m LOLing that both you and Aslan think this is like a national security “invitation” to the enemy. Hurry, kidnapp a soldier cause a presidential candidate said something that HE WALKED BACK, and srepeated in the debate–that we dont negotiate with terrorists.
We’re going to need more dead chickens if you two keep this up….

lovingmyUSA on October 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Cain is a dunce and is finished as a serious candidate.

1.) No one wants a national sales tax.

2.) No one wants an idiot with his finger on the button.

I could go on and on, but I am not one to twist the dagger. Cain’s candidacy is done. The man is a fool and the last thing we need is a fool going up against PBHO.

Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Essentially what you’re arguing Allah is that it would be categorically unacceptable under all circumstances to make a trade of one for a thousand, or in this case all the gitmo prisoners. That’s easy from the pundit’s chair, and Cain has been in your very chair. He’s running for president now, and he knows the pundit answer is not the correct one.

BKennedy on October 18, 2011 at 7:28 PM

The problem with that argument is that the U.S. has had a policy for years of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. That’s not a pundit’s answer. that’s an official policy. Cain should know that. Once you start releasing terrorists for hostages, you might as well give up. The terrorists can always go and get more hostages to trade. It’s virtually the same as letting them print their own money.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Every time you think Cain says something insane enough to finally discourage some people, they come right back and justify whatever clownish thing he’s said this time.

Pretzel logic around here. Honestly – it’s scary.

capitalist piglet on October 19, 2011 at 1:44 AM

It’s maddening if not outright suspicious. How can you support someone as intellectually lacking as Cain is on foreign policy? How can you support someone whose plan would soak the middle class and give Obama a landslide in ’12? Cain is a BS artist plain and simple.

These folks pushing Cain must be Romney bots looking to split the vote or Democrats looking to give PBHO easy pickings in the GE.

Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Cain is a BS artist plain and simple.

Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 2:13 AM

And the rest aren’t? All of them are career politicians. BS is their entire job description.

CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 2:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6