Cain: On second thought …
posted at 9:30 am on October 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
The good news for Herman Cain last night? CNN almost entirely avoided foreign policy last night in its debate questions. The bad news? Cain talked foreign policy in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer and made a howler of a mistake in saying that he would consider swapping everyone in Gitmo for one captured American, by saying, “I could see myself making that kind of transfer.” That clip went immediately viral, and when the question arose at the debate, it came from Twitter and not from Anderson Cooper directly. Cain tried brushing it off by claiming that the question didn’t involve al-Qaeda, but still ended up being called “naive” by Michelle Bachmann:
In the intervening time, someone obviously reminded Cain that America has had a consistent policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists, which he reiterated in the debate, but then watered down by then saying that he’d have to look at each individual situation. That didn’t clear up matters at all — we won’t negotiate with terrorists unless we will? — and so after the debate, Cain finally admitted what everyone already knew:
It’s refreshing to hear a candidate admit an error, but unfortunately for Cain, it’s becoming a habit. Earlier this week Cain proposed using an electrified fence on the southern border to permanently deter illegals from crossing into the US, and then had to claim later that it was a joke. On economics, Cain has a command that few can match, but it has become increasingly apparent that Cain is out of his depth on foreign policy. It won’t be enough to derail Cain’s campaign, but these unforced errors will have people approaching a Cain bid with more skepticism in the days ahead. We’ll see how that translates in polling.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
I am not a Perry fan. But he is 100% right.
SSI is a ponzi scheme. Game is over because MORE are taking out then are putting in.
ColdWarrior57 on October 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM
He has got to get some coaching quick. Ask Bolton to be VP, and then direct questions that way.
AshleyTKing on October 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM
1. Not if they die from a cruise missile hitting the GPS tracker you embedded in their skin when you let them go. Which is the precise kind of situation I could see myself authorizing the release. Especially if the one guy I wanted back was a high value asset like a General Patraeus. This is why the “could you see yourself” part is important because it’s easy to concoct situations where you could see yourself even if they’re incredibly improbable.
2. It’s not quite that simple. We say we don’t negotiate, but we always do. If you refuse to negotiate, the hostage dies. It’s just that we do it quietly and we make sure if the hostage taker gets what they want, it’s in a controlled circumstance that gives us the opportunity to capture/kill them. This is of course why POTUS would never be involved and why the original question made any answer a moot point.
Cain’s answer is not a good one as it does not refute the stupidity of the premise and repeat the “policy” that we don’t negotiate, but he didn’t say he’s going to suddenly start swapping Gitmo detainees for captured soldiers, which is what people read into it. It’s a bad answer, but it’s also an inconsequential one.
CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM
Do you understand the concept that Herman’s plan might be good overall for the economy, but also might end up causing a rise in some people’s, but not all, tax rates? So, what if the only group of people whose taxes would rise under his plan are the poor – if they’d end up being the only group who had to pay more taxes, besides political reasons, why should anyone on the Right care?
The opposition to his plan because ‘It will hurt the poor, so we shouldn’t do it!!!’ sounds like the argument frantic obsessors on the Left make when they try to hold up a construction project because of snail darters. The poor are undertaxed in this country, and they’ve received a ridiculous amount of unearned, redistributed wealth. We need to learn to stop pandering to them because we’re afraid of the reaction of the Left NOW, not later – kicking the can down the road about this is a coward’s “solution”.
I gotta tell you, it’s funny watching you know-it-all PerryKrishnas try to portray Cain as a talentless economic idiot who has no idea what he’s talking about with his 9-9-9 plan, as though you yourselves have far more expertise in that realm than he, Art Laffer, Steven Smith, and other economists, who see value in his plan, do. Am I making an “appeal to authority” argument here? No – I’m only pointing out how stupid you look for acting like arrogant AGW fascists by declaring that ‘the science is settled’ about his plan.
Bizarro No. 1 on October 19, 2011 at 10:10 PM
I dispute your statement – everytime I see you unreservedly presume the worst about Cain and run him down while knowing how partial and gracious you are towards Perry makes me know it’s personal for you. Even in this post, saying that Cain and Romney whined last night as you ignore mentioning Perry’s passive-agressive attacks on Romney indicates that you have an (intellectually dishonest) agenda.
I also dispute the “in this thread” angle you used – I’ve seen you use ad hominems plenty of times in other threads, too. :) Complaining about how others treat you when you engage in the same activity yourself=whining!
Remember how you’ve rightfully criticized the Palinistas here for their obnoxious, bad behavior? I see your behavior, as well as HondaV65′s, TheRightMan’s, and Punchenko’s, as identical to their’s (Perry worship instead of Palin worship – only the names have changed!) which is why I consider you PerryKrishnas, and not simply Perry supporters. Disagree with me? Can you indicate any difference between how you are acting now and how the Palinistas acted then?
Bizarro No. 1 on October 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Can you indicate how Herman Cain isn’t a moronic gaffe machine who is way out of his depth without reminding us all that he ran a pizza company?
Calling folks “Palinista” isn’t a very good strategy to explain away Cain’s glaring ignorance on the issues of the day.
Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Bizarro No. 1 on October 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM
I never used ad hominem against my fellow posters in this thread whereas I was called a “fool” for not trading 6 terrorists for one general.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 11:06 PM
John Bolton is too establishment and will most likely be backing Romney. Bolton is also too smart to throw his lot in with Herman Cain and his campaign of distorted BS. Besides, most of Romney’s FP staff is made up of Bolton’s colleagues.
Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 11:06 PM
Say what you want, Cranky, the soundbite was clear: Herman Cain would consider releasing everyone at Gitmo for one hostage. That’s what he said and there is no explaining it away.
Herman Cain is a hopeless gaffe machine not ready for the big league. Obama would crush him in a landslide and would have a billion dollars to remind us all that Cain wants to hike middle class taxes and is also clueless on national security.
I am beginning to think Cain is a stalking horse for a second Obama term.
Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Bizarro No. 1 on October 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Last I checked, this was a Cain thread and my comments have had NOTHING to do with Perry. I decided back in May or June that this guy was not ready to run for POTUS and each passing day he proves it.
Aslans Girl on October 19, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Your comical righteous indignation is hilarious and a common symptom among you kooky Cain cultist.
In short, I <3 Henry Kissinger. He is a very smart man and a Realist's Realist. You should pick up a copy of his work Diplomacy — it's a good read and you just might learn how the real world works.
On a darker note, we gained nothing from Vietnam other than tragedy and hardship. It was a foolish war to start and one the American people were no longer willing to fight. We had to get out of there before committing more young men to the meatgrinder. If you looked through your closet, Bizarro, you just might find a shirt or other garment that was made in Vietnam. They are quit the capitalist now, those Vietnamese. They also are not too fond of the Chinese, either. The power of our ideas and example is always the best prescription for changing the world — not troops, bullets, and American blood in the Third World. We call this "soft power". I bet Cain doesn't know what soft power is or who coined the term (snort!)
Are you an idiot? No, you're just a liberal — only a liberal would explode with the "toxic, hypocritical, repulsive human being" schtick. I bet you follow Henry around the world with a pair of handcuffs ready to make the oft mocked Code Pink "citizens arrest" for Henry's "war crimes", don't you? Nevermind that, Bizarro — Henry is too beloved by our government and the national security establishment to be carted away off to jail. He is, after all, our Bismarck.
I bet Cain doesn't know who Otto von Bismarck is or the idea of realpolitik. I bet Henry would know. :-)
Anymore unhinged wagging of the finger tonight, Bizarro? I do enjoy reading Cainian apologetics.
I think you’re a little unhinged. Maybe you should lay off the Godfather’s pizza and cheap beer for a few nights, OK? Wild finger wagging and fringe Cainian kook talk does not make for a strong defense of releasing KSM for a hostage — be it a general or a private.
Punchenko on October 19, 2011 at 11:42 PM
There’s nothing wrong with him considering it. If he was put in a situation that actually demanded that POTUS have to make that decision, I want him to stop and consider it because obviously it’s one hell of a unique situation, otherwise it would never make it to POTUS’ desk.
Cain has repeatedly asserted that his plan does not hike people’s taxes, so clearly he does not want to hike middle class taxes. Some economic analyses of the plan disagree with his assertion, but that says nothing as to what he wants.
As for national security, we have barely even gotten into that yet so I don’t know what I think of each candidate’s FP credentials. And quite frankly, I don’t care about the specifics of foreign policy because unless we fix the economy, it won’t matter as we’ll have no say.
CrankyTRex on October 19, 2011 at 11:58 PM
I’ll address this after you directly address what provoked you to respond in the first place!
I was using “Palinista” as some sort of strategy? LOL
Thanks for the entertainment – I don’t deny that I enjoy observing how geniuses like you unwittingly give glimpses into how your tiny, delusional, spiteful, and projecting minds are working! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on October 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM
Have you made it to the 7th grade yet? Talking to you is like talking like a child.
Bizarro No. 1 on October 20, 2011 at 12:20 AM
Neither the Chinese nor the Vietnamese nations are capitalist.
They are both Communist nations at their core where a privileged Party class rules over an essentially slave class.
Do not make the mistake that allowing Western entities into these countries in order to use the labor in exchange for hard currency returns makes them capitalist. It does not.
Wealth and privileged status can only be acquired with State sanction there is zero private ownership, of capital. Retention of wealth in these nations is only possible by maintaining a relationship with a Party official who’s rank is higher than the rank of another who would confiscate said wealth.
The only practical difference between the USSR and these nations is that they have learned from the USSR’s mistakes re: the value of competition. They are still directed economies with a false currency system and no freedoms to speak of.
They make acceptable products and sell them to the West for hard currency and power. That does not make them capitalist. The Party controls prices, production and investment. The government provides labor and sets wages. All property belongs to the state first and citizens pay for access to it without actual ownership. Resources are produced under state direction and distributed according to most politically favored first and at discount.
Both nations have thriving black markets, where a pseudo capitalist mindset is present yet a supermajority of the goods in said market are actually provided by the state to chosen/approved vendors.
China and Vietnam are just better at communism than the USSR was, hence they are, in a very real way, much more dangerous than the Soviets.
Jason Coleman on October 20, 2011 at 12:51 AM
The self-obliviousness on display here is just astounding! I don’t think I have seen a more indirect, less engaging post here at HA than this one. Are you a relative of Annin
CATX?Who are you talking at (not with)? Do you understand the difference between “dialogue” and “monologue”? Do you have any idea what “humility” looks like? Were you a feral child? Are you drunk? Off your meds? Severely sleep-deprived?
I am still laughing at your (lack of) communication skills! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on October 20, 2011 at 1:29 AM
I didn’t see the debate till this afternoon. Last night I only read one page of comments on the debate thread and saw the GITMO mistake. I went to bed thinking it was over because some said Cain is done.
Well, when I saw the debate today, I was shocked at what I saw in the other candidates. Cain, Newt and Santorum did well. Watching some of the others made clear to me why I like Cain and Newt.
Show me one other candidate who has had more interviews (print and TV and radio) these past 3 weeks. Cain has been everywhere. No other candidate has come close these past few weeks in putting himself out there with in depth interview with the main stream liberal media. And in 3 weeks we only have a couple “gaffes.” Not bad for an amateur politician.
I wish everyone here saw the whole hour of the Piers Morgan interview tonight. (Will be repeated in half an hour.) Cain was amazing. Reminded me of why he is my number one choice. Mistakes and all. I am prepared to suffer through some mistakes. I trust him and KNOW he would make an excellent President and would make an actual difference. I am completely comfortable he would do the right thing on Foreign Policy. I am willing to take the good with the bad, when it comes to someone answering questions directly and not dodging the questions.
Does he need to improve? Yup. Does he need to explain 999 better? Yes. Does he need to get better answering Foreign Policy questions? Yes. But I think our patience will be rewarded. Up against Obama, the general public will forgive Cain some “gaffes.”
Reagan infuriated the liberals who called him the “Teflon President.” I think Cain has that same quality. Mistakes will be forgiven. Especially since he is not an experienced interviewee and he is not a politician. The general public will like him and give him so leeway. They will trust his leadership. Most people will not analyze every sentence like we do, even when the liberal media will highlight it. Most vote on impressions and likeability.
Don’t count Cain out yet. Not saying it will happen, but he is definitely not toast. If he makes it, he will be an excellent President.
Elisa on October 20, 2011 at 2:32 AM
The saddest thing of all, is that even with all of his gaffes past, and future, none of them can hold a candle to his economic plan. He has to be angling for a VP slot. All other candidates slammed his 999 plan, and all he could do to refute their arguments was to talk about fruit. Do we really want to elect a salesman. The sheep in this country get dumber by the day.
Haldol on October 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM
It scares me that people are considering this man as our next President. “Apples to Oranges”, counting on his fingers, talking. Very. Slowly. Like. He. Is. Explaining. Something. Important. When. He. Isn’t. Really. Explaining. Anything. … he was dead wrong about the housing bubble, he was dead wrong about auditing the Federal Reserve, and he continues to show that he has no solid beliefs or understanding of foreign or domestic policy. Today he’s for one thing, tomorrow his position will change.
What does he have going for him? The media likes him. The media also liked Bachmann, and then Perry.
popularpeoplesfront on October 21, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3