Cain stumbles on right of return?

The Right Perspective ^

[deek69]

US presidential candidate Herman Cain is trying to recover from an embarassing stumble over the question of the Palestinian Right of Return on Sunday.

“Right of Return?,” Cain blankly asked twice in response to being questioned about his position on the vital issue on FOX News Sunday. The second or two of deafening silence that lasted before host Chris Wallace repeated “The Palestinian Right of Return” to the Republican hopeful seemed to last forever.

[This Just In]

Right Of Return? Right. Is that above his pay grade?

The Lefts game in 3....2.....1.....

[FlyingEagle]

What a gaffe. He must have been thinking if the pizza is not there in 45 minutes, of course they have a right of returning it.

[stars & stripes forever]

And Obama says there’s 57 states. Duh!

[rawcatslyentist]

“The Palestinian Right of Return”

WIn the Future's a Palestinian?

They can allah go back to he77 fur all I cair!

[ejdrapes]

I’m sure Sarah Palin will be on Fox this week calling it a “gotcha” question from the “lamstream media”.

[txrangerette]

Saw it. Didn’t bother me diddly. Cain did a smart thing...he forced Chris Wallace to define the buzzwords and Chris did. Soon as Cain understood what he was being asked about, he responded that it was up to Israel in negotiations as to their position on that, not up to anyone else.

[ejdrapes]

I’m sure Sarah Palin will be on Fox this week calling it a “gotcha” question from the “lamstream media”.

[ejdrapes]

I’m sure Sarah Palin will be on Fox this week calling it a “gotcha” question from the “lamstream media”.

[gleeaikin]

Although I very much respect Israel’s right to exist, many people, including me until a month ago, do not realize that Israel is a democratic Theocracy. They have their own version of Sharia Law. I am now in the process of doing more research into this situation and its implications.

[Sequoyah101]

From 1948? I didn’t know it was a topic that is currently being discussed... otherwise it is rather obscure to anyone but a palestinian.

[toddausauras]

Tired of these liberal gotcha games. We do have to have a candidate that can turn that back on the interviewer. That’s a must. I think Cain will learn quickly.

[LeoWindhorse]

Absolutely !
It was a total deer-in-the-headlights moment . He had no idea.
And then when he did try to give a response eh totally blew it , further indicating that he had no idea what the issue was about , or involved .

Better get with the program Herman . You are sharp but their are a lot of sharp people out here and we do no what is going on with all the issues .

Especially with Israel

[dfwgator]

Although I very much respect Israel’s right to exist, many people, including me until a month ago, do not realize that Israel is a democratic Theocracy. They have their own version of Sharia Law

As long as they don't want to spread it throughout the rest of the world via force, I have no problem with it.

[Vendome]

Sorry, don’t see the gaffe.

Right of return is a non starter and only Israel can negotiate that.

Those homeless lunatics co-opted what was a term for Jews and Israel under the Balfour Declaration.

It’s Israel’s call, as Cain said, and it ain’t gonna happen.

[Kartographer]

I think Cain made it prefectly clear that his Stand was with Israel, that he would promise nothing to the Palestinians because he does not believe that they are serious about peace and that we should not dictate to Israel what borders they should have.

In the mean time if I was Mexico I would demand that ‘Bammy’ take the US back to the pre-1846 borders. Actually if we could just give them ‘Kalifornia’ it might not be such a bad deal.

[LeoWindhorse]

All Israeli governments have rejected the “right” of large numbers of Arabs or Palestinians to return to what is now the state of Israel. Such an en masse return would unbalance Israel’s demographic makeup as the world’s sole Jewish state.

In this light, should the “right of return” “be negotiated,” as I said, “if that is a decision that Israel wants to make”? Certainly, and to reiterate, it’s Israel’s call. Israel has a long record of being more gracious to its enemies than its enemies are to it, and this would be yet another example of that. But is the “right of return” a moral imperative? Is it something Israel must grant? Is it something the United States ought to encourage?

The answer is no on every count.

[ConservativeMind]

Who the heck cares about the catch phrase? If you describe what it is, almost everyone understands.

What exactly was the “Bush Doctrine?” It had multiple meanings, and even then, it was a catch phrase of a small circle of idiots.

Same with this, as far as I’m concerned. Was it a gaffe? Not at all.

Go Cain!

[P-Marlowe]

The Palestinians have a right to return... to Jordan or Egypt.

[This Just In]

Own version of Sharia Law? Which, of course, explains why Jews commonly exercise Honor Killings, beat Israeli women in public if they dare to look at a man, beat Israeli women in public if their ankles are showing, and generally oppress those of the female gender in the Israeli culture. /s

[Brookhaven]

We’re so used to politicians pretending they know the answer to every question, we forget that’s what they are doing: pretending.

A seasoned politician would have given a rambling 5-10 minute answer that (1) would have never directly answered the question, but (2) left the impression he had answered the question, because people would have forgotten the original question to begin with.

Cain’s “stumble” here wasn’t not knowing the answer, it was not knowing how to dodge a question like a professional politician.

Nobody knows the answer to every question. I’m sure this question was asked, because “right of return” has at least 16 different definitions, depending on who you ask. So no politician can get that one right.

For Palestinians it’s code for the elimination of Israel as a nation, because they believe they have a right to return to 100% of the land currently occupied by Israel.

[This Just In]

It was Mathews lame attempt at a “gotcha” moment.

The only who looked like an idiot during that interview was Chris.

[ConservativeMind]

Screw that, Leo.

I don’t even know what that is, and I live on Free Republic and Drudge.

[To Hell With Poverty]

He has already issued a clarification via Facebook:

(Stockbridge, GA)- In an interview this morning on FOX News Sunday with Christopher Wallace, Herman Cain addressed the issue of “right of return” for the country of Israel. In clarification of these remarks, Mr. Cain released the following statement:

I have long been a vocal and unwavering supporter of our friend and ally, Israel.

All Israeli governments have rejected the “right” of large numbers of Arabs or Palestinians to return to what is now the state of Israel. Such an en masse return would unbalance Israel’s demographic makeup as the world’s sole Jewish state.

In this light, should the “right of return” “be negotiated,” as I said, “if that is a decision that Israel wants to make”? Certainly, and to reiterate, it’s Israel’s call. Israel has a long record of being more gracious to its enemies than its enemies are to it, and this would be yet another example of that. But is the “right of return” a moral imperative? Is it something Israel must grant? Is it something the United States ought to encourage?

The answer is no on every count.

Our policy on Palestinian affairs must be wholly a function of our policy on Israeli affairs. Israel is a friend. Israel is an ally. Israel shares common values with us. Israel shares common interests with us, especially in the eradication of terrorism and the need for bringing peace to the region. As President, I will never lose sight of these basic facts. Any aspirant to the Presidency must have the unshakable US-Israeli alliance at the core of his or her strategic vision in the Middle East.

As your President, I would.

[wjcsux]

I suspect we will see a lot of this. After all, Herman is not on the RAT Plantation.

[justsaynomore]

Already addressed: http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?KiIe—7yBR-eH60S8

[hosepipe]

Duh!.. "The right of return" proposed by Obama to create the new Terroristan.. next door to Isreal..

You know for the Terroristians..

[savagesusie]

To compare Jewish law to Sharia law is disgusting and an injustice to the humanity the Jews give all human beings, regardless of religion.

[pops88]

“I don’t even know what that is, and I live on Free Republic and Drudge.”

Likewise, and I’ve been trying to follow Israeli politics since college (1977) when I had dinner with a Zionist. Maybe we should pull out some obscure, early writings by patriots and ask the left what they think about the writing. Too bad Herman doesn’t get a daily state department briefing. I’m sure he’d have answered better.

[Springfield Reformer]

It may have looked smart to you, but to a whole lot of people it looked like a BS-my-way-out-of-it moment. A lot of evangelical Christian voters know a lot about the Israel-Palestinian conflict because it is a key part of their understanding of end times doctrine. To these people, and many others, Cain looked like he was trying to cover a serious gap in his knowledge of foreign policy. And as others have posted, his answer, once he half-way got it, was ludicrous: It’ll be up to Israel to decide whether to grant a “right to return” to a phony nationality that is no more than a political fabrication of their mortal enemies? Duh. Like Netanyahu said, ain’t gonna happen. Cain, nice guy though he may be, is not doing a talk show now; he’s auditioning for President, and he has to do better than that. He made Palin look like Kissinger.

[txrangerette]

I assume you meant Wallace, not Matthews?

[max americana]

The Cain Freepers will say “no issue” but the rest of us saw a “57 states” moment here.

[MestaMachine]

You DO realize that there are ELECTED muslims in the Israeli Knesset...don’t you?
Shariah? where in the world did THAT come from?

[This Just In]

Is there a difference? :^)

[MestaMachine]

Yeh. One’s a blond.

[txrangerette]

He made Wallace define it, by not attempting to answer and repeating the phrase with a ? after it twice. Wallace then defined it, then Herman answered it. I think it was clear to anyone of common sense that the catchwords were not in his mind, but the concept was. So what?

[onona]

I agree. I’ve been around awhile, and I’ve NEVER heard of this before I heard Levin describe what it was and what it meant only days before.

It’s a BS ploy

[wardaddy]

Cain already stumbled..on TARP...but so did Sarah.

Nobody is perfect (but me)

[taraytarah]

No issue.

P.S. I have a feeling he knows more about Israel's history than Chris Wallace.

[This Just In]

“The Cain Freepers will say “no issue” but the rest of us saw a “57 states” moment here.”

Hardly. Cain can count, and he knows his states. You’re comparing apples and oranges, not to mention that fact that you’re projecting.

The “Right To Return” was a question, and a set-up at that. Obama made an asinine statement. Big difference.

[newzjunkey]

Cain did a smart thing...he forced Chris Wallace to define the buzzwords and Chris did.

Yeah, that's what he was doing I'm sure. /s No one had any idea what "Right of Return" meant. It was only part of the dominating news story for two days. This was an evil gotcha question from the lamestream media, right?

Cain is toast.

[MestaMachine]

The only places you could have ever seen or heard such a monstrously vile negation of reason is on sites FR won’t allow posts from. There’s a reason for that.

[This Just In]

I thought they were both blond, and that one just dyed his hair in a feeble attempt to hide his blondness.

[Mr. Mojo]

Israel is a democratic Theocracy. They have their own version of Sharia Law.

Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy. And comparing their system of gov't to Sharia in any way, shape, or form is embarrassingly ignorant.

[pops88]

“Cain already stumbled..on TARP...but so did Sarah.

Nobody is perfect (but me)”

Indeed. Rolling my eyes and paging Karl Rove to hamstring everyone right out of the gate.

[gleeaikin]

I have heard that quite a few, expecially young people and women do have a problem with it. One issue of conflict is that Israel, unlike most western democracies does not allow referenda, see below:

http://www.frumforum.com/why-israel-needs-voting-reform

A second issue is that while the Israeli Declaration of Independence calls for equal rights, there is no Constitution, and Orthodox religious authority governs important rights, including those for women and marriage:

“However, the fact that large parts of Israeli life is governed by religious laws instead of secular, means that many forms of discrimination of women are legally allowed in Israel, which is a continued matter of concern to the U.S. State Department, as described in their annual International Religious Freedom Report, most recently in their 2009 report:[57]

“The Government, through the Chief Rabbinate, discriminates against women in civil status matters related to marriage and divorce. Under the Jewish religious court’s interpretation of personal status law, a Jewish woman may not receive a final writ of divorce without her husband’s consent. Consequently, thousands of women, so-called agunot—”chained women”—are unable to remarry or have legitimate children because their husbands have either disappeared or refused to grant divorces. Rabbinical tribunals have the authority to impose sanctions on husbands who refuse to divorce their wives or on wives who refuse to accept divorce from their husbands, but they can not grant a divorce without the husband’s consent, and women can not seek redress in civil courts.[57]

“The only in-country Jewish marriages the Government recognizes are those performed by the Orthodox Jewish establishment; and the Government does not allow civil marriages (e.g., secular ceremonies performed by state or municipal authorities) or marriages performed by Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist rabbis. In order to marry in government-recognized ceremonies, Jews have to undergo marriage counseling administered by the Orthodox religious authorities. As part of this counseling, all Jews—including the secular majority and those who practice reform or conservative Judaism—are instructed to respect traditional Orthodox family roles. A brochure used in the counseling during the reporting period compared women to clay and urged the husband to “shape and mold her as he pleases.” The husband is also instructed not to become “spineless” or tolerate disrespectful behavior from his wife: “If she is disrespectful you must not give in; you can become angry and stop talking to her until she realizes she is wrong.” The husband is also admonished to compliment his wife regularly, “even if it is a lie,” because “a woman who has not been complimented is like a fish out of water.”[57]”

Mixed gender religious services at holy sites are forbidden, like at the Wailing Wall, and on buses traveling through Orthodox areas, woman must sit in the back of the bus. Information and quotes from “Human Rights in Israel” at Wikipedia.

[txrangerette]

The sky is falling, too.

[cynwoody]

From the BBC, Saturday, November 6, 1999 ... America's Bush no whizz on foreign quiz ...

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?" Hiller:

Bush was still amused after the first question "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots, " the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr Bush had to offer.

Come 12 September 2001, he sure as hell knew!

[Springfield Reformer]

C’mon, it was a full stall. Wallace’s first “clarification” didn’t add much either, just added the qualifier “Palestinian.” Then Cain is off and away on dumping it into the “just negotiate it” bucket, a nice, safe, ambiguous catchall that doesn’t require Cain to expose his lack of understanding. Then Wallace presses him because he knows he’s hiding in ambiguity, and Cain is now stuck with a doctrine of negotiation of what Israel has said is nonnegotiable. A gaffe is a gaffe. All politicians are human and all make mistakes. It’s just better to not look like you’re trying to cover up for what you don’t know, especially to key demographics for whom this is clear and open knowledge.

[flaglady47]

“He made Wallace define it, by not attempting to answer and repeating the phrase with a ? after it twice. Wallace then defined it, then Herman answered it. I think it was clear to anyone of common sense that the catchwords were not in his mind, but the concept was. So what?”

Oh, for heaven sakes. Cain blew it bigtime. He had no clue what Matthews was asking him about. Even after Matthews gave him a big hint. Stop trying to cover for him. Cain doesn’t know foreign policy, and we already have one guy as Prez who doesn’t know it either. Why would we want another foreign policy illiterate, even if both Cain and Obama are smooth talkers. That’s not good enough, being a smooth talker. Cain’s off my list because he doesn’t have even a smidgen of foreign policy experience or knowledge, in an incredibly dangerous world.