Skip to comments.Cain's Foreign Policy Fogginess
Posted on 11/23/2011 8:24:43 PM PST by TitansAFC
"I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy," said Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain the other day after fumbling a question about President Obama's actions in Libya. "Because you run for president [people say] you need to have the answer. No, you don't! No, you don't!" His dearth of knowledge and interest in foreign policy was on full display in last night's GOP debate....
...On the Patriot Act, Mr. Cain was even more hazy. "If there are some areas of the Patriot Act that we need to refine, I'm all for that. But I do not believe we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater." Again, he wouldn't specify which areas of the Patriot Act he disagreed with or thought should be amended. Neither would he say with any clarity whether he'd support an Israeli strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear weapons program.....
....Finally, when asked whether he would support a no-fly zone over Syria, he muttered that he would rather "work with our allies in the region to put pressure to be able to try and get our allies and other nations to stop buying oil from Syria." (The European Union implemented an oil embargo against Syria in September.) Then he pivoted to "growing this economy....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That said: he is not the right man to occupy the Oval Office.
Many of us went through this with Gov. Palin. As the left/MSM continue the hatchet job on Mr. Cain, the more I’m inclined to support him. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
As a Clarence Thomas constitutional conservative, Mr. Cain in 8 years would undercut the foundation of LBJs welfare state and be an effective antidote to the left/media propaganda based on racism/sexism that pervades virtually EVERY policy debate. We will get no real change so long as the Big Lie is unchallenged- and Establishment Pubs, concerned only with survival in their private fiefdoms, will never challenge it.
In that sense, Mr. Cains value is not just winning in 2012- his value is 8 years of a conservative Black American undoing a dynamic that has perennially paralyzed the Republican Party on all levels of government.
I agree with those who say there may be a better candidates-— but I dont believe there is one that can better serve the ends of constitutional conservatives than the redoubtable Cain.
Instead of tearing him down- conservatives should be building him up-— his value to constitutional conservatism may well be transformational.
As time goes on, it’s becoming an uncomfortable truth, that many FReepers can better answer the questions posed to Herman Cain, particularly the questions relating to foreign policy. Of course, he’s the one on stage under pressure, but still ...
I prefer a man that has the ability to learn over a man that claims to know it all.
With all the snipeing, all the polls, and the orchastrated hit pieces, I remain...
Cain might be better in the VP slot because were the GOP nominee to win, he could gain experience for the top slot and be put to work reforming the bureaucracy.
He’s not experienced enough to be president.
I like the guy on a personal level having spoken with him 1-on-1, but he’s not ready.
He has a lot of support here! He’s only made rookie mistakes on his own. The other slams were media lies and smears, but he seems to have over ome that.
He really has to do some cramming to better himself on foreign policy if he’s going to debate the Marxist.
Little secret: I actually like Herman Cain, a lot. I believe he would be mostly, though not always Conservative. He is a likable man!
I also believe Patriot Perry and Intellectual Newt would be effective, Conservative Presidents. Santorum would be ideal, but he is a non-starter.
The issue in this case is that the GOP has always prided itself on being the knowledgable party when it comes to foreign policy. Being ignorant of it is bad enough; but proudly thumping one’s chest, boasting of one’s ignorance on foreign policy is particularly unacceptable.
Cain is not ready to be the leader of the Free World and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world. That’s not some anti-Cain screed, that’s the truth. He is not ready, and the Presidency is not an entry-level position on these things.
Still, I will be supporting whoever gets the nod, as long as it’s not Mitt or Huntsman.
How about Newt’s foreign policy on illegal immigration.
The guy does not give a $hit about our borders. Oh yeah he cheated on his wife because he loved America so much.
“When”, not if.
An oversight, I’m sure.
They can give them welfare, feed them, house them, educate them, provide them a drivers license, but for some reason they can't deport them????
This is the problem with Cain, he either has an airy answer, a joke answer, or a slogan answer.
If you watched the debates on foreign policy, and it is amazing how many who have so much to say did not even watch them, you would have seen all of the great experts so much more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Mr. Cain, when asked what they would do about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and China.....
Every single one of them gave a different answer.
Iran was the best example. The suggestions ran the extremes of make love (Ron Paul) to bomb them. Sanctions, blockades....
Now if they are all so up on the topic, tell me why they did not agree.
The fact is that none of them, without privy to a high security briefing by the CIA, the military, etc., do not have enough information to make a decision.
So they were all just running their mouths.
The silliest of all were the suggestions of sanctions and a blockade.
We have had sanctions against Cuba for 50 years and Castro is the longest living dictator in modern history.
As for blockades, I assume that would mean that any Russian or Chinese ship or plane would be fired upon when they attempted to breach the blockade.
Why don’t I like that idea? Well, I well remember WWII and I am not looking forward to WWIII.
Before you accept the MSM’s anointed experts and condemn Cain, think more about how widely varying the experts were in their opinions. That should scare the hell out of you.
The media writes as if we are all flaming morons and have no idea what any of the candidates mean.
Simple google search and here it is...
Basic search on google returns and Main data source: CIA World Fact Book
Syria Oil is major export - $3.2 billion 25% of revenue http://t.co/6gAZOWr
“Earnings from oil exports are one of the government’s most important sources of foreign exchange”
And on Iran regarding mountains - another basic google search turns up from MSNBC
Iran to put nuke sites inside mountains
Move appears aimed at shielding facilities from military attack
Journalists are so damn lazy. Research is ignored and facts are created.
Do you like / respect Condoleezza Rice when it comes to Foreign Policy?
If so, you might want to take a look at some of her opinions about whether a candidate needs to be an expert on foreign policy before taking office. She says no. And she has been specifically asked about Cain in this regard.
Perry and Newt said they would strengthen if they knew what was in it FIRST...Time for this feeble reporter to whine about them too.
Why doesn’t the WSJ endorse the pro-amnesty pro-mandate influence peddler and get it over with, enough with the pretense.
LOL want to freak out the left?
Your post brought a thought to my mind.
Cain / Rice.
Liberals heads would absolutely explode. All across America.
Horsepuckey. He didn't "mutter" anything. Whether this author liked what Cain said or not, he is spewing a lie here. Cain spoke clearly, plainly, and with purpose. There was no muttering.
So many of these hit pieces smack so hard of racism it's pathetic. Thank God Cain grew up in the segregated South, and he's dealt with it his whole life, so he is stronger than any of us when it comes to these attacks.
“That said: he is not the right man to occupy the Oval Office.”
AND, there is no way on earth that he could win against Obama, none.
I think you’re right. He’s very intelligent, but he has to learn the craft.
What utter bullcrap from the WSJ.
Cain didn’t “mutter” any of his three answers in the debate, and clearly said “No” to a no-fly zone over Syria.
I despise the media.
I will bet that y ou were not an adult when Reagan was running for the office.
The libs, the inside the beltway rinos said the same about him.
Wanted to shoot someone. Would start WWIII...
An actor with not enough stuff to be President.
Yes indeed! LOL
Yeah, many of us keep talking about Cain/Gingrich, but Cain/Rice would be something to see!
Now Rice is a woman who knows how to act Presidential. I like Bachmann’s views, her intelligence, her love of America, her tenaciousness... but she doesn’t come across as Presidential. She always takes her arguments to the “whining woman” stage, and she loses me at that point.
Condoleeza Rice, on the other hand, can look you in the eye and call you an idiot, with a smile on her face, and you walk away respecting her and probably agreeing with her. Her calm, intelligent, mature, rational/reasonable, and knowledgeable demeanor project Leadership and garner respect.
I know I keep saying the same, because it’s true, “not one primary vote has been cast”, but I think Newt Gingrich will likely beat Romney for the nomination, and I base my prediction on foreign policy along with Gingrich’s debating skills.
You’re dead-bang right, when you state that the GOP has always prided itself for being the knowledgeable foreign policy party.
Last night, Ollie North said that Newt Gingrich knows more about foreign policy than all of the candidates on the stage combined. A lot of voters probably agree.
The very thought of Iran with nukes scares every thinking person, but maybe that issue will soon be moot. Who knows? If not, it’s almost a guarantee that under obama’s watch, Iran has clear sailing unless Israel acts alone and then the US is forced to help.
Condi can look me in the eye and call me an idiot any time.
Dr. Rice is one of the people I most respect.
Let’s not drop this idea. She could be a very valuable “anti-Hillary”, should the need arise.
Feeble reporter is right. He writes: “when asked whether he [Cain] would support a no-fly zone over Syria, he MUTTERED.....-”
One thing one must concede about Mr. Cain- he doesn’t “mutter”. _:)
HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!
and Good Night!
Foggy? Where was Obama born? At two Hawaii hospitals and in Mombasa.
What was his nationality on his passport on his 1981 trip to Pakistan when Americans didn't go there.
Why did he not come to the defense of the Iranian people in 2009 when Mamoud Ahmadinejad sent thugs to shoot and beat them.
Why has Obama removed secular regimes in the region to allow Muslim Brotherhood to take over.
Why has Obama allowed China to drill but U.S. companies not so much.
Why has Obama armed Mexican drug gangs and declared war on our Border Patrol.
When we need jobs and oil, why did Obama block the pipeline from Canada.
Why does Obama bow to the Saudi king and the Chinese dictator but give Americans the finger.
Why is the Wall Street Journal pimping for the Degenerate Islamo Commie Kenyan.
Why are we in Afghanistan when president Karzai said he'd side with Pakistan against us.
Why has the poppy crop thrived there and why is China allowed to ship tens of thousands of tons of precursors to Mexican super labs for the river of meth entering CONUS.
Why do we maintain a cocaine-using homosexual traitor in the Oval Office and persecute a temperate married patriot.
Why is the Wall Street Journal attacking Herman Cain and giving Hussein the Twelfth Imam a pass.
A no-fly zone over Syria? Really? Syria was building a North Korean-style reactor--it took Israel to take it out.
By leaving Iraq Hussein is giving it to Rat Boy in Tehran.
And I'm supposed to shame Herman Cain for not knowing who catches dogs in the former Soviet Union?
He said he wasn’t supposed to know EVERYTHING about foreign policy not anything.
Or he could just tune in to Rush or Walton & Johnson while he’s on his bus tours. ;-)
Our founders did not intend for the country to be run by professional politicians.
Therefore, they could not have expected their candidates to be expert on all things.
They envisioned ordinary people leaving their farms and professions to serve for one or two terms and return to their private lives.
They expected persons of common sense and good judgment to make sound decisions that were not based on improving their political future.
We have not only drifted far from that theory, we seem to be determined to prevent a return to it.
Couple things that Reagan had that is lacking in Cain. Prior to his candidacy for President, Reagan wrote and spoke extensively about freedom and anti-communism for years. He developed an understanding wrote and spoke on foreign policy as he moved into his political career, which led to a successful win of the Governorship of California.
Two examples Pre-Governorship and Pre-Presidential candidacy:
“During the eight years of his contract with General Electric, Reagan spoke at every one of the company’s 135 plants and to many of GE’s 250,000 employees in trips that served as a valuable political apprenticeship. Because he was afraid to fly, Reagan’s contract specified that he travel by train. He made good use of the long trips between plants to write his speeches in longhand on legal pads, transcribing them onto 3x5 (and later larger) cards. In these speeches, Reagan carefully reworked his themes of individual freedom and anti-Communism, surrounding his message with homey stories drawn from local newspapers or Reader’s Digest. The result was a basic addressknown as “The Speech”that expressed Reagan’s core convictions and was sprinkled with topical anecdotes. Reagan’s affable manner and genial optimism lightened the sternness of his warning that Americans were in danger of losing their individual freedoms.”
“Goldwater, however, had succeeded in his principal objective of transforming the GOP into a conservative party. It needed only a messenger to compete effectively with the Democrats and on October 27, 1964, a week before LBJ’s landslide victory, found one in the person of Reagan. In his nationally televised speech for Goldwater, Reagan called for leadership that would reduce the domestic reach of the federal government while simultaneously bolstering its military establishment and resisting the worldwide spread of Communism.”
Patriot Act: I have no idea of the details of this act. Once Obama was briefed he decided to keep it, right ?
There are many, many details and there is information not available to anyone outside of top national security people regarding a lot of security and defense-related topics.
Steve Wynn the other day on Hannity with the poll guy (at the 4:00 mark):
The President has all the information he needs or wants laid out for him: he needs intelligence and character.
Steve Wynn expressed this concept far better than I can. I’d recommend a listen at the 4 minute mark. It’s only about a minute.
Hey old guy, I’m 63. I know, love and remember President Reagan. I named my daughter, our first child, after Reagan.
However, you and I see things differently, you old curmudgeon. ;>)
HAPPY THANKSGIVING .......
Herman Cain has been pretty clear on his foreign policy, at least the outlines of it.
But I’d rather have a President who is foggy on foreign policy than one who is committed to supporting America’s enemies, as we have now.
If you listened to Newt, he was talking about people who have been here a long time, paying taxes, building roots in the community, etc. This used to be a normal GOP opinion.
Our nation is broke and we can no longer afford to house, feed, school, jail and free health care for people who have no respect for our laws.
If you listen to the Republican Candidates last night all of them are acting as if we are not bankrupt. We are 15 Trillion in debt and rising.
Thank you for correcting that ...heard the same thing reported on FOX yesterday; so, it is worth repeating. It also says something about the level of dishonesty in the media when reporting about Herman Cain ...changing “everything” to “anything” totally changes the meaning of the sentence.
The examples you list demonstrate why we shouldn’t elect someone as president who tells us merely that he would listen to experts, consider the facts and decide what is best: people with different political philosophies will come to different conclusions, and so it is important for us to understand what someone’s approach is going into the office.
Cain hasn’t a clue, so we can’t have a clue as to what he would do as president.
For me it’s not just knowledge but what one does with it. I know history teachers with an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of US History and they’re still raving moonbats. Knowledge is very different than wisdom. Knowledge is dispensed at every Ivy League college in the country. We’ve had a number of leaders from them in the past 20 or so years. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, those awards aren’t handed out in boxes of Cracker Jacks. For all of Clinton’s knowledge, even his ability to practically inhale (perhaps that’s not the right word to use with him) facts he lacked wisdom and that was key to his downfall.
Consider: you can drop a green LCpl into a war zone in a foreign land with a culture & language he barely understands and where he’s confronted with a situation he’s never experienced before. Yet, he can make the exact right decision on the spur of the moment. Would it help if he knew more about the people? Perhaps, but there was much more to consider than “facts”. Drop an expert in (name your war torn country here) in place of the LCpl and he’s liable to get the entire squadron killed. No one would argue the LCpl knows much less than the “expert”. Heck, he’s probably been given little more than a basic briefing. What he does have is the ability to make an extremely critical decision based on the (few) facts he knows and the situation as it exists. Meanwhile, the expert is still assessing options A & B when the bullet flies through his chest. The expert is important but the decisonmaker is critical.
While experts are, without a doubt, who you want for in depth research, analysis and briefings, big picture guys are good at what they do (making decisions based on information the “experts” bring them). And they have enough confidence in themselves and their ability to find a solution so that they don’t waste time second guessing themselves. “Ideas” have a lot of gray areas but decisions are usually black or white.
“Experts” are convinced they know everything and don’t need others’ advice. People who readily acknowledge their shortcomings are keenly aware of their strengths and aren’t so wrapped up in their own egos to ask for advice from people who DO have specialized expertise in critical areas. And, because their ability to make good decisions (which is THEIR particular expertise) depends on having the best information available they’re “experts” at finding the best experts . Being aware of one’s limitations tends to make people better able to consider a variety of options and ideas (and much more quickly) than someone wallowing in information overload and afraid to make a mistake.
We’ve becomed conditioned to believe our leaders need to have certain kinds of knowledge instead of certain kinds of skills. It’s why we’ve ended up with an entrenched political class. Everyone thought David Brooks was an arrogant twit when he said we should leave governing to the experts, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. “Well, the things happening now are too important to trust to a novice” (i.e. someone who may have great leadership skills but isn’t plugged in to a political machine at one level or another). There’s a certain irony in the fact that many people think the nation is at too critical of a tipping point to trust the EXECUTIVE branch to an...EXECUTIVE. For myself I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that this time in our history is too important to continue doing what we’ve always done. That’s the definition of insanity.
I just want someone with the same common sense as the average American. People who spend too much time in the rarified air of the permanent political class forget that 1+1=2. You can play with the numbers all you want and you aren’t ever going to get it to equal 73 but “experts” generally manage to convince themselves they can. Besides, you can find experts on Iran, Islam, Russia, palm reading, energy policy, coal mining, horror films, making fudge, etc. We don’t have a problem finding experts. We need visionaries. Cain is a visionary.
-”I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy,”
-”Because you run for president [people say] you need to have the answer. No, you don’t! No, you don’t!”
I was defending Cain because it seemed like he was trying to give a good answer to a shabby question, but this pretty much kills that.
He's perfected this approach to foreign policy, that's for sure.
Maybe Herman ought to reconsider going for the Senate again.
But, there were candidates who all strongly agreed on the principle of peace through strength and holding the line on the defense budget. Romney even suggested increasing it as the world grows more hostile, if I'm not mistaken.
Do you have a link to a Cain speech or interview where he suggested cuttiong back the military?
By the way, explain how we can have a strong national defense with no money.
Without a strong economy, we are in real serious trouble and Romney and Gingrich are more of the same.
Not the same as obummer, but the same as Bush.
Who do you support?
I would have been an avid Palin supporter, and I have since briefly turned to Cain and then Gingrich. I’m now resigned to our not having any really good options.
If I had to pick a best choice, I’d surprisingly now probably look toward Bachmann. I don’t think she has the least chance of winning and I think she’s in there to help Romney, so even thinking she’s the best option kind of bums me out. But she’s unqestionably IMO the strongest conservative running—in positions, core philosophy and spine. She has a good grasp of foreign and domestic issues and is able to express her views cogently.
I suspect, however, the nominee will be Romney.