Posted on 10/07/2011 9:02:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Jason Pye
October 7, 2011
Back in May, Herman Cain answered a few questions from Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic dealing with Libya and civil liberties issues. Cain’s answers on the USA PATRIOT Act were disappointing; and quite frankly, showed a severe lack of respect for the Fourth Amendment, especially for someone that supposedly wants to restore the Constitution.
Oddly though, Cain rejected the idea of a president authorizing the death of American citizen, as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Here the relevant part of the interview (Friedersdorf’s questions are in bold):
President Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he’s declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it a good policy because it allows us to take out Americans who may have joined Al Qaeda? Or is it a bad policy-
Well first of all, this is the first that I have heard - you’re saying it’s okay to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist related. Is that what you said?!
Yes, that’s what I said.
I’ve got to be honest with you. I have not heard that. I had not heard that’s something that he said. I don’t believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That’s why we have our court system, and that’s why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you’re a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you’re locked up, but you have to go through due process.
What about other people who are locked up? Where should we try terrorists when we capture them? Military tribunals? The court system?
I firmly believe it should be military tribunals. I don’t believe we should clog up our court system trying terrorists. They’re not citizens of the United States. They are a threat to the United States. I think they should be tried by military tribunals. The process would move a lot faster, and we are much more likely to get the proper judgment against these people who have killed many of our citizens, and who have a desire to kill more of our citizens.
While Cain was unaware of the situation in question — a troublesome revelation in and of itself, you can see that there is no ambiguity in his answer, even if the American citizen in question is engaged in terrorist activities, as Cain says, “they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process.”
But this week, just days after Awlaki was killed without due process, Cain expressed support for President Obama’s action and denied that he ever said anything to the contrary (emphasis mine):
During a brief phone interview this afternoon with The Weekly Standard, Cain responded to questions that have been raised about his positions on the war on terror and taxes.
Asked why he had backed off his opposition to the U.S. military’s targeting Anwar Awlaki, the al Qaeda terrorist and American citizen who was killed Friday by a drone strike in Yemen, Cain denied that he had ever opposed taking out Awlaki.
“I never said that [President Obama] should not have ordered [the killing]. I don’t recall saying that. I think you’ve got some misinformation,” Cain said. “Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there trying to make me sound as if I am indecisive.”
Uh, we didn’t have to try, Mr. Cain. You’re doing a pretty good job of making yourself sound indecisive. Of course, this isn’t the first gaffe Cain has made on foreign policy issues. Remember, he bombed Chris Wallace’s question on Palestinian “right of return” during a visit on Fox News Sunday and other answers on foreign policy questions have been essentially that we’ll have to elect him to find out what he believes. Unfortunately for Cain (but thankfully for the rest of us), it doesn’t work that way.
Cain has also been backing himself into a corner on Rick Perry. It’s become obvious that he’s not Perry’s biggest fan, it seems for political reasons more than anything else, as evidence by overplaying his hand on the hunting camp story that was recently brought to light.
During an interview yesterday with the National Journal, Cain said that he’d consider the vice-presidential spot on the ticket with any of his rivals…except for Perry:
Herman Cain said Thursday that he would consider an invitation to join an eventual Republican presidential nominee as a vice presidential candidate — unless the nominee is Rick Perry.
[…]
“I would not say no to being vice president of the United States,” Cain said. “But it would depend upon who got the nomination. I will support who gets the nomination. I know I have said that there are some people right now who I cannot support, but I wouldn’t say no to it. I could say yes. But it has to be someone who I believe I can complement them in their job by being able to bring my skills to the table.”But, Cain told the National Journal, “Quite frankly, based upon Governor Perry’s position on some issues, I would not be comfortable being his vice presidential nominee.”
Cain said that while he hasn’t “totally gone through all of [Perry’s] positions, but a lot of positions I have questions with” including “being soft on the border, issues relative to tuition for children of illegal aliens.”
Interestingly, Tax Hike Mike Huckabee held a similar position as Perry on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, but that didn’t stop Cain from sending Huckabee $2,300 during the 2008 primary.
We’ll have more on Cain later. Stay tuned.
Here is what Dr. Jack Wheeler said about Cain today: Will it be show time for Cain? Will one of his competitors ask him about the fatal flaw in his 9-9-9 tax reform plan? As Erik Erickson asks it:
"Given the Republican Party has a unparalleled history of being unable or unwilling to truly scale back the size and scope of the federal government and its creeping socialism, do we really want the Republican Party to be the party to introduce a national sales tax or VAT tax without first repealing the income tax?"
There's also the question of to what extent Cain is a jerk. He certainly is one towards Perry for whom he expresses a personal animus. He refuses to apologize for implying that Perry was somehow "insensitive" regarding the Niggerhead Rock smear, and told Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday (10/05) that:
"If it's one of those other candidates up there (who gets the nomination instead of him), I am going to support them 100%. If Governor Perry gets the nomination, I will still support him, but it won't be 100%."
Sorry, but this is simply being a jerk. Perry wants to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and drastically reduce the size and power of the federal government via the 10th Amendment, while Romney as an establishment RINO will do none of this. But Cain could get behind the RINO and not the 10th Amendment guy?
His argument is particularly pathetic, misconstruing Perry's stand on illegal immigration. The hypocrisy is glaring, for, as the regional manager of hundreds of Burger Kings and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, he employed hundreds if not thousands of illegals. Has anyone ever asked him what actions he took to ensure the businesses he ran hired no illegals?
There's a lot to like in Herman Cain but there's a lot to give one pause as well.
They’re at it again...
Interesting, isn’t it? :)
Cain has plenty of executive experience and it has been in the real world, not the smoke and mirrors of government. Our government needs to be purged of the inefficient folderol that passes for executive skill.
That’s good stuff there.
Perry would do well to dismiss that question with the remark that primary debates are not the place for theological discourses.
If it matters to your knee-jerk self, I think Perry has been treated pretty fair. He caused most of his own troubles. Now, get off my a$$!
You dare question the pizza man? No pepperoni for you! :)
The dude has more leadership qualification than my arm is long and has demonstrated complete understanding of the business model of success...
if by amateur you mean politics, uh guess what that's what the hell we want!
Sheeesh....lol
Sorry, but that is just wrong! No American whatever his power has the sanction to condemn another American to death.
You really need to look and the bigger picture...
Do you really want the President to have a hit list and the power to put any American to death on his word? I would think not, but if you really believe what you are saying, that would be the outcome. It does not require the Congress or anyone else to sanctify or disagree with the President, he would have the power? To allow that would be the start of another revolution...
I agree, Cain is an amateur when it comes to the dealings of corrupt "professional" politicians. He definitely is not in the same league as political class, establishment politicians who care more about their personal position then the Country.
Cain is exactly what America needs.
Until he gets a grasp of the 1st and 2nd amendment he won’t get my vote.
LOL! I voted for Rick every time he ran, but that thing with Specter was a real turn off. That and the dance he did on residency and school taxes. Anyhoo, if he somehow manages to be the last man standing, he’ll get my vote again.
Oh shame on you. Cain was asked a question. He answered it while specifically stating he did not think it reflected Perry's views.
The Perry supporters then rushed right out and started posting threads whining about how "Cain had attacked Perry"
All the while Perry camp had been engaging in every sort of slander, lie and innuendo about Cain they could dream up.
Here is a notion for you. Make a case FOR Perry.
Just do it ONE time.
It would be a refreshing change from this non stop slander based Cult of Personality bot behavior we are seeing from the Perry camp.
You all either whine about how tough it is for Perry or you are busy slandering everyone else.
What is Perry Presidential plan and agenda? Plans and ideas NOT slogans and "He was a great guy in Texas" bloviating
Where is it?
Make the case for Perry without mentioning any other candidate. I bet not ONE of you can do it.
I just don’t understand why every one piles on Rick for an endorsement 5 years ago as a disqualifier. What the hell.
======================================
Herman Cain in 2011
======================================
Herman Cain's Endorsement of Romney Two Days Before Super Tuesday, 2008
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.
It certainly is.
Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.