Posted on 11/06/2011 11:33:55 AM PST by smoothsailing
November 3, 2011
Alan Caruba
It can be argued that domestic affairs are a president's top priority, but the Constitution expressly puts the chief executive in charge of setting and conducting foreign affairs. It is therefore essential to know if the candidate who wants to be president has a reasonable knowledge of events around the world.
On Tuesday evening I watched an edition of Fox News Bret Beir's Special Report where Herman Cain was "center chair" as the usual members of the panel got a chance to quiz him and, after he attempted to dispose of the charges of sexual harassment unleashed against him, syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer asked a question that dealt with foreign policy.
What would Cain do if Iran was going to unleash an attack on the U.S.? Cain gave a rambling, unspecific answer except to say he'd order an Aegis destroyer into the Persian Gulf to let Iran know he was serious, mentioning something about the use by Iran of missiles. It was distressingly clear that Cain had no more idea what he would do than he had regarding other potential foreign policy questions.
Foreign affairs are Herman Cain's Achilles' heel and it has not gone unnoticed by the political press and others. In the October 17 Washington Post, Chris Cillizza took note of Cain's appearance on "Meet the Press" where he was asked "whether Iran's involvement in an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. amounted to an act of war."
Cain replied, "After I looked at all of the information provided by the intelligence community, the military, than I could make that decision." That is what is known as a lawyerly response. "If, if it's an act of war, and the evidence suggests that, than I am going to consult with my advisors and say, 'What are our options"'"
If Barack Obama's extremely muted response is any indication, there aren't that many overt options, though one might hope that there are a host of covert ones in the works.
During a PBS interview with Judy Woodruff, Cain was asked about China as a potential military threat to the U.S. At one point Cain said, "They've indicated that they're trying they're trying to develop nuclear capability..." China conducted its first text of a nuclear device on October 16, 1964. It is estimated to have some 400 nuclear weapons. They are not "developing" a nuclear threat. They are a nuclear threat in the same way as other nations with nuclear weapons. This is why Iran is hell-bent on acquiring its own nuclear weapons.
A man no one could accuse of being anything but conservative, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, had Cain on his program and, in a segment with Dennis Miller, the show's comic relief, O'Reilly said, "Look, I like Herman Cain. I like his spirit. I think he presents himself very well. But when he came on The Factor a few weeks ago, he had no clue about foreign affairs."
Cain lacks a good poker face. When asked questions for which he is unprepared, his eyes begin to blink like a deranged traffic light. He responds with some programmed answer that is often unrelated to the question. He is the proverbial deer in the headlights.
During a recent speech to a Republican audience, he said that so far as he's concerned, America is Israel's ally and vice versa. That got the predictable applause. Cain visited Israel in August on a fact-finding tour. He met with a deputy prime minister and the Mayor of Jerusalem.
However, when he was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, he was asked about the Palestinian demand of "right of return," a major divide between Israelis and Palestinians, and Cain had no idea what it was. "That's something that should be negotiated," said Cain, grasping for an answer that sounded sensible, but the issue is not negotiable so far as the Israelis are concerned and with good reason. Someone even casually aware of the issues affecting Israel would know that.
Stephen Yates, president of the DC Advisory and former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, might not be expected to criticize a GOP candidate, but when asked he said of Cain, "These are the kind of questions a leading candidate cannot simply pass to advisors. To date, Cain has not projected command of these presidential imperatives."
A pizza company executive or one leading a restaurant trade association probably doesn't need to know much about foreign affairs, but a candidate for President of the United States needs to know more than some hasty daily briefings by his campaign staffers.
Cain dismissed the fact he had no idea where Uzbekistan is or its strategic importance to U.S. foreign affairs. "When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say, you know, I don't know. Do you know?" Even Obama knows that a stable relationship with Uzbekistan is regarded as of vital importance to the war in Afghanistan for its airport and as a transit corridor to reduce dependence on Pakistan.
Cain thinks foreign affairs questions are "gotcha" questions, but they may well be the most critical questions a potential president has to understand and answer. It is testimony to the difficulty of these issues that Barack Obama has essentially carried out most of the policies put in place by George W. Bush when it comes to foreign affairs.
Right now Herman Cain is the candidate-de-jour in the polls, but so was Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry when he got into the race. I like the fact that Cain is a bona fide conservative. I don't like the obvious fact that he couldn't find Uzbekistan on the map and probably doesn't know much else about the world.
On that count alone, I would not vote for him. Republicans have to get over their current love affair with Herman Cain and select a candidate more qualified to lead the nation.
© Alan Caruba
“Religious type fervor”? That’s bulshite. Cain is an appealing candidate. He is not running as the candidate from Jeopardy.
It's not that bad altura, come on, your freeper #33! You've seen this crap for years and have the respect of those of us who dare to call ourselves oldtimers!
We'll get through these flamewars yet again. Hang in there.
” Slow day on the Perry threads, isn’t it?... “
I suppose you may have a point.
Fair enough. You’re anonymous, and the charges are unspecific. So you’re playing by the rules. All you lack is a sleazy Clintonoid lawyer/spokesperson.
Let’s see... I bet Cain is smart enough to give appropriate gifts to foreign dignitaries. He wouldn’t give a blind PM some NTSC region DVDs or a (partially) deaf queen an iPod loaded with his “great” speeches. He seems to have enough dignity to restrain himself from bowing to third world dictators. He seems smart enough to listen to his advisers so he might avoid such foibles as screwing up a toast to a queen. Did I miss anything?
You're telling me. I was piled on last night, on the Cain-Gingrich debate thread, for lack of Cainolatry. Even got poisonous freepmail. The worshippers are quick to commit personal attacks and then accuse the target of personal attack, simply for not loving their candidate. Well I don't love him. Moreover, some of his supporters here do him no credit. The incivility is more disappointing than the irrationality; I can overlook projection and fallacious argument, but puerile insults and malice are harder to take from fellow conservatives. (Until I adjusted the ping page to make replies invisible. Hurray for white font! ;) )
That was a thoughtful post and I appreciate your not resorting to calling me a Perrywinkle.
I just think that too many people are putting total trust in a guy they don’t know much about.
He was a moderately successful business man, worked for the army, is obviously conservative and genial, was a talk show host that I never heard of, and has no record.
No record seems to appeal to people who want a blank slate to put all their hopes and dreams on.
This is his first foray into politics except for a failed senate run in which he didn’t even contend.
He’s never been vetted and, of course, there will be questions about him and to him, and he needs to be prepared to answer them.
His most well-known appointment so far is that weird guy who’s running his campaign. Is that the judgment he’d use in making political appointments?
See, we don’t know, and it serves us ill to be afraid to know.
It seems like people are looking for a kindly old grandfather to take care of them.
I want an experienced guy who’s got a record of the type of people he appoints, of the reforms he’s made and of the job-friendly atmosphere he’s created in a large state.
Although especially burdened with illegals and a large influx of poor Mexicans, legal and illegal, he’s still managed to keep Texas affluent and prospering.
Sorry for the riff on Perry which I’m sure will result in further insults but the difference in record is just so obvious to anyone who is not under some kind of bizarre spell.
If a president asked him to join the team, he would be obliged to accept.
Patriots don't shirk their duty!
So you Perrywinkes have changed the rules then? A thread about Cain isn’t a Cain thread?
(oh my head hurts)
Oh, thanks, Jean. I’ll hang in here.
It’s just kinda sad that I’ve gone from being a beloved old-time freeper, conservative to the core, to being the gal everybody loves to hate.
Your contention is full of crap. And your motivation of trying to tear down Cain in compensation for the fact that your guy is in single digits is both transparent and shameless.
The cure for that is pretty simple. Act more like a Freeper and less like an unprincipled political hack.
Hey, I was there with you.
But I kinda regret getting on there and making posts.
It was a prayer meeting and everybody there just wanted to shout Amen.
Weird? According to whom? You?
I contend that you are weird.LOL
They are atop most of the polls for now.
We'll talk again on the night of January 3, 2012, after the Iowa Caucus.
I expect Sarah Palin to endorse Cain By Christmas.
If she waits to see who the establishment installs before endorsing, then she isn't a rogue, but another Rino.
” Now that he’s leading in some polls, he may decide he doesn’t need Romney.
And now that he has a little baggage, Romney may decide he doesn’t need Cain. “
Think about it, altura, that is hilarious! What you said is too funny! And true! You made me spray coffee! There is no telling what’s coming down the pike with all this slow dancing, where you then switch and change partners! LOL! Romney us probably furious with Cain for his team up with Gingrich in Houston last night. After all, Romney was the one getting all the eye lashing from Cain, who was giving Perry the tongue lashing, and now THIS. Gingrich!
placemark
From Herman Cain:
Romney is not a Staunch Conservative (10/15/11)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793447/posts
Cain Wants a Fight in Las Vegas
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57544.html
Herman Cain Hits Romney on Healthcare Plan
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/herman-cain-hits-romney-health-care-plan
Cain Discusses what is Wrong with Romney’s Job’s Plan
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/herman-cain-and-dick-discuss-whats-wrong-with-romneys-jobs-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
__________
And an extra little tidbit
On 1/22/08, he donated $2300 to Mike Huckabee. SO Huckabee was his choice in 2008 until it came down to Romney/McCain.
The thread's topic is a commentary that criticizes Cain as lacking foreign policy expertise (or even familiarity in some cases). Is there a rule here against agreeing with such commentary? Or pointing out the attendant incivility arising from stating same?
Indeed, given the commentary, this would seem to be an anti-Cain thread. In that case, is only Cain defense permitted?
Or is it "disruptive" to say anything that might antagonize the hypersensitive Cain supporters, including an observation that they ARE readily antagonized?
LOL! This isn't a Cain thread, it's just a thread. No one owns it, no one defines it, with the exception of the moderators or Jim Robinson.
As for me being a Perry supporter, that's partially accurate. There are three candidates I could vote for, were the election held today. Perry, Bachmann, Cain, in that order.
Fact is Perry supporters constantly complain that opposing views on “Perry threads” are disruptive.
That is certainly a generality, and it's far from a fact. But so what, if you don't like Perry supporters, challenge their views. The snarky comments don't help you at all. And think about this, you're the one who keeps on talking about Perry, not me.
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.