Thread: Herman Cain makes huge blunder on Fox News Sunday

Originally Posted by 9aces

Actually Netanyahu's position is completely reasonable considering the situation.

The odds the Arabs will stop trying to exterminate the Israelis is essentially zero. If you haven't been in that part of the world you have absolutely no idea how badly and how deeply the two hate each other.

Anyone who doesn't recognize the sheer amount of hatred is indeed a fool.

There's plenty of hate in that area, and unfortunately those who feel so and even act upon it get the most attention, have the loudest voices, do the really bad acts, etc. It's the bulk of the reasonable caught in the crossfire will less ears for attention, again part of the problem.

I don't think Netanyahu's position is completely reasonable. First, the idea that Israel is indefensible with the 1967 border is fools gold. If Israel incorporated the West Bank altogether, it would not be defensible in the way he insincerely suggests it would be. Even the current Israeli Ambassador could tell you that:

YouTube - Michael Oren on War

Nor did the 1967 borders mean Israel was indefensible. It even got the West Bank by kicking ass.

It's about the settlements and especially desires to own Jerusalem entirely as part of a religious/cultural desire. The 'indefensible' claim by him was mostly pretext for that.

As for the Arab hardliners, sure they exist. But amongst the bulk are those wanting a settlement. So long as Israel is settling and controlling the West Bank, West Bank people will take any ally they can get on their own streets or outside. It's common sense they'll do so.

Other fights once deemed intractable have gotten solved by reaching settlements deemed fair or at least fair enough. These deals alienate hardliners and even get average joes against them, fearing they'll jeopardise the deal they can now live with.

And even if that's still going to be a hard process--and it will--Israel gets no benefit without taking those steps for domestic, neighbouring and international benefits to its situation. It can either expect what's going on now to be perpetual, or it can seek to eradicate all people from the West Bank and make it's situation likely worse in reactions, or it can make a deal with them and gather more friends it needs than foes it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

You are making an argument for Cain running for political office, maybe even the U.S. senate, BEFORE he tries to run in the Presidential elections.

He is obviously not ready to be POTUS, and if he is as smart as many people believe he is, he should realize this pretty quickly, before he makes a fool of himself.

His acuman in business could be useful in other elected offices, and these may prepare him for a later run at the White House.

I'd prefer Cain run for governor of Georgia, and I don't think he's in the same league as the Republicans who have been governors. However, he is very well informed for a guy who isn't coached before he makes every appearance. I don't consider him a fringe candidate, and frankly in that debate he beat the snot out of two governors. Let's see how he does against Romney and Huntsman, and then maybe Obama.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Adaher,

i doubt that be the case, me friend. one thing i'll say, be that i think alot more than 10% 'o USPO knows that the right 'o return is, and anyone runnin' fer the skipper's seat ought to be at least as wonky as the folks who walk our decks.

- MeadHallPirate

I'd prefer a wonk, but I have an instinctive trust for candidates who don't control questioning or appearances and don't have an entourage of smart people to tell them what to say. People who don't do all that deserve a little bit of slack. Politics is a HUGE subject, and contray to what danny and o'sullivan think, the nuances of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are not a huge issue. It certainly qualifies as important, but I wouldn't even rate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top 10 foreign policy issue, much less a top 10 issue overall. In terms of what the media is interested in and the whole squeaky wheel syndrome, the conflict seems vitally important. But it kills less people than crime in DC, less people than a dozen other conflicts around the world, and it's geopolitical significance has always been overstated. And this is only one single minor point in that conflict.

And even without knowing fully what it was all about, Cain STILL came down in the same place as the administration!

Originally Posted by adaher

Clinton I believe was an encylopedia of knowledge, because everyone who ever spoke to him about anything was surprised by just how much the guy knew. You don't hear that about Obama and he doesn't allow himself to get into situations where he might have to deal with issues he hasn't been briefed on. But it's easy to forget when you're a political junkie that some issues we all seem to know aren't widely understood among the broader populace. the right of return is a good example. It's just one sticking point of many in the ongoing dispute. It's not particularly embarrassing for a candidate just starting to run for President to not know something that political junkies take for granted. Most Americans watching that were probably thinking, "Haha! He's such a dumbass. He doesn't know what right of return is! Um, what is right of return, anyway?"

Clinton was exceptionally good, but that's the standard voters ought to be looking for, not excusing away. Obama likely wasn't as informed but did have good grasps on the basics and is known for intently reading, getting informed, etc. Clinton got more credit for that because he also loved being in the spotlight showing that. This POTUS isn't, and quite frankly, he'd be better serving himself if he did more of what Clinton did in explaining his advocacies. His failure to do so on the health care issue, for example, allowed the issue to go adrift into the abyss and even toiletry of comment it did by failing to do so. IMO, he's a great speech maker but otherwise not a good communicator.

Originally Posted by adaher

A lot he learned on the job or just before taking the job. Just like Presidents do. Now if Cain was to show a pattern, like Sarah Palin, of not knowing ANYTHING unless being briefed on it recently, and even then not being able to explain it coherently, that would be disqualifying. But knowing little about an issue that isn't even likely to come up, and which only takes five minutes to get a decent understanding of in a briefing, is no biggie. Call me when he promises to balance the budget by cutting foreign aid.

Sure, but that one was an area he should have known would be covered in press questions. No excuse for not knowing the basics there IMO.

Originally Posted by adaher

It's one part of the negotiations, and a small part of it, not a key issue. Other issues, like border issues, ending violence and incitement, and settlements, are far larger.

It's actually a big part of the Palestinian side and one that includes an understandable grievance of those who lost their homes. It's just often assumed to be a 'bartering' issue that must be raised in order to keep the negotiating line from shifting to a new spot against the Palestinians. That they'll get it is not assumed, just like 'British out of Ireland' was the position by Irish nationalists the Irish took in the Irish War of Independence that led to the Irish Free State that eventually led to the Irish Republic or the Good Friday settlement regarding Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by adaher

It's a Third World conflict that's "big" only because the media considers it important. It has no more or less significance than the Kashmir conflict. And significantly less than the Congo war. Presidents are supposed to worry about the important stuff, not the stuff the media considers important. Which the current President does.

It's far more than just the media making it a big one. It's the place of that region in global mindsets to a large degree given its influence on the respective religion of so many people. Khasmir and the Congo have nothing on that, although they ought to be insofar as fact over religion.

For example, on my cable, to transit manually through news channels, I have to pass through religious ones. Israel is always prominent in them. On the Evangelical ones, a large number of those types are very pro-Zionist and pro-Israel in a hardline way but for a different reason: they actually want this fight there because they believe it will lead to the Second Coming. Talk about standing up for Israel's security...geez...they want it in Armaggedon and creating the conditions for that so their big JC can come down riding a white horse and stuff like that. Many Muslim hardliners would like to accommodate those desires for the same result..the alleged Second Coming of JC (Isa). IMO, it's some really scary stuff of self-fulfilling prophecies there. And then there's some Jewish hardliners also citing religious screeds for West Bank settling. I'm as likely to find American Zionists out on the West Bank settling and looking to stir shit with the locals or other stuff there as anywhere, including inside the US in policy decision favouring that in, IMO, a severe conflict of interest in what is actually in the US' best interests.

Originally Posted by adaher

That would make sense if the people we were electing were actually prepared. Instead, they, as professionals, know they have to have a hundred advisors, and they also know not to go on talk shows without being fully briefed on the questions that are likely to come up. Even the professionals look like morons when they get asked an unexpected question. The number of politicians who are actually knowledgeable is very small. And you'll notice they tend to go on the Sunday talk shows much more frequently than others.

The Clinton administration was unique in that the primary decisionmakers were the Clintons and Al Gore. Most administrations, the decisions are made by the experts and the President just gives his approval. This administration is one of the more common types, with Panetta, Goolsbee, Gates, Furman, etc. calling the shots.

Again, though, my issue goes with the low standards existing on picking candidates. That what you said is often true is indicative to me that it's a problem.

Originally Posted by adaher

I'd prefer a wonk, but I have an instinctive trust for candidates who don't control questioning or appearances and don't have an entourage of smart people to tell them what to say. People who don't do all that deserve a little bit of slack. Politics is a HUGE subject, and contray to what danny and o'sullivan think, the nuances of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are not a huge issue. It certainly qualifies as important, but I wouldn't even rate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top 10 foreign policy issue, much less a top 10 issue overall. In terms of what the media is interested in and the whole squeaky wheel syndrome, the conflict seems vitally important. But it kills less people than crime in DC, less people than a dozen other conflicts around the world, and it's geopolitical significance has always been overstated. And this is only one single minor point in that conflict.

And even without knowing fully what it was all about, Cain STILL came down in the same place as the administration!

The administration's position is the US position for the past 35 years. It can't be a surprise that someone knows it, even accidentally.

However the larger question isn't his answer, but the manner of his answer. He is an outsider. He has got to learn a good way to say "That is too important a question for an off the cuff answer. I need to learn more about it. I will get back to you on Tuesday" and then do it. The voters will accept that, if it is worded properly.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It's far more than just the media making it a big one. It's the place of that region in global mindsets to a large degree given its influence on the respective religion of so many people. Khasmir and the Congo have nothing on that, although they ought to be insofar as fact over religion.

It's a big issue because it involves Jews, and Jews are interesting for some reason to a large part of the world's population, not to mention the US. But Muslim lands are occupied in more areas than just Palestine. Palestine is different mainly because of WHO is doing the occupying. Indians and Armenians just aren't as interesting. Heck, nothing makes the world yawn more than Armenians. They even tried terrorism in Europe and they stopped because they couldn't even get headlines then.

Again, though, my issue goes with the low standards existing on picking candidates. That what you said is often true is indicative to me that it's a problem.

You're going for high standards of professional politics, not high standards of actual intelligence and knowledge. I've been following Cain for awhile and his intelligence and knowledge of the issues is well above average. But foreign policy is a weakness for him. But then it's a weakness for almost everyone who runs for President. The good news about foreign policy is that it's the one issue that lends itself well to instincts and moral values, as opposed to economic issues, where our instincts are usually wrong and morals have little to do with what works well.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The administration's position is the US position for the past 35 years. It can't be a surprise that someone knows it, even accidentally.

However the larger question isn't his answer, but the manner of his answer. He is an outsider. He has got to learn a good way to say "That is too important a question for an off the cuff answer. I need to learn more about it. I will get back to you on Tuesday" and then do it. The voters will accept that, if it is worded properly.

I think he handled it pretty well. He made it pretty clear he wasn't sure, he'd probably heard about the issue at some point and was fumbling trying to remember what, if anything, he knew about it. If he'd come out and endorsed an extreme position as if he spoke from knowledge, that would be more damning, because then he'd have to walk it back. Like the so well informed Gingrich did.

The problem with Gingrich is that he knew plenty about the issue, but is so unself-aware he didn't have any clue what HE thought about it.

Originally Posted by adaher

It's a big issue because it involves Jews, and Jews are interesting for some reason to a large part of the world's population, not to mention the US. But Muslim lands are occupied in more areas than just Palestine. Palestine is different mainly because of WHO is doing the occupying. Indians and Armenians just aren't as interesting. Heck, nothing makes the world yawn more than Armenians. They even tried terrorism in Europe and they stopped because they couldn't even get headlines then.

Interesting in a way not good for Jews for the most part in the past and present, unfortunately to say. As to 'the Holy Land' and its place in their religion and what's to come in it, it's a very big thing, even paramount. Whether religious faiths ought to be relevant to that extent is another matter but the facts are what they are for now unless and until that changes and hence it will remain a big issue, not only US but other nations and even international politics as it already does.

Originally Posted by adaher

You're going for high standards of professional politics, not high standards of actual intelligence and knowledge. I've been following Cain for awhile and his intelligence and knowledge of the issues is well above average. But foreign policy is a weakness for him. But then it's a weakness for almost everyone who runs for President. The good news about foreign policy is that it's the one issue that lends itself well to instincts and moral values, as opposed to economic issues, where our instincts are usually wrong and morals have little to do with what works well.

As stated, Cain is a smart guy who has accomplished himself in areas he chose to become expert: business. But he's seeking the POTUS spot, and he ought expand those horizons as stated because he must deal with them. He's seeking the job, so it's rightfully expected that he's to properly prepare himself for it.

Being ill-informed on foreign policy is not acceptable and has repeatedly harmed the US. It is not just on the economics side--it's also those who 'wing it' using instincts and moral values which, to be expected, would be biased to American perspectives on that. If people do not understand the subject matter on something, they will be prone to errors in decisions they make regarding it. Since I mentioned the Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren beforehand, he'll tell you that and why in this clip as to why that approach consistently fails and especially in US Middle East policy:

YouTube - Michael Oren - America's Historical Views of the Middle East

If you wish to peruse that some more, you can find more synopsis here in brief:

Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present

It's imperative that American politicians know the areas in which they are getting involved and make decisions according to the realities of them.

I do indeed place a high standard for professional politics. In fact, regarding the question he blew, it's not like US media tests politicians, all part of the low expectations and standards of US media and voters. Just look at how politicians in other nations get cross-examined by journalists...they're expected to be grilled and perform accordingly. If they try to dodge that or fail in those grillings, then voters hold them accountable. In the US, it's the opposite and that's dumbing down the whole process here IMO.

Even Clinton wasn't all that knowledgeable about foreign policy issues, and in his first term he was actually impatient with the idea that he should even have to worry about foreign policy. Israel excepted of course, since peace agreements make for awesome photo ops.

As a matter of fact, the only President who came into office with extensive foreign policy knowledge got his butt kicked out after one term for.... concentrating too much on foreign policy.

Originally Posted by adaher

Now Obama, he's well informed. Because he has people to inform him. Does anyone seriously think that Obama knew a damn thing about the Camp David negotiations in 2000? I'd bet I can tell you exactly when he learned about them: sometime after he became a Senator and had to speak on the peace process.

I give Herman Cain a pass here too, and I don't think it will hurt him. Not a real blunder, more of an unpolished answer.

As for the President, he is fairly well-informed, and I don't see how he wouldn't know about Camp David because on the spot he is very able-minded and shows a pretty strong grasp of world events.

You can complain about any number of issues you think Obama is wrong about, but it just doesn't stick if you try to call him stupid since the evidence points to the contrary far too much of the time, whether you're a liberal or a conservative.

The only problem I see with Cain's answer is that he doesn't seem to care too much about the issue. If you're going to run for President, you have to take in every question asked of you and actually show that you're interested in the issue at hand even if personally it isn't something that matters much to you.

Originally Posted by adaher

Even Clinton wasn't all that knowledgeable about foreign policy issues, and in his first term he was actually impatient with the idea that he should even have to worry about foreign policy. Israel excepted of course, since peace agreements make for awesome photo ops.

As a matter of fact, the only President who came into office with extensive foreign policy knowledge got his butt kicked out after one term for.... concentrating too much on foreign policy.

What he didn't know, he made damn sure he did know. The guy was even key in delivering the Irish peace process, something that even the British and Irish themselves couldn't crack without his learning about it and applying some really good skills to it where he, rather than them, could get past the tinted glasses. He was so successful at not just that but other stuff in foreign relations that he's now got that moniker 'President of the World' given his intense involvement and knowledge of it.

Too bad he can't manage his sex drive...his one big downfall where he joins the ranks of so many others who can't, just thinking of Schwartzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the reason why there's a special election this week in New York for a House Representative seat that are being currently covered in the news.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

As for the President, he is fairly well-informed, and I don't see how he wouldn't know about Camp David because on the spot he is very able-minded and shows a pretty strong grasp of world events.

You can complain about any number of issues you think Obama is wrong about, but it just doesn't stick if you try to call him stupid since the evidence points to the contrary far too much of the time, whether you're a liberal or a conservative.

Oh, Obama is not stupid, he's brilliant. But a lot of brilliant people don't know much about foreign affairs or public policy. And Obama's intelligence seems more geared towards debate prep than policymaking. Heck, this is a guy who says stuff and then admits later he was just saying stuff. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

What he didn't know, he made damn sure he did know. The guy was even key in delivering the Irish peace process, something that even the British and Irish themselves couldn't crack without his learning about it and applying some really good skills to it where he, rather than them, could get past the tinted glasses. He was so successful at not just that but other stuff in foreign relations that he's now got that moniker 'President of the World' given his intense involvement and knowledge of it.

Too bad he can't manage his sex drive...his one big downfall where he joins the ranks of so many others who can't, just thinking of Schwartzenegger, Dominique Srauss-Kahn and the reason why there's a special election this week in New York for a House Representative seat that are being currently covered in the news.

Clinton learned quickly, when he gave a damn(except for Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda, which he'd rather have punted).

But Clinton was unique. Most Presidents are more interested in politics than policy. That's also true of 99% of Congressmen. They live to be in politics and practice politics. Obama has shown little interest in the hard work of actually running an administration. There's been no indication that things in the federal government are working better than they did under Bush. Under Clinton, we saw a lot of major improvements and a lot of money was saved, and crap didn't go wrong very much. Even FEMA seemed to work okay, something which we started to take for granted despite the fact that FEMA didn't work too well under anyone before Clinton and hasn't worked well since.

Cain, if there's one thing you can count on with him, it's that he'll care about making the government he runs work properly.