Thread: Herman Cain makes huge blunder on Fox News Sunday

Originally Posted by Danny

Herman Cain Blunders on Palestinian 'Right of Return' - The Note



Cain is an also ran but this was simply too amusing to watch. Here is a guy on the national stage who has absolutely no fucking idea whatsover about one of the most important and divisive issues of the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If you haven't seen the clip, it's worse when you watch it. I mean if someone can end a campaign that was over before it started he just did it today.

Well the moron-in-chief we have now is utterly clueless about it. So why is Cain not knowing it worse?

Well, the idea that the grandchildren of people who fled behind friendly lines so their friends could slaughter their neighbors should have any claim to their grandparents land so defies common sense, any rational person would stare blankly at the camera for a second.

He was just too polite/diplomatic to say hell no.

I was kind of concerned about his Afghan policy though. Wait until I win and get access to classified intel and I'll get back to you isn't exactly a sterling example of leadership. In fact, it sounds awfully Pelosian.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well the moron-in-chief we have now is utterly clueless about it. So why is Cain not knowing it worse?

Obviously, this is your "educated" assessment? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well the moron-in-chief we have now is utterly clueless about it. So why is Cain not knowing it worse?

Clueless? Apparently you are not following the story, since 1974. Barack Obama has not advocated any new position in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The US position is unchanged in at least 30 years.

Unless you are aware of some change?

(You do know that GW Bush was very outspoken that Israel had to accept the pre-1967 borders as the starting place for discussions, right?)

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Obviously, this is your "educated" assessment? :rolleyes:

Well it's true--Obama is utterly clueless to the ground situation in Isreal--by suggesting that Isreal go back to 1967 borders. And Netanyahu explained it very clearly to the American public as to why that is not possible. Something the commander and chief of this country SHOULD have known before Netanyahu made a complete fool out of him. Obama got slam DUNKED big time--on this issue.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Well it's true--Obama is utterly clueless to the ground situation in Isreal--by suggesting that Isreal go back to 1967 borders. And Netanyahu explained it very clearly to the American public as to why that is not possible. Something the commander and chief of this country SHOULD have known before Netanyahu made a complete fool out of him. Obama got slam DUNKED big time--on this issue.

Obama said the 1967 borders with agreed swaps--that's not the same thing and pretty much what leaders both US and elsewhere have suggested. Netanyahu rejecting that doesn't automatically make Obama a fool or even wrong. In fact, it's a common argument that Netanyahu's view is the one that's unreasonable and a cause for continued trouble, a view held by a sizeable number of Israelis themselves who oppose the Likud and other hardliner positions and especially the extremes of the Zionist approach who think the whole West Bank should be settled with the population evicted.

I would bet that 90% of public officials don't know what the right of return is. The difference between elected officials and Herman Cain is that they have handlers who tell them what to say before they go on a Sunday talk show.

This very attitude is what keeps regular folk from getting elected. They are expected to be as well informed as the professinal politicians who have people to coach them on this stuff just before they go out in public.

And even though he wasn't familiar with the issue, his instincts were exactly right on it. It's a subject to be negotiated. Which is exactly the same conclusion Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama have come to.

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.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Clueless? Apparently you are not following the story, since 1974. Barack Obama has not advocated any new position in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The US position is unchanged in at least 30 years.

Unless you are aware of some change?

(You do know that GW Bush was very outspoken that Israel had to accept the pre-1967 borders as the starting place for discussions, right?)

Been doing business in that part of the world since about then. So yah, believe I know a fair bit more than you do about the attitudes of the people who live there.

If GW Bush stated that, you shouldn't have any problem finding the links to support it should you?

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Obama said the 1967 borders with agreed swaps--that's not the same thing and pretty much what leaders both US and elsewhere have suggested. Netanyahu rejecting that doesn't automatically make Obama a fool or even wrong. In fact, it's a common argument that Netanyahu's view is the one that's unreasonable and a cause for continued trouble, a view held by a sizeable number of Israelis themselves who oppose the Likud and other hardliner positions and especially the extremes of the Zionist approach who think the whole West Bank should be settled with the population evicted.

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.

Heck, the odds that Arabs will stop exterminating ANYONE in their vicinity, including themselves, is essentially zero.

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.

Maybe he did...he's known to be very well read and informed by his own efforts long beforehand. Clinton was a policy wonk well known for being able to discuss even random domestic matter in great detail. The reason was simple besides being intelligent: he took the interest to be so. Gingrich for all his flaws makes him IMO a great disappointment given he's also known for being very policy wonkish and well informed. So are many others. But many others aren't and they are IMO blameworthy for that as are voters who find being poorly informed to be acceptable for voting choices.

Originally Posted by adaher

I would bet that 90% of public officials don't know what the right of return is. The difference between elected officials and Herman Cain is that they have handlers who tell them what to say before they go on a Sunday talk show.

This very attitude is what keeps regular folk from getting elected. They are expected to be as well informed as the professinal politicians who have people to coach them on this stuff just before they go out in public.

And even though he wasn't familiar with the issue, his instincts were exactly right on it. It's a subject to be negotiated. Which is exactly the same conclusion Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama have come to.

I've listed to Cain. Like his talk radio show, he talks in generalities which sounds cool to low information types who prefer hoop-hollering generalities in cheers and jeers and simplistic answers to complicated subjects.

Cain was, however, a very effective CEO or top executive of Godfather's Pizza, Burger King, and Pillsbury. He did well in those positions by being competent in them. Would he have done well if he didn't bother to sufficiently learn his subject matter for these jobs? The odds would have been much greater that he wouldn't have been so and instead been damaging.

Candidates will have stronger areas than others and won't know everything. However, you have to have the Big Pictures and Big Issues under control. To see the kind of gaffe he did here was not on some minutiae or even a particularly tough question. It's a key issue in a key area of the US's toughest foreign policy challenges, and one of the world's toughest and best known. People on this site know the main points of contention including the 'right to return' and yet we aren't running for office presumably.

That he didn't know that is simply unacceptable and no excuse whatsoever, and indicates someone who hasn't bothered to inform himself of even the basics of that key conflict. And yet, he's running for POTUS.

Quite the contrary, it's voters who approve or give a free pass to poor preparation that is a problem IMO. Just as I don't want my auto repairman working on my injured foot right now or my doctor working on my damaged car (got rear-ended last week at high speed), I don't want someone who is poorly informed to be POTUS and especially if they show a lack of effort to be so. Palin greatly helped sink McCain's chances in the last POTUS election due to poor preparation, and that loss was earned. Even her handlers told her to work on getting even the basics ready, and she refused to listen to them. McCain's handlers and himself had every right to be pissed about that, not that it bothered her in the end as she advanced herself.

In short, I don't want 'regular' guys being elected, a kind of fad lately of anti-intellectualism and contempt of accomplishment and preparation, etc, for those better fit and up to the task of being a POTUS. It's not a place that should be of low expectations for voters but rather a high bar set for getting that vote. 'Joe the Plumber' is not Presidential material, and he shouldn't be a characterisation of someone qualified to say who is to given the prominence he received. Voters are expected to know more in order to have a well running democratic republic, a standard that's been not being pushed in public attitudes, and especially candidates. I want people who have the brains, acumen and especially the personal motivation to be the best informed. Cain has the mental ability and business acumen to his credit, but yet not put sufficient effort into more well rounding himself preparation-wise for the POTUS job, and that's problematic.

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.

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.