Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
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.
Just this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel is “not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.”
When asked about his stance on the matter, Cain appeared confused.
CAIN: Right of return? Right of return?
WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.
CAIN: That's something that should be negotiated.
When asked again about whether he believes in the Palestinian right of return, Cain seemed unclear about the Israeli position on the matter, as well as his own.
CAIN: Yes, but under - but not under - Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make…. I don't think they have a big problem with people returning.
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.
Last edited by Commodore; 05-22-2011 at 07:06 PM.
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
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?)
"There is no gain in arguing with a poo flinging monkey. While his
gibbering and raucous cries of victory may seem obnoxious in your ears
as you walk away, he will soon be quietly sitting behind his bars again
and licking his own feces off his fingers as you carry on with your day."
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.
A is A
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.
A is A
Heck, the odds that Arabs will stop exterminating ANYONE in their vicinity, including themselves, is essentially zero.
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.
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 05-22-2011 at 11:32 PM.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.