I will try to make this one of the last posts I make on Herman Cain for a while. He is an easy target, but as more news breaks about allegations of sexual harassment he is unquestionably the epicenter of politics right now. The very fact he is being taken serious in this campaign is disappointing…in part because of the following.
What the “right of return” issue in Israel/ Palestine is
Did we forget about this embarrassment already? Soon after Cain announced his bid for the presidency he was hit with a question from Israel/Palestine 101 by Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “Where do you stand on the right of return?” Wallace asked. Cain kept an unflinching poker face, repeating the word he did not know like a child in a spelling bee. Eventually Wallace explained it to him. Cain, with uncompromising confidence said, “that is something that should be negotiated.”
Later, Cain admitted what everybody already knew when he said, “I didn’t understand the right of return.” This was almost an impressive demonstration of honesty until he started to explain himself. “That came out of left field,” he claimed,“the thing that you’re gonna learn about Herman Cain, if he doesn’t know something, he’s not going to try and fake it, or give an answer that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” But no one who had watched the tape saw that. Cain clearly faked an answer and gave answer about something he didn’t know about.
That China already has nuclear weapons
When asked about China’s potential as a threat to the security of the United States Cain said, “They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.” China tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964. The specific date might be trivial, but the fact that they have the capability is not. Fundamental information for anyone who claims to have an opinion. He later claimed that “maybe I misspoke.” But it’s clear he just didn’t know.
Who the president of Uze-becki-becki-becki-stan-stan is
Herman Cain on his knowledge of foreign policy facts,” I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me ‘who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan’ I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know? And then I’m going to say how’s that going to create one job?”
Herman Cain dosn’t know and dosn’t care who knows it. What?
His own political positions
This has happened twice so far. First, he changed his mind about 9-9-9, saying that those below the poverty line would have a 9-0-9 plan. He claimed that this was already part of the plan. While this might have been true, it does not not seem like Cain knew it. The verbal introduction of 9-0-9 came only after Cain had been challenged by many about his plan raising taxes on the poor. His defenses included saying that embedded taxes go away, competition will drive prices down, the removal of other major taxes will even things out and that taxes wont apply to used goods. He never once mentioned 9-0-9. “We simply chose not to talk about this piece earlier such that we could get people used to the whole concept,” he said.
Right.
The second time concerned his views on abortion. His stance became confused after several television appearances. The confusion came to a head after an exchange with on the Fox News program “Stossel” that was almost laughable. Stossel is infamous for breaking down the complicated. But even he fails to decipher the DaVinci Code that his Cain’s position on abortion.
The face says it all. (Linked to a special video of the exchange)
He starts off clearly pro-life, “I support life from conception,” and “I’m pro-life period.” But when asked if the government should be involved he makes several utterly contradictory statements. “I don’t think that government should make that decision.” “That’s her choice, that’s not government’s choice.” Clearly the statements are irreconcilable. My opinion is that he’s pro-life, but dosn’t really know what that means with regards to public policy.
In closing, people with opinions but without knowledge are like people who have expensive clothing without actually having wealth. They are far too common nowadays (especially in the Republican field), inherently without strong independent thought or judgement, and clearly value appearances rather than realties. Does anyone have anything I missed?