Poor Rick Perry. His “brain freeze” is indelible, otherwise it would forever be eclipsed by Herman Cain’s more cringe-inducing meanderings on Libya.
At a meeting with the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cain was asked whether he agreed with Pres. Barack Obama’s handling of Libya. You would think he had been asked who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, Cain’s joshing description of a prototypical gotcha foreign-policy question. What ensued was the longest five minutes of an editorial-board meeting ever.
Advertisement
Cain paused. Then he asked for a lifeline by trying to confirm with his questioner that President Obama supported the Libyan uprising. He started to say why he disagreed with Obama, but stopped after realizing, “No, that’s a different one.” He hesitated again. “Got all this stuff twirling around in my head,” he explained.
Cain hadn’t been asked about an obscure conflict or one distant in time. We’re not talking the War of Jenkins’s Ear or the Second Peloponnesian War. He seemed to all but have missed that there had recently been a Libyan War that had taxed the capacities of NATO, created an intense conflict with Congress over presidential war powers, teetered on the brink of failure, and divided conservatives. For Cain, Libya was little more than a rumor of war.
In the hierarchy of gaffes, Rick Perry’s was more forgivable than Cain’s. Everyone has lost his train of thought; few of us have run for president knowing little about major matters of public import.
Herman Cain has captured the imagination of Republican voters with his big, booming personality and his 9-9-9 plan. He has an indomitable spirit and an inherent likability that make for a formidable political persona. Prior to the Libya moment, “flustered” and “Herman Cain” rarely appeared in a sentence together. His frequent admonition that America needs to lighten up is welcome in an era of perpetual offense-taking.
But none of these things is a substitute for familiarity with the affairs of the nation he wants to lead. Cain gives every impression of having run for president to showcase his enviable strengths as a communicator, before the gambit got serious when he vaulted to the top of the polls. As the inspiring outsider-businessman, Cain needn’t sound like he’s auditioning for the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. But is it too much to ask that he sound like he reads the newspaper every day?
His typical answer on national-security questions is that he would consult the experts, a thinly disguised dodge. What if the experts are wrong (as they often are) or disagree (as they often do)? Because Cain has no independent knowledge base or bearings, he would be entirely a creature of others on foreign policy.
It’s not as though he’s a wonk on domestic policy, either. He’s tied himself in knots on abortion, contradicted himself on an electrified border fence, and demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the basics of Medicare policy. Even on his signature issue, 9-9-9, he relies on repetition and assertion more than detailed argument.
Cain’s candidacy reflects the ever-lowering bar for running for president. Pat Buchanan was a media figure who ran for president; now some people run for president to become media figures. Cain is such a winsome personality that he gets away with shameless excesses of self-promotion. He refers to himself in the third person more than the notoriously self-referential Bob Dole ever did. The title of his campaign book is This Is Herman Cain! It’s impossible to imagine the great conservative insurgent of 1964 writing a book titled This Is Barry Goldwater!
Republicans tend to be defensive of their own when they are criticized for substantive superficiality. They remember that “they said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.” But Reagan was a two-term governor and repeat presidential candidate who had exhaustively thought through his views. He proved it’s possible to be fearlessly anti-establishment and well informed at the same time. Herman Cain has yet to manage it.
Well, Rich, I guess you will be called part of the MSM and accused of attacking Cain because he is a black conservative. It's time for us conservatives to grow up. Cain is unprepared to be president. Let's try using more of our heads and less of our hearts. I think we should ask ourselves which is better: someone who is competent who we may not love or someone whom we love who can't seem to think beyond a soundbite?
"Conservatism" has lost its way by becoming reduced to policy. I'm sick of policy. Policy has destroyed conservatism, meaning conservatism has lost its ability to talk about ordered freedom, why should people be free in the first place, why should people want to be free. Why there is no political freedom without economic freedom AND virtue. Not saying that Cain is the guy to make that case, only that it is meaningless to me that he is not a policy expert.
Don't look at me. There's an elephant in the room. I love Herman Cain, but he'd have been laughed off the stage weeks ago if he weren't black. We give passes to minority candidates in all walks of life because whites need to soothe their guilt and assert their fairness (it never convinces). I don't like saying this, but please don't shoot the messenger.
"His typical answer on national-security questions is that he would consult the experts, a thinly disguised dodge." Thank you for that. If only I could convince the rest of my family...
So Cain knows how to turn around a struggling business. That's nice. But can I really be blamed for expecting my President, the leader of the free world, to know a little bit about all the other facets of his job too? And the "panel of experts" answer is so very tired and thin by now. I don't expect a President to be an expert on every issue, but I do expect him to be a generalist with multiple specialties.
Herman Cain has been doing this is since he announced his run for the Presidency when he confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The only reason he has gone this far is the misguided, but tacit acceptance by the alternative media of Democrat propaganda or white guilt and the Tea Party’s consistent support of the worst candidates in modern GOP history to prove their “power” and flex their political muscle. It is this type of idiocy that handed the Congress over to Democrats in 2006 and the White House to a moron in 2008.
During the Roman Republic, men who desired office followed a prescribed path to the consulship known as the cursus honorum. In a nutshell, each man of senatorial rank had to hold a series of elected offices that gave him experience in almost every sector - military, fiscal, legal, administrative - before he could even be considered for the highest office of state.
Now I am well-aware that this custom was often more honored in the breach than the observance. I also know that it is completely foreign to the American mindset of achievement in any circumstance. However, there is something about it that I like and wish we could incorporate into our candidate vetting.
A broad base of knowledge and experience is a necessary prerequisite in my book. I don't want to replace one unqualified President (Obama) with another (Cain).
And here I thought we already did follow that. Our propensity for picking they next guy in line because he did his time. McCain last time, Romney this time.
I'd prefer we didn't do that again. Let's pick on merit.
Unfortunately, Mr. Cain is not the most meritorious.
Romney and Gingrich have paid us the compliment of doing their homework. Cain tries to wing it and says that he can assemble experts to fill in the details. We all know that decision making is not that simple and that much can depend upon a president's demeanor and off-hand remarks. Presidents also need to know enough to know when experts are blowing smoke. Cain is simply unqualified at this time.
"Cain tries to wing it and says that he can assemble experts to fill in the details."
And every time he says that--which is a lot, almost as much as he says "9-9-9"--I want to reply: then let's elect his best expert and eliminate the uninformed middleman (Cain).
"But is it too much to ask that he sound like he reads the newspaper every day?"
This pretty much sums it up. I can't imagine running for any national political office(let alone potus) while being as uninformed and apparently as uncaring about the issues as Herman Cain.
Cain is unquestionably one of the more articulate and conservative candidates in the race, to say nothing about his remarkable likeability. He is genuinely not a professional politician, and therefore might have the gumption to actually cut federal spending (unlike the pathetic Republican leadership in Congress).
Let's talk opportunity cost for a minute:
Editor of National Review Rich Lowry, during one of the most perilous times in American history, uses his platform and editorial to besmirch Cain. Obama is running around, as usual, legislating through the executive branch, stoking class warfare, sympathizing with the miscreants from Zucotti Park, and campaigning rather than governing. The Republican frontrunner, Romney, is a passionless technocrat who implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts before Obama was even president. He may be a fine man, but does anyone really think he's up for the challenge of saving the nation from financial collapse, and possibly the world from war (judging by the disaster Obama has made of the Middle East)? A thoughtful and informative piece on Obama's destructive policies, or an expose on Romney's indecisiveness and poor judgment, in my opinion, would have been far more responsible topics for this editorial.
Write Lowry, "But Reagan was a two-term governor and repeat presidential candidate who had exhaustively thought through his views. He proved it’s possible to be fearlessly anti-establishment and well informed at the same time. Herman Cain has yet to manage it."
Not sure about others, but right now I'm not longing for Reagan. I'm longing for Buckley.
Like I said, when was the last expose on Romney published. He has a mediocre (at best) record in MA. He put out a 59 (59!) point job plan. That'll resonate with voters... sure.
He supported TARP. He has attacked conservatives who dared call Social Security what it is - a Ponzi scheme. Not only that, but he scaremongered with seniors.
Romneycare is a a nightmare for small business in Massachusetts. It raises expenses for business and taxes. Romney's economic advisory who designed Romneycare advised Obama. This calls into question whether Romney is even electable, given that Obamacare is the biggest single issue of the day!
I repeat: Why, oh why, would NR decide it most opportune to attack a true conservative, when the current Republican frontrunner is a former governor from the bluest of blue states, and who birthed Obamacare on a state level? Anyone who really believes Mitt is up for the challenge, and has the conviction and resolve to stare down and defeat the left not only in the election but while president, is deluding themselves.
Whatever Romney's record was or wasn't in Massachusetts, at least he had a RECORD.
We have absolutely NO IDEA what kind of president Cain would be because he has never held a political office in his life. He has never had to take a tough vote or position. He has never had to negotiate with an unfriendly legislature. He has never had to decide whether or not to commute someone's sentence.
All we have to gauge how Cain would behave in the office to which he aspired is his word. Frankly, that's not encouraging because he can't speak about ANY subject - including his own tax plan - in any substantive or compelling way that suggests he knows what he's talking about.
Follow
