Don’t get me wrong, I like Herman Cain. I like “Imagine There’s No Pizza”: It would be the greatest presidential campaign song since “Tippecanoe And Tyler, Too.” I like his sunny disposition: Mien can be determinative — it’s why Rick Santorum is right on almost everything, and going nowhere. I like Cain’s electrified fence gags, on the general principle that no sane person should climb into the straitjackets of the politically correct enforcers.
And yet, and yet. . . . The foreign policy, hostage-trading, abortion stuff is becoming more difficult to ignore. I don’t think Charles Krauthammer’s assertion that Cain’s “winging it” fully explains it, nor does the Pundette’s that he is “incoherent.” Cain’s boast that he can’t name the president of Beki-beki-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan gets closer to it. It’s a cute line, notwithstanding that parochial braggadocio is easier to carry off when you’re a soaring hyperpower rather than a multi-trillion-dollar sinkhole whose citizens’ future is increasingly mortgaged to foreigners of one degree of unsavoriness or another.
But the ’stan shtick is a glimpse of the greater truth – that there are whole areas of public policy in which he simply has no interest. None. You ask him a question and from the recesses of his mind swim up half-recalled phrases from some panel discussion he caught once long ago, and he hopes he grabs the conservative line (“I’m proud to stand by Israel,” “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” “life begins at conception,” whatever) but just as often he doesn’t (with Gretchen Carlson this morning: “No, abortion should not be a part of the political discussion”).
His fans say he’s being set up with “Gotcha” questions. But these aren’t the Hoogivsastans way out on the fringe of the public policy map. They’re the first stops on the central thruway of American politics, and have been for most of Cain’s adult life. And it’s becoming harder to avoid the obvious truth that he hasn’t given them a moment’s thought.
It would be nice to have a candidate with a sunny demeanor who gets the urgency and understands the way fiscal insolvency, foreign affairs and social policy interact. But maybe from a talent pool of 200 million or so that’s an unreasonable expectation.
" But maybe from a talent pool of 200 million or so that’s an unreasonable expectation." - Unfortunately, I think a majority of our best and brightest steer clear of politics. I can't say I blame them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure there's someone. But you were born in Canada, Mr. Steyn, so we can't have the President we really need.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, but there's nothing stop a President Andrew McCarthy from making Mr. Steyn a sort of combination press secretary, chief of staff, and secretary of state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident McCarthy, with Steyn as his press secretary! Now THOSE press briefings would be must-see TV!
President McCarthy could also appoint: Mark Levin as Attorney General, Bolton to State, Ann Coulter to Homeland Security, and...oh, how about Ralph Peters to Defense?
It would be morning in America again!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about Charles Krauthammer for National Security Advisor. But how about Juliani to Atty General, and Levin for Solicitor General? We know Rudy can put away bad guys. Ah, the dream team.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've said this before on many other forums (not just on this site): I would never appoint Bolton as my SecState. Too many difficulties getting him confirmed. I don't trust the Sens. like Graham and McCain to be helpful in that regard, do you?
No, John Bolton would be President big sarge's Ambassador-Without-Portfolio. My personal representative around the world, dispatched to wherever I believe he needs to go to make sure some two-bit b-u-t-t-head "understands" me. Can you imagine being the target of the Bolton missile, seeing that mustache with the tight little smile beneath it, knowing he has a loaded stiletto up his sleeve, and he's not afraid to use it?
There will be loose bowels all over the world. Trust me on that one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFEAR THE"STACHE!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Mark,
Quite right--first stop indeed. And I say that not because I'm a single issue abortion voter (although I probably should be), but because abortion gets to the heart of what powers a candidate thinks the state could reasonably claim for itself. It's more than being pro-life--it's understanding that pro-choice constitutes a massive reach by our government for powers it should never have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>that pro-choice constitutes a massive reach by our government for powers it should never have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse***
Yes, letting individuals and families decide this issue is a great government power grab (in an Alice in Wonderland world).
Aren't you at least curious what he means by the comment?
Perhaps it is federal overreach to declare certains rights to be constitutional where the constitution is silent. Perhaps it is federal overreach where the lives of unborn children are disregarded as having any rights under the constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd,
Even Lawrence Tribe (liberal Harvard Law Professor always on the short list for SCOTUS) has said in no uncertain terms that Roe has no grounding our Constitution.
My point is that if candidates are fine with a SCOTUS that acts without any regard for the Constitution, then such a candidate can't prove a reliable conservative.
Second, look at your own comment. You describe the government as "letting individuals..." You've already absorbed the lesson of the left that our rights are nothing more than permissions handed down from the state.
What separates you from a conservative is that a conservative would not tolerate an unconstitutional reach like Roe, and a conservative believes our rights come from our Creator, and rather than as permissions from the state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hard-core pro-life activists do NOT want families to be able to decide this issue.
They want to go way beyond overturning Roe v. Wade (which would just return the issue to the states), and make abortion illegal everywhere in the nation. With absolutely no exceptions for rape and incest.
That's right, if it's up to them, even a liberal state like VT or MA or CA couldn't allow for abortions.
Don't believe me? Go ask some.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hard-core abolitionists do NOT want states to be able to decide this issue.
They want to go way beyond the Missouri compromise, and make slavery illegal everywhere in the nation. With absolutely no exceptions for state law or popular sovereignty.
That's right, if it's up to them, even a liberal state like SC, GA, or MS couldn't have slavery.
Don't believe me? Go ask some.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne more thing...you really should have added Illinois to your list of liberal states. Our very own President Obama, while still an Illinois state senator, voted that a mother and a doctor should have a right to kill even babies born alive of botched abortions, if they didn't mean for the baby to actually come out of the womb alive. I mean if the senator from Illinois is that committed to abortion that he'd even kill a baby crying there in front of him on the operating table, then a certain amount of respect is due for abortion in that state, no?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it unreasonable? I ask that question about baseball- Is it unreasonable to expect to find enough high quality players to fill out 30 stinkin' teams? Even drawing from the US *and* Latin America *and* Asia? But the answer to my question and Mark Steyn's must, 'yes.' We ask these kinds of questions to imply that the answer should be 'no.' But even to ask in that way is a kind of unreasonableness.
Still, I remember that Chris Christie was kind of written off as a mediocre candidate. Things can turn out better than we expect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt could have been any issue he was asked to discuss, because there is more than one on which he is foggy. But the question was on the so-called Palestinian "right-of-return". Cain was incoherent in his answer.
Second time around, he was very well-versed. He admitted he was caught flat-footed, and studied up on the issue, and had arrived at a conclusion, which he stated was part of his idea for the region and peace process generally. "I learned what I didn't know, and now I have a well-crafted position."
This is supposed to disqualify him? Really? Because, to me, that level of honesty and candor is beyond refreshing in a person seeking highest office. He spoke with people knowledgeable on the issue, studied up, and reached a conclusion -- something EVERY president will do on a whole array of issues.
So, on one hand, it was disconcerting that someone can pay close attention to public affairs for so long, and not know about this issue. But it's also frustrating to hear the chattering class dismiss Herman Cain for something that would disqualify ANY presidential candidate.
His approach to learning about the issue is the important lesson, as that is what executives do. They don't pretend to know it all, like the current occupant of the oval office.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to say it bothered me a lot that he didn't know what the right of return was. He was also asked at an early debate I think about what his position on Afghanastan was. He didn't have an answer. He said when he was president and surrounded by experts he would have an opinion as to what course we should take. Shouldn't he have some clue now? And for him to say he would release all of the terrorists at gitmo to secure the release of a hostage is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. As charming as Herman Cain may be, he is not prepared to be the president. It just seems that he has never even given any serious thought at all to the extremely important issues that we face. That does not inspire confidence. The democrats already elected someone without a clue and look where we are today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI could cut Cain some slack on not having a ready answer to a question about the Palestinian right of return ... but a Republican presidential candidate being caught flat footed on abortion? That's just weird.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe badgering interviewer presented a false juxtaposition of a woman aborting a baby or a woman being "forced to raise that baby" by the big-bad Pro-Life President. Cain called Mr. Morgan on mixing two things together but let himself get brow-beat into answering a fallacious question. Mr. Cain clarified and reiterated his pro-life position in response to the confusion.
I'm not worried about his Pro-Life bona fides (he's got those). I'm worried about him letting jerk reporters push him around just to appear affable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain did chide Morgan for "mixing two things together," but the rest of his response didn't indicate what those two things could be. Yours is a coherent guess, but I didn't really get that from what Cain said. Nor has he explained his response that way since the interview. I wish your interpretation were accurate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse