C’mon, it was a full stall. Wallace’s first “clarification” didn’t add much either, just added the qualifier “Palestinian.” Then Cain is off and away on dumping it into the “just negotiate it” bucket, a nice, safe, ambiguous catchall that doesn’t require Cain to expose his lack of understanding. Then Wallace presses him because he knows he’s hiding in ambiguity, and Cain is now stuck with a doctrine of negotiation of what Israel has said is nonnegotiable. A gaffe is a gaffe. All politicians are human and all make mistakes. It’s just better to not look like you’re trying to cover up for what you don’t know, especially to key demographics for whom this is clear and open knowledge.
Can you not read? I’m saying he appeared to be uncertain about the catchphrase, but when Wallace said “Palestinian right of return”, he anwered it. I did not say that he knew the catchphrase but was playing a game with Wallace. I said he didn’t know the catchphrase, but got the concept after hearing it defined. People are not reading what I originally wrote. They are skipping right over the heart, the meat of it. Well, if you can’t or won’t even read it, I can’t or won’t accommodate your arguing with me.
Surprisingly he didn't proclaim the use of his handy one-size-fits-all, 4 Point Plan!!!