Posted on 05/23/2011 8:29:58 AM PDT by lbryce
The right of return is apparently not as simple as sending your pizza back.
In his first major television interview as a Republican presidential candidate, former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain stumbled badly on an issue near and dear to GOP hearts: the unconditional support for the state of Israel and its political leaders.
Cain, who has been suggested as a potential Tea Party spoiler in the nomination fight, stopped by Fox News Sunday to talk about his campaign on the morning after he launched it. He walked away bruised and requiring the requisite walkback statement from his staff that has been a hallmark of GOP campaign rollouts lately.
The trouble came when FNS host Chris Wallace turned to the subject of Israel. Cain offered a full-throated attack on President Obama's Middle East policy speech, restating that Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and reaffirming his "Cain Doctrine" that "You mess with Israel, you are messing with the U.S."
Cain said if he was president, he'd offer the Palestinian side "nothing" in peace process negotiations because "I'm not convinced that the Palestinians are really interested in peace."
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Because SOOOO MANY VOTES will be determined on this issue. /s
How true, how very true.
“Because SOOOO MANY VOTES will be determined on this issue. /s”
Absolutely. This is pure bs, trumped up hate for Cain by MSM since he is scares them A black conservative
Near and dear?? Who knew?
Everybody wants to make an A, nobody wants to study. And yes, every stumble costs votes.
Was it a “gaffe?”
Sure, but THIS is the important part of what he said: “You mess with Israel, you are messing with the U.S.”
He gets it. He needs to hammer it home. His other “gaffe” seems to be really the difference between Cain’s overall plan vs. what needs to be done RIGHT NOW in the debt ceiling fight, there is no disconnect there. Cain just has to be better prepared for “gotcha” type questions.
Expect a few of these articles from libs, Establishment types, and of course delusional Ron Paul and (regrettably) some die-hard Palin supporters, who should consider Cain a perfectly acceptable alternative should Palin not run.
Spot on! If anyone would bother to ask the annointed one anything of consequence we’d have a new ‘gotcha’ for every news cycle but no one ever wil. Herman knows the deck is going to be stacked against him...he’ll get up to speed in a hurry.
That’s why Palin’s unelectable. She stumbled way too much (yes the MSM pushed her but she failed to regain her footing).
Cain made a mistake.
Let’s hope he learns quick. His business history suggests he will.
I'll wager that not one single GOP primary voter will consider this stupid 'gotcha' as a deal maker or breaker when it comes time to cast their vote next year. Not one.
Not as much as Sooooooooooooooo much money rides on this issue. The WOn was backpeddeling like mad at the PAC meeting this weekend....
BUt, ya, most US voters could give a whit, but the MONEY folks, well, that’s an altogether different fish.
And it's not like he said the U.S. has 57 states--I mean, no one could get elected after that....oh, wait a minute.
I don't know. It's not like he said something stupid like there are 56 or 57 states or anything like that.
A mistake like that could cost votes or even an election. /s
The money is the challenge. O’s spending billions, Romney not far behind.
Cain will have to rely on smaller businesses and maybe snag a few larger business folks, plus grass roots.
It’s completely do-able but not without challenge.
Palin’s would-be donors would probably gravitate to Cain if she doesn’t run.
If Bachmann’s in though...well that could complicate things. I like Bachmann, but she doesn’t have that “X factor” Cain has. That Reaganesque charisma and appeal.
True enough...but Republicans are held to a higher standard.
A Democrat could murder someone on TV and still win the minority vote and die-hard libs.
A Republican gets a booger on his nose and he’s suddenly toast.
So you think conservative voters are the same as democraps, do tell??
Should the "right of return" "be negotiated," as I said, "if that is a decision that Israel wants to make"? Certainly, and to reiterate, it's Israel's call. Israel has a long record of being more gracious to its enemies than its enemies are to it, and this would be yet another example of that. But is the "right of return" a moral imperative? Is it something Israel must grant? Is it something the United States ought to encourage?The answer is no on every count.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.