Posted on 11/17/2011 8:25:21 AM PST by TBBT
Really? That could be a valid complaint from a candidate stumping for votes in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where voters probably don’t have too much concern over the “wet foot dry foot” policy of accepting Cuban refugees. When a candidate goes to Florida and explicitly campaigns in the Cuban-American community to get them, those questions seem more pertinent than “gotcha” — especially when the topic at hand was Barack Obama’s “foggy foreign policy”:
Cain, who last week stumbled over questions about what he would do in Libya, seemed to know little about Cuba. His campaign kept reporters at bay, and when asked about the Cuban Adjustment Act and the so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy, Cain seemed stumped. The policy allows Cuban immigrants who have made it to US soil to stay.
“Wet foot, dry foot policy?” Cain asked. His press handlers interrupted as Cain diverted his course and ducked back into the building. Later, when he emerged, he was asked again by another reporter. Cain wouldn’t answer. …
Cain, though, wouldn’t talk to reporters there, either. A FOX reporter asked Cain what he thought of President Obama’s easing of travel restrictions to Cuba. Cain said that was a “gotcha question.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Actually, it’s the Lame Stream Media manipulating your perception that’s causing your problems with Herman Cain.
Look, going into this race, we all knew that Herman Cain wasn’t a career politician. As such, all of us knew at the beginning that the LSM would hammer him with foreign policy questions and nebulous terms in an effort to trip him up.
They (the LSM) know that Mr. Cain will soon get up to speed on foreign policy, but while there’s still a chink in his armor that’s in the process of being mended, they’re going to dig their knives into it as often as they can.
Herman Cain has answered numerous foreign policy questions that used nebulous terms. To the LSM, that doesn’t matter and will never be the story in their narrative. They aren’t really asking him foreign policy questions so that they can fairly report and share his answers with their viewers and readers; they’re asking those questions with the specific intent of looking for that one question in a thousand that will trip him up. Hence, the “wet foot, dry foot” phrasing of the question. It was just another one of the hundreds of diaphanous foreign and domestic policy questions Mr. Cain has been asked every single day in an attempt to find that one in a hundred questions that will finally stump him.
No one, and I mean NO ONE—not a career politician, not a foreign policy expert, no one—is ever going to be absolutely flawless when asked a hundred friggin’ ambiguous questions each day which are designed with the sole intent of tripping up the respondent.
Like I said, we knew he wasn’t a career politician when the game started and would be doing a lot of OJT while campaigning.
Obviously, since I started out with much lower expectations of Mr. Cain when I first heard he was going to run, I am VERY impressed with how much he has actually accomplished and learned in such a short amount of time with no real prior experience, no real help from the media to speak of (heck, ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t even mention him on their newscasts when he announced his run), and, relatively speaking, little money to speak of when he started the race.
Yet, still, he managed to pull himself up and become THE frontrunner in a race with heavyweights like Gingrich, Romney, and Perry slugging away at him!
Those are traits I can respect.
No. Herman Cain doesn’t get on my nerves; the Lame Stream Media with their non-news news—along with wishy-washy supporters with too high expectations of a non-politician running for office—get on my nerves.
BTW - I’ve asked this before, but it seems all the Freepers here are ducking the question: “What do you think of the modus vivendi reached by America’s charge d’affairs and the Afghanistan government via shuttle diplomacy?”
:)
Cheers
—”I’ve heard it most of my life.”
Considering that it didn’t become a policy until the mid-1990’s, you must ever be so lucky to be so young.
:)
Cheers
Enacted and called that in 1966. I was 14.
That’s interest:
“The wet foot, dry foot policy is the name given to a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966...”
Cheers
Erratum: “That’s interest” should be “That’s interesting.”
Curse my Alzheimer’s!
:)
Cheers
LOL!
Exactly!
Cheers
“When it comes to politicians and trust I keep my powder dry.”
I agree. That’s why I like Cain. It is obvious he is not a politician.
—”Sarah should have known that the Bush Doctrine meant no longer waiting to be attacked before taking military action. Or defending the concept of a preemptive war. I knew that, she should have.”
Really? Are you SURE that’s what the Bush Doctrine is?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324.html
“Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war. “
Just because you were on the ball and guessed exactly which “Bush Doctrine” Gibson was alluding to, does not mean that all of us knew exactly which one he was seeking comment on.
By the way, Charles Krauthammer is credited with coining the phrase, “The Bush Doctrine,” on June 4, 2001.
If anything, Charles Krauthammer would know what he, himself, meant when he coined it, right?
Well, he had this to say about Gibson’s question to Sarah Palin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
“The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.”
“There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”
“Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.”
We are seeing the exact same condescension and snobbery from the LSM establishment that we witnessed in 2008. And, why not? It worked for them back then and got Obama elected, why not dust it off and use it again to help re-elect Obama.?
Obviously, it’s working—as evinced by many of the commentators on this thread.
Cheers
P.S. - Here’s REALLY what Krauthammer meant when he coined the term, “The Bush Doctrine”:
“I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. “
The first one fits Cain! Anyone running for his second office is politician. By the way politicians aren’t limited to government office.
pol·i·ti·cian (pl-tshn)
n.
1.a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
b. One who holds or seeks a political office.
2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: “Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process” (John F. Kennedy).
3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government
Lol, well at least I knew one of the Bush Doctrines. I had never heard the term in any other context. Most folks that know the term would associate with Bush’s preventative war policy. That was a radical change from previous policy.
PS, thanks for the lesson on the Bush Doctrine I enjoyed it. And I agree with rest of your post.
How bout we drop the stupid argument? I do wonder what else Cain doesn’t have a clue about, but I won’t dare say it. All hail Herman!
—”How bout we drop the stupid argument?”
Why, whatever do you mean? The fact that it wasn’t called the “Wet Feet, Dry Feet” policy until the mid-1990’s, or the fact that we both are getting a little bit senile in our old age?
I can certainly see how the first option would be uncomfortable for you.
And, the latter option would definitely be more uncomfortable for me.
:)
—”I do wonder what else Cain doesn’t have a clue about, but I won’t dare say it.”
Please, by all means, feel free to elaborate. Or, is this a “gotcha’” type statement where I am expected to form a conclusion based upon a nebulous comment open to many interpretations? The LSM has taught you well...
—”All hail Herman!”
Amen to that! Sounds much better than, “All hail Obama,” or, “All hail Romney!” Don’t you agree?
:)
Anyway, I’m not trying to be confrontational with you, or anyone else for that matter.
Obviously, I support Herman Cain; and, that’s exactly what I’m going to do to the bitter end. I knew what to expect when I boarded his train, and I’m not seeing anything that I didn’t already know back when I was still standing on the platform waiting for the Cain Train to arrive at the station.
Really, think about it: You, and many other Conservatives, are getting sucked into the gears of the Lame Stream Media’s political machinery. Your thoughts and emotions are purposely being manipulated to help them enter their Bismark (it’s a horse racing term, look it up) Mitt Romney into the BIG race.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t vote for Mitt Romney or not, it only matters to them (the LSM) that you NOT vote for Cain. Of course, once they’ve sufficiently destroyed Mr. Cain, they’re coming after Mr. Gingrich. And, so on, and so on, until no one except Mitt Romney has a decent sized voter base.
Besides, are you seriously trying to tell me that you thought Mr. Cain would know all the answers to every single question thrown at him? Even the ones that you, yourself, happen to know the answers to? Unless you mistakenly thought he was God or something, I’m guessing that you were willing to give him leeway. So, why do you find yourself so shocked that Mr. Cain doesn’t know everything there is to know?
Heck, even Jeopardy’s Ken Jennings, during his famous winning streak, had me screaming like a maniac at the television set numerous times when he consistently blew answers to simple questions that even I knew the answers to!
(BTW, Mr. Jennings, the answer was, “What is H&R Block!!!” Sheesh! I still can’t believe you missed that one! My wife and I were both yelling it at the screen!)
But, I digress.
Anyway, these types of non-news news stories are engineered for one thing and one thing only: To try to convince you not to vote for someone who has not been selected to be the Bismark. (Yes, I know I used a double-negative in that last sentence).
Nope. Mustn’t talk about the 999 plan or, how Mr. Cain plans to implement an immediate 10% cut in all departments or, how Mr. Cain intends to get Americans back to work.
Nope. Never! Instead, let’s get everyone talking about unsubstantiated rumors and accusations. And, while we are at it, let’s throw in some nebulous foreign policy questions that will eventually trip up the non-Bismark so that we can play it over and over and over again and poke fun at the poor guy.
You know, when Rick Perry had his brain fart on live television, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, felt bad for him. It was a horrible thing to have happen.
Did it make me think Perry wasn’t qualified to be President? No. Absolutely not.
When Perry, Gingrich, or anyone else has trouble answering questions which they don’t know the answers to and then they start dancing around the subject at hand (which they ALL have done), I don’t go around slamming them and dismissing them as being incompetent.
No. I look at their platform; what are they are offering?; how closely do their values reflect my own?; What do they plan to do as President?; Do they truly love God?; Then, I make my decisions based upon the answers to those questions.
The debates and all the media hoopla and gotcha’ questions and dog-and-pony shows are 5 percent substance, 95 percent distraction.
As for the media circus concerning Mr. Cain and his false accusers, I’ve seen this stunt pulled time and time again by the DemonRats and their Lefturd accomplices, the LSM. The fact that anyone continues to believe these ridiculous unsubstantiated allegations is a testament to the efficacy of the LSM to cast doubt into the mind’s of an unthinking, emotionally driven public.
I have several friends (both female) who have known Mr. Cain since the early 1990’s. They both say that Mr. Cain has ALWAYS treated them with the utmost respect. And, they have no doubt that these sexual allegations are pure fantasy.
That’s more than enough for me to support him. And, good enough for me to rightly judge his accusers as opportunistic liars!
Anyway, sorry to bend your ear for so long. I just got on a roll, I guess.
God Bless you and keep you.
Cheers
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.