The media talked incessantly about Reagan’s bloopers in 1980.
The people saw past that.
Not saying Cain compares to Reagan, but I am saying that there are people who look past the spin.
No one expects Cain to be an expert in foreign policy. Many people want an outside the beltway leader, proven problem solver, who is committed to cutting government, getting back to Constitutional principles.
“No one expects Cain to be an expert in foreign policy.”
No, but he should fairly be expected to have a command of at least a few basic principles, around which to frame his responses to questions. A good media trainer, which I do NOT believe Cain currently has, would coach him to do just that. Here’s what I posted on another thread yesterday with a couple minor changes:
Cain’s main problem is messaging. He needs to make voters comfortable with the fact that, even though he’s not endowed with every detail of knowledge on international matters, he will ultimately make the right decisions. One tactic he could deploy right away is to make clear three main, broad, non-negotiable principles:
1. The U.S. shall — without exception — negotiate from a position of strength. We shall be respected by our friends and feared by our enemies.
2. America’s best interests around the globe will be at the forefront of ALL decision making.
3. The U.S. seeks peace in the Middle East, but we stand by our ally Israel.
Based on those three main principles, virtually any media lead question and follow-up can be answered clearly and succinctly. Reagan framed his responses in this manner. By doing the same, Cain could’ve avoided the trap he stepped in a few days ago during that interview in Milwaukee.
Here’s a scenario that could’ve transpired had he used the three-main-principle approach:
Q: “Mr. Cain, what is your position on our action in Libya?”
A: “Well, I believe BEFORE we and NATO entered that fray, we should’ve answered the all important question, ‘Is this good for us long-range?’ My point is that all military action, regardless of scope or size, must be measured against what the ramifications are to America’s national security. In this case, I don’t believe that was adequately done. In my administration, I can assure you that we will NOT risk the lives of America’s finest young men and women, nor will we expend our obviously limited resources, on foreign entanglements if the case can’t be made our national interests will otherwise suffer negative consequences.”
So..
Accomplished here are: 1) An answer to the question; 2) A restatement of the broad principle; and 3) An overview of what HIS approach would’ve been.
MOST important.. it eliminates having to “walk back” comments later to clarify his meaning.
It comes down to Media Training 101. We trained commanders at varied levels in the Air Force in this manner, and the resultant clarity of message paid dividends in credibility.