Cain’s Knowledge-Deficit Disorder

He is running for president knowing little about major matters of public import.

Poor Rick Perry. His “brain freeze” is indelible, otherwise it would forever be eclipsed by Herman Cain’s more cringe-inducing meanderings on Libya.

At a meeting with the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cain was asked whether he agreed with Pres. Barack Obama’s handling of Libya. You would think he had been asked who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, Cain’s joshing description of a prototypical gotcha foreign-policy question. What ensued was the longest five minutes of an editorial-board meeting ever.

Cain paused. Then he asked for a lifeline by trying to confirm with his questioner that President Obama supported the Libyan uprising. He started to say why he disagreed with Obama, but stopped after realizing, “No, that’s a different one.” He hesitated again. “Got all this stuff twirling around in my head,” he explained.

Cain hadn’t been asked about an obscure conflict or one distant in time. We’re not talking the War of Jenkins’s Ear or the Second Peloponnesian War. He seemed to all but have missed that there had recently been a Libyan War that had taxed the capacities of NATO, created an intense conflict with Congress over presidential war powers, teetered on the brink of failure, and divided conservatives. For Cain, Libya was little more than a rumor of war.

Let me state that I believe the whole sexual harassment "scandal" was a bogus hit-job. I initially thought it originated from the pro-Romney RINO establishment, but now looks to have Obama campaign fingerprints.

Throughout that whole ordeal Cain and his campaign manager stumbled badly (after stumbling badly with the "Smoking Man" ad). I chalked up some of Cain's faulty messaging to the anti-Cain spin of the media. After many fits and hiccups Cain eventually regained his footing on the harassment charge.

Cain wasn't completely smooth (although it doesn't really take much to appear more credible than Gloria Allred), but he did enough for me to again be able to rationalize my potential support for Cain as the not-Romney candidate. While I prefer Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachman (in that order) as my not-Romney candidate, I was again prepared to support Cain as the GOP nominee.

And then the Milwaukee Urinal-Slantinel interview occurred. I was actually less disturbed than Mr. Lowry by Cain's apparent lack of knowledge on foreign policy. He sounded dumb, but if that interview's delayed and faulty foreign policy response were the only blemish in Cain's public campaign, I could still buy into Cain's spin that "You can't know everything," "I will surround myself with knowledgable aides," yadda, yadda, yadda.

What bothered me more about his interview with the Milwaukee newspaper was his 100% incorrect responses on public employee collective bargaining. Gov. Scott Walker's successful campaign to defeat and remove Wisconsin public employee collective bargaining (Act 10) is one of the biggest and longest-running national news stories of the past year.

You would think that Cain might have noticed:
1) the Obama campaign orgainzing rent-a-goon Union rallies in Madison
2) the fleeing of Democrat legislators to Illinois to avoid a final state Senate vote
3) the loony left's rioting and occupation of the state capitol in February
4) the continued rioting as the law was passed, signed and litigated in March
5) the wild state Supreme Court election & recount in April
6) the contentious state Supreme Court ruling which upheld Act 10 in June
7) the the recall elections of state senators in July, and
8) last week's kickoff to collect signatures to recall Gov. Walker.

Now throw-in the contentious and equally noteworthy Ohio referendum on the same issue from two weeks ago where Romney slipped and showed his true RINO colors. You would have to be comatose to have not noticed that state public employee collective bargaining has become a national issue -- even more so in Wisconsin! You would think that Cain's campaign people might have prepped him on an issue so important to Wisconsin voters. The failure to do so is especially egregious because Cain campaign manager Mark Block is a Wisconsin resident!

Instead, Herman Cain wings the newspaper interview - AN INTERVIEW REQUESTED BY THE CAIN CAMPAIGN - and cuts out Gov. Walker's legs on Walker's signature issue. As a candidate for the highest office in the land and the defacto leadership of the Republican party, this is NOT acceptable!!!!

After that interview I am now thoroughly convinced that Herman Cain is too stupid to select good advisers and too stupid to be President. Cain supporters will obviously refute this. I have just one question for those Cain supporters:

How do you say that in Cuban?

From the article:

His typical answer on national-security questions is that he would consult the experts, a thinly disguised dodge. What if the experts are wrong (as they often are) or disagree (as they often do)? Because Cain has no independent knowledge base or bearings, he would be entirely a creature of others on foreign policy.

I disagree with the author's premise. He is saying that the President needs to have his own independent knowledge base or bearings on every subject because the President must be able to distinguish which of the various experts is correct on every subject. But if that's true, then no president would need any experts, because that president would already have his own independent knowledge and would already know which expert is right on each subject.

This also implies that every Judge and member of every Jury would be disqualified from every Trial if they don't have their own independent knowledge base. It implies that people are not capable of listening to diametrically opposed views, or even three or four different views, and drawing a reasonable (and hopefully correct) conclusion from the evidence/arguments presented by the experts.

What I do know is that Obama isn't capable of making the correct call, coming to the correct conclusion, leading this country in the right direction, on almost anything. That's because Obama doesn't share my values - at ALL.

I want to elect a President who shares my values, and who can make the right decision, when presented with all the information, all the arguments, all the pros and cons, whether or not that President has any independent knowledge base of his own.

When it comes time for me to vote, I will be voting for the candidate who shares my values, and whom I believe will be able to make the right decisions (after weighing all the information) the majority of the time. Because I don't believe anyone is perfect, and I don't believe any President will get it right every time. So I'll vote for the best option at the time - for the person with more of my values than the others, and hope he gets it right most of the time.

I care a lot about Obama’s actions in Libya, it’s a disgrace to be complicit in such military overthrow without any sense of who will succeed the incumbent regime.

And of course we all know how it turned out.

I’m also incensed that he has now sent troops to Somalia in much the same fashion. Then new reports of Marines to Australia and on and on it goes.

All this while the Present flits around the world on our dime like a fading rock star.

Where IS the American outrage!

Perry and Newt are the only candidates to address this — and other -— horrifying Obama behavior succinctly.

>>I felt from the very beginning that the thing wrong with taking Cain’s candidacy seriously is that he was simply an affable, likeable personality who enjoyed opining on things in a general sort of way. In fact he had made his living doing just that for the last nearly 20 years, first as a lobbyist (which is really just another name for a schmoozer) then as a radio personality and motivational speaker. He seems to have zero background<<

I didn’t feel that way in the beginning, probably because I watched one of his 40-minute stump speeches, which was excellent. However, over time, I’ve been forced to the conclusion that your description of him is accurate enough that I’d have trouble supporting his candidacy. Too bad, because he’s both highly likeable, and a great speaker on the stump. But he’s too much of a lightweight to get my vote, and I think that many of his early supporters are coming to that same conclusion, though grudgingly.

Such hostility.

Did you even read my post? While not a Herman Cain supporter, I was open to supporting him - even through the faux harassment smear and his evolving and less than stellar responses.

But I've seen enough. Cain and his campaign team keep making really blatant and utterly avoidable mistakes. If he doesn't care enough to be prepared for an interview HE SCHEDULED, he doesn't desrve my support.

I've clearly documented my reasoning. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

But if you would instead prefer to remain hostile and communicate only with hand gestures, I'm sure I could accomodate YOUR handicap and send a few hand gestures in your direction.

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.