Posted on 11/03/2011 12:36:48 PM PDT by presidio9
It's pretty clear that this Herman Cain harassment story does not have any legs. Of the truly damaging kind, anyway. (Unless, of course, this new employee can provide any actual details.)
Here's what appears to be getting lost in that story. Herman Cain's continuing ignorance on foreign policy.
Sure the initial ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan remark made for good late night fodder. But Cain's remarks regarding foreign policy in the last 24 hours should be sounding alarm bells. And they aren't.
Imagine for a moment (as Joe Scarborough did this morning) that Sarah Palin had said in an interview that she was worried about China as a military threat because they've "indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have."
Cain said that last night on PBS. China has had nuclear capability since 1964.
Or declared it was her intention to send war ships into the Persian Gulf and get in a shooting war with Iran. As Cain did on O'Reilly last night.
Palin, meanwhile, was excoriated (and rightly so) for telling Katie Couric she reads "all the papers" and that her foreign policy experience was rooted in the fact Alaska was bordered by foreign countries (hence the SNL line "I can see Alaska from my house").
That interview was so damaging it essentially ended Palin's (and McCain's) White House run. One wonders if Cain would even make headline for anything so mundane.
It's true that Cain is not the official nominee as Palin was. But he has now sustained his lead in the polls for so long that he needs to be treated with some gravitas. Outside of MSNBC the media has been slow to shift to
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
lol,, you too easy!
lol,, you too easy!
The irony of Obama is that he has, for the most part, taken the Bush agenda and expanded it beyond anything Bush, or for that matter probably Cheney, would have done.
Imagine Bush and Uganda. Impeachment hearings would pop up overnight.
China's 1st Nuclear Weapons test was in 1964.
At that time, Cain was attending Morehouse College
(WHO KNOWS, PERHAPS STUDENTS WERE KEPT ISOLATED AND FORBIDDEN TO LISTEN TO ANY NEWS PROGRAMS OF READ ANY NEWSPAPERS, cuz that little "event"--I remember as I was in the USAF at the time--made FRONT PAGE NEWS???)
He was graduated in 1967 and went on to get a Masters in Computer Science from Purdue.
Cain then went to work FOR THE US NAVY and worked on DEVELOPING "Fire Control Systems" on Ships and Planes...
(NO DOUBT THE NAVY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT CHINA'S CAPABILITIES EITHER AND CONCENTRATED SOLELY ON DEVELOPING DEFENSIVE/OFFENSIVE WEAPONS TO COMBAT USSR??)
AND, someone is going to suggest he DIDN'T KNOW that China had nuclear weapons????
RIGHT!!!
Cain is the last conservative hope for some. Also, the Iowa primary is chockful of evangelicals, the very base of the Swaggart/Baker/Robertson send ‘em money core.
Unlike the devotion and worshipping at Mrs. Palin's alter, and that was even before she had declared?
That Cain knows China has nuclear weapons is not in question, nor that they have delivery systems, once one looks at his resume.
What China does not have, but is working on, is a nuclear powered navy.
Obviously he is being held to Sarah Palin standards as of last week.
At what point will Obama be held to the rule of law? Ever?
No, just smarter.
He didn’t say China didn’t have nuclear weapons-—he was saying the Chinese were trying to develop a nuclear capacity at sea. That was the context of the comments. As for putting ships in the Persian Gulf, since when is that a radical policy? Every president since Nixon has done it.
And then, sided with Obama, Goldman Sacks, Paulson, Bush, everyone but the american people and the free market. GM should have gone belly up, along with Fanimae, FreddyMac, a couple of giant banks, and the few investment houses that went under.
I think one of the reasons that Palin did not run was because there was such a cult of personality built up around her.
She’s an ethical person and I honestly think she didn’t like this.
The U.S. Constitution has set the eligibility requirements for the office of the President. It is up to us to decide who we want in the White House.
If Cain doesn’t know much about China’s nuclear capabilities, and it is entirely possible that he doesn’t, my answer is “So what?”
People who have been deeply immersed in business do not usually pay attention to the Order of Battle capabilities of foreign nations. They just don’t. And I suspect the majority of folks here on FR wouldn’t vote for him based on his military or international relations knowledge. (That’s why Newt Gingrich would make such an outstanding Chief of Staff.)
Cain is a business executive accustomed to making high level management decisions. He takes in information, processes and analyzes it, then orders a directive. We need someone like that in the White House, because the guy who is there now doesn’t know how to do that!
Sarah is quite a gal. I like your post.
Oh, I think you're right on that. I mean, when you think of it, that's a horribly high mark to meet for anyone.
That interview with Couric was a big mistake. Katie hates Alaska, she despises the people of Alaska, she does not think they live in the sticks, she is certain they live way past the sticks. Couric is also convinced that the people of Alaska are illiterate morons. When she asked “what do you read” her tone of voice and body language where saying “Lets drive this stupid bitch in the dirt and end her VP aspirations right now”. Palin was taken aback with this answering “ I read all of them” and tone of voice asking “what is going on. Katie Couric’s actions stem from Haily Boggs disappearance in a light aircraft in Alaska. Katie feels that Alaska took her father away from her and the people refused to give him back.
Hardly. Hale Boggs was Cokie Roberts dad, not Katie Couric's.
Obama’s plan was projected to creat millions of jobs and unemployement under 8%.
Obama’s plan is based on socialism and government creating jobs, which we all know never works.
Cain’s plan is based on lowering taxes on job creators, and the free market system. It’s called supply-side economics. It worked in Reagan’s day.
I can’t imagine why you would be comparing Cain to Obama, though.
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.