It was possible, sort of, to stave off sexual harassment allegations by claiming that they were all made up, liberal media, witch hunt, blah blah.
But this one may derail the Cain Train for good. It’s painfully clear that, with respect to Libya – a very important, recent issue – Cain just has no idea what he’s talking about. And nobody wants someone this incompetent to be managing American foreign policy. Nobody. (Well, almost nobody.) This might even do in his chances for being someone’s running mate.
Please share widely!
stan-stan?
It’s pretty clear that Herman Cain is not accustomed to nuance, not accustomed to politics (even internal politics), and simply has no clue about diplomacy and foreign affairs. In a relaxed five-minute conversation, he said “I do not agree with the way [President Obama] handled [Libya] …” yet he was unable to offer any specifics that he (Herman Cain) would have done differently. Wouldn’t it have been better to say “I’m happy that the people of Libya are free” and let it go at that?
Meanwhile, Dr. Victor Zuckerman today confirmed that Sharon Bialek complained of Mr. Cain’s behavior at the time. He also confirmed that “she and Zuckerman had spoken at length with Cain at a party one night while she still worked for the restaurant association foundation” — in stark contradiction to Mr. Cain’s loud claim that he didn’t know who she was.
Herman Cain is an incompetent dishonest sexual predator. There should be no place for Herman Cain in American public life. Shame on the GOP for bringing him forward, and shame on the GOP for allowing him to stay in the spotlight even this long.
The most fully realized bit of political performance art I have ever seen. A tour de force.
Colbert’s famous gridiron-dinner performance is as nothing to this. The man is pulling legs right and left.
As an urban performance artist? Now might be a good time to start to consider alternatives. The past few weeks have not been great for the Herman Cain campaign.
and wish him a good long run.
The non-Ron Pauls running for President seem to view everything from a small set of principles:
1. Exert force where possible. Punish bad guys.
2. The U.S. is very, very special. Everything it does is ipso facto good.
3. Crow about our wonderful Americanness wherever and whenever possible.
4. Obama is always wrong.
Mr. Cain was at a loss as to how to apply the first three principles to this foreign policy question. So he simply reverted to the only one clearly applicable to the situation.
My first reaction: OMG, WTF?
Second reaction: Okay, he’s clearly bullshitting like you might do in school during an oral exam you’re not prepared for, drawing out the few facts you can recall and inventing as much substance-like bs as you can around them.
But then I started paying attention to the way he dressed up the few facts he knew, and what he said – repeatedly – that kinda passes as the “substance” of his remarks. Since it’s clearly not based on any knowledge of Libya or the US’s actions there, it has to be based on Cain’s basic message and the impression of himself that he wants to convey.
What this says is that Cain’s rhetorical strategy for arguing that he’d be a better president than Obama is to position himself as the careful, calm, deliberate one who looks for the facts and tries to listen to lots of divergent opinions. Implying that Obama is not that.
To understate the point… something tells me that is not an angle that’s gonna do him any good.
One of these days, a Republican politician will pause and remain silent long enough to issue a royalty check to the John Cage estate.