From Political Wire:
It is extremely disappointing to see that people who want to be president don’t have the intellectual curiosity, and personal NEED TO UNDERSTAND the mechanics of the world they want to be a major player in. This man became a huge success I AM CERTAIN by informing himself in what was needed to win out in fast assemblage, cooking and delivery of a good product.Cain Admits He Doesn’t Know Much About Foreign Affairs
Herman Cain was very upfront in an interview with David Brody about his biggest weakness as a presidential candidate:
“I’m working real hard on understanding heads of state, on other countries around the world, being able to pronounce their names properly. Being able to have their proper title when I talk about them in that context. Yes, that is an area that I have not focused on because when I was doing my radio show, foreign affairs didn’t come up that often in terms of what my listeners wanted… So when it comes to other nations, friend or foe, I have a lot of homework to do, but I’m in the process of doing that homework to get up to speed.”
RR HAD A CLUE.
I don’t expect perfection, or look for a single litmus test, but for god’s sake, Herman! FORGET THE SPELLINGS, and just figure out who the bastards and and sons of bitches are. It’s NOT THAT HARD.
You have a lot of qualifications. Just DO IT. If you have no interest in foreign affairs and the history which made today, DROP OUT NOW.
8 comments:
He's a good guy and a patriot, but foriegn affairs has always been my hot button.
With a world in dissarray and America back on her heels, defense and diplomacy skills more pressing than ever imo.
Only Palin, Bachmann, Trump, and Bolton have ever said the things I'm looking to see on Iran, Israel, etc.
Allen West is a constitutionalist, knows who the SOB's are and loves Israel. Can we add him to the list of potential candidates"
RR ..Palin edges around the SAME DAMN PROBLEM to me. Her instinctual statements are almost always right on. She does NOT let her social conservative ideas create preachy policies and can point to to Alaska's governance as proof. But her latest statements, including the really strange quote about Paul Revere still indicate she needs to self identify what she does NOT KNOW ALL ABOUT, and shut it when that comes up. Otherwise it all comes out as 'I can see Russia from my house'
I am WIDE open right now. I have no idea who I'm voting for in the primaries.
I mean NONE.
Love Bolton but I can't vote for the guy. And I feel he has no prayer, but we can't know unless he runs.
Frankly anyone who starts on religion, and how you should live your life, can jam it (Santorum). IMHO, not only is this against my own ideas, but it probably self identifies a hypocrite.
I just want someone who is cynical and realistic, and can identify the moment to take a gamble in either direction (R E Lee) towards confrontation or negotiation and compromise, or grind down the opposition without hesitation (WTS) in both foreign and domestic policy.
Who is that?
I have no idea right now.
I think you're right on as far as Herman Cain goes, but.......
Sara Palin NEVER said she could see Russia from her house.
She was right on and towering over her critics on the Paul Revere subject too.
cjk - my point is that her missteps such as her failure to be able to name a supreme court case which SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY - made her 'uncovered meat' for Tina Fey. And her comment on Revere made on the Freedom Trail in Boston were, as a U Mass history prof said, were NOT accurate. Revere rang no bells, and did not warn the British about american arms until AFTER he was arrested ... making her look lucky insofar as she had something to say, but HIGHLY improbable... AGAIN.
She towered over no one, but COULD HAVE had she been accurate AS SHE ALONE NEEDS TO BE WHEN SHE SAYS SOMETHING.
I don't like the latter, but that is how it is.
It all could have been different had she quoted a Marshall Case or Plessy vs Ferguson or any number of SCOTUS cases people learned IN FRIGGIN HIGH SCHOOL. If you want the big jobs, you have to have in you the desire for enough PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE to know what you NEED TO KNOW, and you cannot be a last minute study. If she just wanted to be gov of ak she was all set, but if you want VP or the big job, you have to have the desire to KNOW what SCOTUS did and why.
Couric hit home. She's a bitch with an agenda but it was a goal well scored.
I don't like it one bit. But that's how it is
Disagree completely on the Paul Revere subject, IMO she knew exactly what she was talking about, listen to what she says and how she says it.
She made her detractors look like fools to me.
Your mentioning of supreme court case ignorance is the ONLY legitimate failure by her that I can remember.
U Mass profs opinion? Not impressed, Tina Fey is probably more objective. (I don't think she meant that he personally rang a bell)
Sarah Palin is another Terry Jones as far as the MSM and blind popular culture go and I have a guttural disgust for their forced deceptive templates.
Here you go, both sides from the Boston Herald a Rupert Murdoch Paper.
My impression is STILL she does NOT exercise the care that SHE AND ONLY SHE NEEDS TO, and could have in this instance, by explaining what she meant, KNOWING she was talking to Globe reporters, NBC, CBS and ABC local, who are just Courics and Gibsons who loathe her for a host of reasons.
She HAS to be able to score with those who dislike her as an ignoramus and some right wing freak, but now see Obama for what he is, and she is not doing that.
Even if she doesn't run she will be speaking for whoever gets the nod to some degree. I'm not the guy she has to convince. I'm the observer of those she does. She ain't doing it.
The gist of the whole argument is that she knew that there was more to the Paul Revere story than we all thought and was immediately jumped on and derided as an idiot by IDIOTS. When she said that Revere warned the British she was right and she knew she was right.
If a leftie like Obama had done this he would now be in the process of glorification and worship for his intelligence and grasp of history.
I understand and do agree somewhat with your overall argument anyway, but what is she supposed to do?
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for her. I believe that she's actually handling things pretty good right now; calling Obama out as a liar, ignoring and dissing the MSM, and stuff like this Paul Revere thing.
There's a year and a half left to go and I have a suspicion that if she steams ahead undaunted by the slander, speaking the truth, opinions may change.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure is sweet to see her cause these freaks to expose themselves.
To be clear, at this point she ain't even my favored candidate.
Post a Comment