Herman Cain is going to step up to the plate again. He has agreed to meet with the New Hampshire Union Leader and allow the interview to be taped and aired on C-Span.
From The Times Herald:
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has decided after all to sit for a videotaped interview with New Hampshire’s largest newspaper.
Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, says Cain’s spokesman called Monday morning and asked if Cain could come in next week for an hour-long, videotaped interview.
The about-face comes four days after a planned interview was scrapped about an hour before it was supposed to begin amid disagreements over timing and whether it would be videotaped.
On December 1, Herman Cain will sit down with the editorial board of the Union Leader, which is a conservative newspaper in New Hampshire.
While some Cain supporters don’t believe it, I actually do like Herman Cain. I don’t like his 9-9-9 plan as I think it is a bad plan.
By reversing course, Cain has made a really good move. Most of the media is very unfriendly to conservatives and it does him nor anyone else any good by antagonizing friendly media.
Herman Cain does have something to prove. That interview he did with the Sentinel Journal was a disaster and there are no two ways about it. Herman Cain was seriously unprepared for that interview.
By scheduling this new interview for December 1st, Cain has time. Hopefully his staff is putting together briefing books on all of the major issues that Cain is weak on. Hopefully Cain is studying those briefing books like a graduating senior studies for final exams.
The Union Leader is not going to pop Cain with gotcha questions. Cain however has a great opportunity and he can have a little fun with this as well.
He will be grilled on foreign policy in this interview. Cain should make sure he knows the names of some important but obscure people, such as the leaders of the of the Libyan transition government and maybe just for fun the new leader of Greece, the new leader of Spain and even for laughs, comment on the leaders of Moldavia, Uzbekistan and Bangladesh.
I hope Herman Cain spends most of this Thanksgiving weekend studying hard and shows up ready on December 1st.
Cain is a long ways from being a greenhorn. He has been in business all his life, and I won't waste time touting his success here as it is well known. However, it is extremely unfair to expect a successful businessman to be an instant expert on foreign policy which he has never had to deal with. Since we are too much involved in other countries anyway, I don't see a lack of foreign knowledge as any serious problem. Also, he will have the brains to surround himself with people who ARE the experts in the area where he is not. I would love to see him give Allen West a promotion to some sort of foreign affairs committee or whatever. But you want an "experienced, seasoned politician"? At least we know it wouldn't be Obama. He had no experience in anything except drug dealing and community organizing, but that didn't stop the country from being enchanted by his ability to pause in all the wrong places when reading from his teleprompter. Anyway, I digress. So you want Romney? He's the one the GOP establishment and all the media want. The Dems also want the GOP to choose him because they think he would be easy for Obama to defeat. And of course he has Romneycare to his credit although he says he would repeal Obamacare. He repeats the same lines in debate after debate, but at least that keeps him from putting his foot in his mouth. He is widely recognized as a "moderate," which in today's terms actually means more liberal than conservative.
Bachman has some experience as a lawyer and has done some work in the house and is a good conservative voice--and not ashamed to say she is a Christian. That is in her favor in spite of the fact that the entire media holds it against her. Still, what foreign policy experience would you say she has? She has made her share of mistakes when trying to discuss foreign issues.
Huntsman--well, he has been an ambassador to China, so he probably has some foreign policy "experience," but there are local issues on which the country does not like him, so vote for him if you want, but his chances are slim to none.
Perry--Yup there's a big voice of foreign policy experience for you. He can't get through a debate without forgetting what he intended to say, but maybe he just isn't a good debater. Nevertheless, he has no apology for trying to force gardicil on the girls in Texas, an he was in favor of the transAmerican corridor which will cut his own state in half and destroy thousands of acres of good farmland. Not sure what he knows about foreign diplomacy, although I do agree with his statement that all foreign aid should start at zero and let the countries prove that they deserve our help. So maybe he is the experience you are looking for.
Santorum--nice guy, but tends to be a whiner. And on foreign policy, he and Bachman agree that we need to keep pandering to Pakistan. Why? Because Pakistan has nuclear power. How mind boggling is that. Since a country has nuclear capability we dare not stop giving them our money even though they have clearly acted against us in aiding our enemies? So, continuing in that vein, if Iran gets nuclear power, does that mean we will also be "afraid" NOT to give them all the aid they want as well. So who's holding who hostage in that picture. That argument finished Santorum for me. But if that's the experience you want, go for it.
So now we have Ron Paul. Rock solid and unchanging in any of his beliefs--and has been forever. Certainly has plenty of experience. But also sees nothing wrong with Iran getting nuclear power. The argument--since Israel has it, why shouldn't Iran have it. After all, Iran would never use it against the US, and if Israel and Iran knock each other off the map, well so be it. We will practice non-intervention. Maybe that's the experience you want, but it's a bit too isolationist for me. Kind of like sticking our heads in our own sand and assuming the world will just leave us alone because we are ignoring them. Right. I like some of his positions, but on foreign policy--not for me.
So that brings us to Newt Gingrich. Plenty of experience. Knows history backward, forward and inside out. Can quote names, dates and events most of us have never heard of. Agrees that gov is too big and that people, not government, create jobs. Also agrees that foreign aid should go to zero and let the countries prove themselves. Believes in a strong defense but in getting us out of places where we can do no good and where we should have been gone a long time ago. Sounds like my kind of guy--and actually, at this point, he would get my vote. But of course the main stream media has dredged up all of his old "baggage," and the American people are swallowing those old spins as if they were fresh news without recognizing that they were media spins back then too, and that few people ever heard Newt's side of those old stories. The truth is available, and it doesn't always make Newt look like a saint, but he doesn't claim to be. He admits freely that some decisions he made would be made differently today. For example--the infamous ad he allowed to be made with himself and Pelosi. He explained himself (and I was there to hear him) that he did that ad because he was trying to show that conservatives also care about the environment, but that it does not mean that he believed in "global warming." He said that he never should have agreed to that ad, and if he had it to do over, he wouldn't . You can accept his explanations or not, but you should at least acknowledge them and not just assume that all of the media crap is un-adulterated truth.
So finally Cain. Given the slate above, I am in no way convinced that a lack of abundant experience in foreign affairs is a serious detriment. I do, however, like Gingrich better for President. I'm hoping for a Gingrich / Cain ticket. I would have loved to see Jim DeMint run, but since that wasn't to be, I think Gingrich and Cain have the potential for turning America around. How do you suppose anyone else would make a better combination. I don't see it, at least not of the ones we have running.
For Herman Cain, every question is a gotcha question.
At least he recognized that it was a mistake to back out of the interview in the first place.
The Cain campaign just put out an email broadcast to supporters, "America's Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity", in which he addressed the failed interview and his approach to national security issues. It is well-written, and will presumably be the focus of his comments at the Heritage / AEI debate tonight on CNN.
This whole movement started out as anti tax or at the very least no tax increase, anti bailout anti big government anti federal reserve. The only one that will even come close is Ron Paul, I know some think he is off his rocker for wanting to bring all the troops home and stay away from entangling alliances, BUT in any circumstance, he has shown to be somewhat compromising, and I think he would be in this instance as well. I don't pretend to know al the areas where our troops are deployed in a somewhat subservient mode, but I do know getting killed over there for the money they make is no compensation for the ruin of our national currency and international clout.So just remember who the real person is compared to what all this political interaction was started by.
Definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...so why NOT Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich sets off my internal alarm sensors almost as much as BHO did when I first (and still does) saw him. Rick Perry...an insult to our intelligence, he's so much a RINO. Michelle Bachmann...she's already rolled over and quit. Romney...see Newt Gingrich. All the rest are just temporary; not even a viable possibility.
The sense of a business man with the proper philosophical mind on the direction and handling of the country both domestically and foreign combined with the experience of someone who has proven his ability to move mountains in the government and also has a very good head on his shoulders is why I support a Cain/Gingrich ticket. I could also live with the other way around comfortably but the C/G is my preference. Cain would get this country raging economically and Newt would have his back in so many ways and on so many levels.This team would be unstoppable!
I don't think Newt's ego would let him play second fiddle.
I guess you didn't hear what he said at the Lincoln style debate with Herman Cain. When they were introduced Newt said, "We think you're looking at the next ticket. We just disagree about who's going to be on top." Make of it what you will. They have been great friends for years and get along famously. Besides, it would give a fantastic chance to whom ever is VP to be the next president since America would have been doing so well up to that point.
larry - Herman Cain, during his work history, never stayed at one job for very long, WHY?
Because after he made the company a success (and turned them around as Larry said), he moved on. If you will notice not one of the businesses at which he worked gave him a 'bad' reference.
If they had, it would have already been news.
Sorry Debrajoe, but you're dead wrong about this!
OK Someone make out a list on every candidate so we can see who are strong and who are weak in his or her background. Make a list for all of us to read so we may start to pick them apart. Hopefully we will find someone we want.
There is a very fine line between "us" picking someone apart and the resulting attackers from the left; never feed your enemy, it will empower him against you.