Monday, October 31, 2011

Herman Cain makes Mitt Romney look consistent

We already know that Herman Cain negotiates with terrorists. Oh wait... no. He doesn't.

We already know that Herman Cain is pro-life. Oh wait... no. He believes it's a woman's choice. Oh wait... no. He's pro-life.

We already know that Herman Cain opposes the assassination of American citizens without due process. Oh wait... no. Assassination without due process is fine.

We already know Herman Cain wants to institute a 23% national sales tax. Oh wait... no. He wants "9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs."

But a new contradiction really got me annoyed yesterday.

In the midst of his flip-flops on declaring there was "no settlement," then suddenly remembering a settlement... I noticed a comment he made yesterday on Face the Nation that I feel is very important. But first, let's step back a few months.

On May 22, 2011, FoxNews' Chris Wallace interviewed Herman Cain:

WALLACE: We have been at war in Afghanistan for almost 10 years. And yet you say -- and you say it quite proudly -- you have no plan for what to do in Afghanistan. You'd have to wait until you got into office, until you met with the experts, until you met with military officials and then you decided....

CAIN: Chris, let's go back -- let's go back -- let's go back to the fundamental question. We've got to work on the right problem. I think it is disingenuous to tell the American people what I would do when I don't have the intelligence information. I don't have all of the factors that are affecting this particular situation.

I owe the American people a responsible decision and a responsible plan. And I don't think any candidate can responsibly say what they would do if they are elected president.

In effect, he's saying he cannot opine on the direction of war unless he has access to the intelligence information.

Yet just yesterday -- only five months later -- on Face the Nation, Herman Cain was asked to discuss the appropriateness of the Iraq drawdown.

CBS News reports:

Cain disagreed with Obama's approach and... said that a "responsible Commander in Chief" would have consulted military commanders on the ground

CBS News continues:

when pressed, Cain conceded that "It was irresponsible for George Bush to set a date certain" in the first place.

So, if I understand this correctly... Cain says he can't opine on war because he doesn't have the intelligence information. But it's reasonable for Cain to blast both Bush and Obama when they have the intelligence information, but he does not?

At some point, Herman Cain will need to address these charges of sexual harassment. But in the meantime, I don't want to let these seemingly contradictory statements pass into the night.

Can anyone please help me reconcile these two views? I'm at a complete loss... unless this is just another example of his Kerry-esqe campaign slogan of "first I was for it, before I was against it!"

Tim White


Anonymous said...

Sure Tim, the explanation is easy ... the GOP and the 'baggers simply aren't all that bright.

Anonymous said...

It’s folly to take an unknown, untested backbencher (or someone who's never held office) and suddenly propel him to the highest office in the land. This was true of Obama as well as Cain.