Responses to Herman Cain's "Libya" embarrassment

After Herman Cain drew an utter blank when an interviewer asked him how he felt about Obama's handling of Libya, and proceeded to unconvincingly fake a response, Andrew Sullivan rounds up the responses of bloggers around the net, from Cain's supporters and detractors alike.

Drezner invokes the mercy rule:
There's a mercy rule in Little League, and I'm applying it here -- unless and until Herman Cain surges back in the polls again, or manages to muster something approaching cogency in his foreign policy statements, there's no point in blogging about him anymore. I can only pick on an ignoramus so many times before it feels sadistic.
Pamela Geller, who previously endorsed Cain, calls it an "unrecoverable moment":
This is just unacceptable, Herman. ... He is not ready.

Of course, this is just the latest in a string of Cain blunders.

Cain Draws A Blank (Thanks, Fipi Lele!)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: election • herman cain • politics • video • youtube

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

nick15

Republicans in 2012 = Democrats in 2004. You can bet the “winner” of the GOP nomination will be some ineffective idiot which in turn would only basically encourage people to vote for the guy already in office. As such, I personally don’t care who wins the GOP nomination because I’m sure they’ll lose (just like Kerry did).

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised that Cain’ll gets the GOP nomination. I mean, I’ll put money on the idea that perhaps the GOP would use Cain to say “look, now that BOTH nominees are the same race, people will vote for someone based on their views and positions, versus voting for them because of their race”.

But if anything, and correct me if I’m wrong for having this opinion, having two Blacks running for president would certainly be something for the history books. Within eight years we’ve gone from no minorities running for president, to one minority, to two minorities. I mean, even if Mark Maguire ad Barry Bonds were hopped up on steroids, it still was fairly entertaining to see them break the records that they did (even if it was “illegitimately”). … But again, feel free to correct me if you think my rationale is wrong and immoral in any way; I’d rather be initially wrong but be later corrected, rather than wrong and remain wrong as I hold onto my wrong beliefs out of ignorance or pride.
- valdis
  
  “Within eight years we’ve gone from no minorities running for president, to one minority, to two minorities.”
  
  You *do* realize that “old rich white guys” are a a minority, right? They’re called 1-percenters for a reason.
  - marilove
    
    Wow. You really have no idea what a minority actually is, do you? Tip: It isn’t an old, rich, white guy.
    - valdis
      
      More than 51% of the population is old rich white guys? Boy, the 99-percent are *really* misguided then.
  - Guest
    
    being outnumbered by your victims does not make you a minority.
    - valdis
      
      ” being outnumbered by your victims does not make you a minority”
      
      Actually, it does make you a minority. I think you hae “minority” confused with “second class citizen”. At current growth rates, “white” won’t be over 50% in not too many years, at which point it will be a minority (though still more numerous than the other minorities). And “old and rich male” is a minority even among whites.
      - http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy
        
        There are two different definitions of “minority” being used here. I’m more partial to yours (defining “minority” in a way that can apply to a group making up most of a population just feels perverse), but that might be my math background.
        
        Beyond that, once their definition has been established, the argument can be reduced to prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, at which point there is no new ground to tread.
      - valdis
        
        Well, there’s a little bit of new ground there – there’s a large segment of the population that’s been acting very weird the last few years because it’s sinking in that they’re about to slide from a majority to a numerical minority.
      - Guest
        
        what’s sinking in is just how ridiculous the lines you’re trying to draw, are.
      - http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy
        
        >50% is a valid definition for “majority.” And people do worry about change in their groups’ percentages, which is closely connected to influence, but distinct.
      - Guest
        
        And the correlation between the 99% and the “<50%" has anything to do with skin color? He was on about the 1%, be careful what your leaping to defend.
        
        and fuck that canard.
      - http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy
        
        Ugh… This whole argument is over DEFINITIONS. Looking back, it started with the sentence ”Within eight years we’ve gone from no minorities running for president, to one minority, to two minorities.” It was disputed on definition grounds, and the whole rest of the argument could’ve been avoided with “Well, racial minorities. But there’s actually this other definition of ‘minority’ that’s relevant…”
        
        Look, valdis is on our side. I don’t see any defense of the powerful few, only a terminology objection based on the “few” part. And I don’t think I can dispute that “there’s a large segment of the population that’s been acting very weird the last few years because it’s sinking in that they’re about to slide from a majority to a numerical minority.” For a lot of people, that 50% threshold is psychologically an important one.
        
        So why the hell are we arguing like this over terminology?
      - Guest
        
        I think I see what. Without further muddying the waters, what I was responding to was mostly the notion that “ORWG” are “called 1-percenters for a reason”.
        
        It seemed, to me, like lazy thinking on valdis’ part (accidental or intentional) which dragged a discussion of socioeconomic issues (which trancend race when you get to an honest discussion of who 99% of the people are), across the the old canard of blaming poverty on rich racists, rather than just on rich jerks.
        
        But Shay Guy, I didn’t intend to be arguing with you. And your points are all well made, though your second paragraph above is about something I earnestly didn’t intend to have come across as having taken a postion on quite that way. My point is more about good faith/bad faith in discussion rather than the my side/ their side or who feels neutered by the sands of time. Also, lets stop being this meta, too. :)
      - http://scavenger-ethic.blogspot.com/ scav
        
        60% right in a political discussion is usually a good time to walk away and stop stirring things :)
      - Guest
        
        hey there, I rewrote my comment because I did see what you saw. We crossed in the mail as I was writing a more careful response. Point taken, too.
      - SamSam
        
        Because definitions matter.
        
        When people say “we need more protection for minorities in this country,” they do not mean we need more protection for white men, even if white men comprise less than 50% of the country.
        
        Sure, the mathematical definition of “minority” would include white men, but it doesn’t take a mathematician to understand that the definition of “minority” used in such a discussion does not include white men. It’s like one person saying that we need to “lead the people,” and someone else saying “but the definition of ‘lead’ means a heavy metal — so you mean we should hit them with metal?”
        
        All that aside, I think valdis’s original comment was a joke and was funny.
      - Guest
        
        what he said.
      - Guest
        
        add obtuse and you have an even rarer bird on your hand.
        
        yes, this hand, as hard as I can.
- grimc
  
  Erm, Shirley Chisholm?
Conspirator

So if I’m understanding him right, he’s criticizing the president for not having taken time to gather enough information, but at the same time he’s saying that he doesn’t know whether or not Obama took time to look at all the information. That doesn’t quite add up. Although I don’t think that’s a huge blunder, not compared to the other things he’s done. I think what he was trying to do was provide more information about how he would have gone about doing it, which wasn’t really what he was asked.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620862876 Bob Brinkman

Well, the first minorities on a major party ticket. Minorities running for the Presidency is nothing new.

That said, there was commentary about how the “bench” looks better than the field. I think the real serious contenders are waiting until next time, so as to not need to run against President Obama.
cwap cwap

The GOP should pick Cain so their supporters won’t have to deal with the PTSD from seeing another white male being defeated by that half-Kenyan usurper.
http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

Oddly enough, for me, the only really devastating thing is his initial reaction, where he looks like he’s actually trying to remember what Libya even is. Other than that, although he is a unclear/evasive at times, his main point is actually pretty valid. The Obama administration probably should have taken greater cognisance of whom the Opposition to Gaddafi was composed of. In fairness, though, between this and the Perry incident, one would begin to suspect that evil libs are firing newfangled FORGETFULNESS RAYS at the good men of the GOP.
- Conspirator
  
  I think his initial reaction could have either been from being tired, to just wondering if they were setting him up. He was evasive, but he was also being overly cautious.
  
  I disagree with the notion, and think it’s awfully presumptuous to assume that Obama didn’t look at all the intelligence available to him. After all, no Americans were lost, and it’s doubtful that anyone could be much worse than Gaddafi, so even if the opposition isn’t supportive of us, it just means our pilots got some good target practice and time over Libya which could be beneficial in the future.
- Guest
  
  …his initial reaction, where he looks like he’s actually trying to remember what Libya even is.
  
  but it was even better on the radio! I heard it on the BBC World Service, along with many millions of my closest friends. I don’t even need to watch it, the length of that pause… oh sweet sweet self-destruction.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5NVZ73HM3UHDER2GFEDIQONJ3M Garrett Mace
  
  I believe that the validity of his point was accidental more than anything, it being the only part of his garbled, horoscopical response that that matched up with something people have been discussing. It made me really uncomfortable to watch him try to John Edwards the reporter for the right answer, after consciously NOT taking a drink of water but stalling in every other way. Pretty sure the reporter was giving him the old poker face, as they instantly recognize when they are being asked for a hint.
  
  I’ll happily vote for a candidate who, when stumped, says “I don’t know. I should, considering the position for which I’m applying, but I don’t. I will go find out.” Well, that, and is also not crazy.
- zebbart
  
  I had the same reaction. If you asked me about Obama’s handling of Libya, I would say pretty much the same thing. Then again I am not running for president, so I don’t feel bad that all I know is we should have stopped Gaddafi from bombing his citizens, but maybe we should not have helped the opposition take over since we don’t know much about them.
Guest

It’s been a train of disasters, a real Cain Train.
flagler23

The mercy rule should have been invoked from the beginning. Why the media has been oblivious to his intellectual immaturity for so long I can only speculate (race?). I remember hearing him speak many months ago, admitting to an aversion to reading while seriously proposing that bills should be no longer than 3 pages. And it’s not just what he says but how he says it. The most telling sign of his lack of intelligence is his poor diction, inarticulate manner of expression, and bungling of phrases (“that’s another one [another what?]“, “free at last, again”, etc.) He’s a mascot and walking caricature of the anti-intellectualism of American conservatism.
- Guest
  
  I think the most telling sign of his lack of intelligence was everything.
- mkultra
  
  Well, you know the only reason he’s been taken even slightly seriously was the overall weakness of the field. This group of potential nominees is what you get when the moderate wing of the party decides to hand the keys to the asylum over to the teabagging inmates.
  
  Witness Bachman.
  Witness Santorum.
  Witness Perry.
  
  Cain isn’t the worst of them, he’s right in the middle.
  
  Consider that Palin and Trump would right now likely be leading the pack if they hadn’t dropped out early. Think about that for a moment.
  
  No, Romney will be the nominee, and he’ll lose for the same reason that Kerry lost: he doesn’t appeal to the base of the party that’s going to nominate him.
gwailo_joe

Oh Cain Cain Cain; you were so quirky and interesting with your folksy conservatism and catchy tax math that primarily benefitted your own class…

The GOP field is so dull and uninspiring; you were a breath of fresh, pizza-scented air.I had hoped for a Battle of the Black Bourgeoisie Behemoths in a Thrilling Championship Fight to Determine the Leader of The Free World~!!!

But, alas…you are but another rich perv with gropey fingers and stupid ego blindness; plus a general lack of knowledge about the world at large.

Weak sauce.
lavardera

never stopped Bush from getting elected.

just sayin.
Guest

My favorite think about the current Republican field is that snarky journalism and character assassination are totally unnecessary. Give them the knife and they perform spectacular public seppuku all by they widdle selves.
http://lectiblog.blogspot.com/ lecti

I have to get this out: this guy has GOT to stop licking his lips. It’s so gross.
- marilove
  
  Dude is a serious creepster, all around.
Hosidax

I have to ask, does anyone have an opinion about Rachel Maddow’s theory that the Cain Campaign is actually an elaborate performance art project (ie. a hoax). This is a serious question, I don’t think she was being pejorative. Hearing his strange gaffes and how they are handled afterward makes me tend to agree with her; it’s all just so… unserious. I mean, have you seen his online “campaign ads”?
- voiceinthedistance
  
  From that same Rachel Maddow show, she revealed that his handlers admit to providing him with up to a page of notes “almost every day” to help him crib for foreign policy quizzes.
  
  Somehow, it doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy. Either he needs a second page to catch up a little faster with world events, or the flood of new information is overwhelming him and they need to back off of the onslaught a bit. Perhaps a single index card per day, G.W. Bush style, is more his sweet spot.
Cowicide

Ok… Libya…

http://i.imgur.com/YB6lB.gif
Lilah

nick15: Alan Keyes runs for president all the time, only no one takes him seriously. If Barack Obama hadn’t won the presidency, nobody would be talking about Herman Cain right now either. I’m generalizing (obviously all of Obama’s detractors are not racists), but a lot of repubs have something to prove right now, after all of the vitriol that came out during and after the last election - watermelons growing on the white house lawn and Michelle as a gorilla and what have you.
- Michael Hasse
  
  A lot of people run (again, and again, and again) for offices they haven’t a prayer of achieving because they have enough of a base to put on a show and the funds left over after a campaign flow through to the candidate tax free.
Brainspore

For crying out loud, how hard is it to just say “I’d do what Reagan did”? It doesn’t matter if you don’t actually know about Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Libya or how it led to civilian deaths while failing to take out Gadaffi— none of your supporters care.
willyboy

Big Potato Moths! Big Potato Moths.
bruckelsprout

Watching him try to answer this question reminded me of myself in the 9th grade trying to answer essay questions about Wuthering Heights, which I did not read.

It’s funny, too, because he seems to be violating the one point that he’s trying to make (about not having answers due to lack of information.) What was it he said that his response would be if someone asked him “who’s the leader of Uzbeke-beke-beke-stan-stan?” He claimed he would answer “I don’t know.” That would have been way more respectable an answer than this.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  What was it he said that his response would be if someone asked him “who’s the leader of Uzbeke-beke-beke-stan-stan?” He claimed he would answer “I don’t know.”
  
  Everybody knows that the leader of Uzbeke-beke-beke-stan-stan is Macaca.
William George

I feel very sad for Ol’ Mittens Romney sometimes.

Here he is changing his position on near everything depending upon who is asking in the hopes that they’ll want him to be president much in the same way a teenager sucks dick behind the IHOP in the hopes of becoming popular. Yet he is constantly being out-polled by FoxNews auditions like Herman Cain, and blatant con men like Newt Gingrich.

Then I remember Mittens is a piece of shit and my sadness goes away.
Green Ghost

Seems obvious to me he has no personal views on Libya and may not be able to find it on a map. I think most of the time he was mentally rifling through his “talking points” on the issues, trying to find the one that refers to Libya. He thought he found it at one point and then said it was the wrong one and then continued his mental search. Not a man I want in charge of the country during an emergency.
Jaron Hendrix

You know what I’ve seen and heard from the media during all this? Lots of mudslinging. You know what I haven’t heard beyond a barely audible whisper? Any praise or accolades for Barack Obama.

I can really get behind the idea of having a president with a background in business who doesn’t practice law for once. At the end of the day, though, a dancing bear would be preferable to the incumbent. Is there a precedent or mechanism for a party not allowing their incumbent candidate to run on their ticket?
- Brainspore
  
  You know what I’ve seen and heard from the media during all this? Lots of mudslinging. You know what I haven’t heard beyond a barely audible whisper? Any praise or accolades for Barack Obama.
  
  Yes, why haven’t we heard more praise of Barack Obama during coverage of the Republican primaries? It’s uncanny!
  
  But seriously, the minimum we should be able to expect from any candidate running against an incumbent is a semi-articulate statement explaining how the challenger would do better, even if nobody actually believes them. Cain was offered exactly such an opportunity in this interview— “do you approve of how the President handled X or would you have done things differently” is hardly a “gotcha” question.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Is there a precedent or mechanism for a party not allowing their incumbent candidate to run on their ticket?
  
  It’s called a primary challenge. Have you heard of this hot new service called Google?
- DrunkenOrangetree
  
  Which business model would you suggest this fictional candidate pursue? That of the car companies or that of the investment bankers?
pjcamp

As the Honorable Chester Cadaver said: “Sure, understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are.”
ackpht

Er, what was wrong with Obama’s handling of Libya?
- Brainspore
  
  Er, what was wrong with Obama’s handling of Libya?
  
  If you ever find out please forward that information to Mr. Cain. He clearly has no idea either.
http://www.bauartcreative.com/ Bauart

It seems clear that Cain simply hasn’t clearly formulated his political platform regarding Libya.

He WANTS to disagree with Obama’s handling of the situation… but has No f*cking idea what his political stance should be about a policy that worked flawlessly for our American Interest.

I mean… exactly how *DO* you criticize a successful policy that accomplished it’s goals, didn’t cost much, lost no American lives, and cast out a long-term dictator? Hmm?
flickerKuu

I don’t know what’s worse: Cain being so utterly stupid, or the people considering voting for him. This guy is a quack. The fact ANYONE even considers him a candidate is sad. He should just come out and admit he’s running for President of the Book club.

A three year old would have come up with a quicker more articulate answer than this fool. He’s really sad and embarrassing to watch. Unfortunately, I think half the country shares his stupidity.