Political pundits jumped on Herman Cain for not knowing what the Palestinian right of return was. Yet when I heard Cain’s answer to Chris Wallace
on the matter he nonetheless gave a sufficient reply. And that’s the good thing about being a conservative—if you stick to principles you will be correct even when you don’t know the full details of an issue.
In fact, one could view Cain’s lack of foreign policy experience as a strength instead of a weakness. His history of focusing on being an American entrepreneur might mean that he would be less likely to meddle in world affairs than a career politician who believes that the U.S. Armed Forces are a world police.
I am not endorsing Herman Cain as a candidate, just as I do not endorse anyone else. However, if I were to give any of them advice for their candidacies (and I am sure they all want my advice) I would recommend using an established way to avoid any such negative moments in the future. The candidate should simply state, “You have to vote me into office to find out what’s in me.”
This method worked for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in getting universal life control
health care passed. Regardless of the subsequent caterwauling from (some) on the Right and challenges in court, that legislation still stands. (And the longer it stands the less likely that Congress ever will repeal it.) Thus, the Pelosi method of telling people that it’s none of our business what elected officials do is a proven success. After all, the press was satisfied with her answer and placed no significant pressure on her or the Democrats to disclose what was in the health care bill before they crammed it down the gullets of the American people.
The bottom line is that the passage of health care legislation has set the precedent that no legislation, official, or candidate for public office ever again needs explanation to be considered legitimate or serious. And thus I would recommend to Herman Cain, and anyone else running for office, to refuse to respond to queries from the press on what one thinks about any given issue.
However, if I were forced to give a policy position on the Palestinian state issue, here is what it would be. I would carve out a section of Jordan and give it to the so-called Palestinians for them to use as their own nation. This solution would eliminate the need for the Palestinians to fight with the Israelis and I’m sure Jordan—an Arabic nation which sympathizes with the Palestinians—would be more than happy to give up its own land for the welfare of fellow Arabs. What’s that you say? That will never work because the Jordanians and any other Arabic nation aren’t about to let their nation be carved up for the Palestinians (or anyone else for that matter)? Hmmm. Then maybe the Palestinian issue isn’t at all about the welfare of the Palestinians. Maybe it’s all about Arabic nations across the Middle East using the Palestinians to attack and destroy the Jews. And if that's the case, then the whole right of return issue is nothing but nonsense anyway.