NATO Protest Recap: Black Bloc Chants for ‘Dead Cops’…Bottles of Urine and Feces…CNN Criticizes Cops

The BlogRSS Feed

Politics Cain camp blames lack of sleep for confusing remarks again

Herman Cain campain blames lack of sleep for position on Libya

Herman Cain didn’t have a solid answer when he was asked whether he supported the way President Obama handled the conflict in Libya. “President Obama supported the uprising, correct?” he told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday. “President Obama called for the removal of Gadhafi — just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘Yes, I agree,’ or ‘No, I didn’t agree.’”

His campaign blames it on sleep deprivation, according to the New York Times:

J. D. Gordon, Mr. Cain’s spokesman and national security adviser, said the candidate had not been at his sharpest in Milwaukee because of a lack of sleep amid a long day of traveling.

“We were all going on four hours sleep, so he was tired,” Mr. Gordon said in a telephone interview. “When he got the Libya question, it took him a while to get his bearings on it, but he got the answer right.”

This is the same excuse, right down to the number of hours, Cain’s campaign used the last time he was pressed on a foreign policy issue. From the Daily Beast in October:

Cain told Wolf Blitzer after the recent Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange that he’d consider trading hundreds of Gitmo detainees for one U.S. soldier, but later walked it back. That was a mistake Cain would not have made “if he’d been rested,” Gordon says. “Mr. Cain was only going on about four hours’ sleep. He did correct it right away—he would not negotiate with terrorists.”

Cain isn’t the only one. Also in October, in an effort to boost Rick Perry‘s debate performances, his team recommended he get more sleep, too.

Comments (19)

  • @leftfighter
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 6:25pm

    Remember the 2008 question, “Is this the guy you want answering the phone at 3 a.m.?” Well, if lack of sleep does this to Cain’s mind, is it?

    I like Cain.

    I’m on record here and on twitter repeatedly as a Cain guy. I was on the Cain train from the minute he declared because I heard him filling in for Hannity on the radio just a few days before he declared and I loved his message. I’m just questioning the wisdom of explaining this failure away as a lack of sleep.

    All that said, I have to ask this tough question: Is this the messaging you want to put out there when you know that 3 a.m. question will be asked again in the not too distant future?

    Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • gambit5555
      Posted on November 16, 2011 at 10:40am

      Being that Cain stopped, got his bearings, evaluated the question, had the questioner confirm the question, and then gave an accurate answer, I’d be more than comfortable with him getting the 3am call if it were ever to come. The question should be, do you want a person with a cookie cutter answer to every question, or do you want a person who will actually think through and give you an honest answer to every question

      Report Post »  
  • PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 2:09pm

    People will do anything to keep Cain down. I am beginning to believe that the media is racist.
    TRUTH
    TEA
    53%er
    Cain 2012

    Report Post »  
  • UnrepetantCurmudgeon
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 2:07pm

    I love Herman and will still vote for him, but if folks cannot see this for the train wreck that it was, well, it’s impossible to know what to say.

    Look: lack of sleep is no excuse. Period. You’re on the campaign trail. Sleep is a luxury. You’re going to be in the White House and you may well have to respond with acuity having had no sleep at all for an entire day. And let’s not forget, this interview was during the run-up to a “debate” on foreign policy issues. If Cain were ever going to be ready, this was the time.

    More to the point, if Cain needed clarification he should have just said “on what aspect of Libya”? And then had his talking points. No biggie: (a) Obama should have gotten Congressional approval and (b) not made our foreign policy subject to the UN; (c) Obama lied about the purpose of our intervention; (d) The brutalization of Gaddafi was a horror; (e) We now have several thousand lost missiles and a new Islamic state to show for his policies. Why is that so hard?

    It’s so hard for Cain for one simple reason: he has needed to immerse himself in foreign policy issues for several months now, and clearly has not done so. And really, on Libya all he had to do was pay attention.

    I’m not happy about this at all but cannot excuse it or explain it away.

    Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 3:14pm

      The president doesn’t need congressional approval – ask Reagan. The president has 30 days before Congress will need to vote for approval on a war. Reagan never asked for permission to bomb Libya back in the 80′s. He simply went on the air prior to the bombing and announced his intentions. Read the War Powers Act of 1973.

      Next, it wasn’t the UN that required us to be there… It was our involvement with NATO. Read up on the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed in 1949. NATO decided to become involved, which USA being a member directly placed us in having to help. To turn our back would have totally dismantled the Treaty and our alliances in Europe. NATO was responding due to the resolutions made by the UN, which set the UN to be the governing body of the attack. If America simply broke off and did their own thing, it would have been the equivalence of declaring war on Libya.

      As for lying, well he is a politician. You need to get use to that. He’s reasons for our involvement was pretty iron-clad. Despite the reason for NATO was due to vested interest by many European members with regards to resources.

      I do not understand (D). The brutalization of Gadhafi when he was captured or the brutalization of what Gadhafi did to his own people?

      As for the lost missiles…. These were after the fact. Many were taken in the offensive lead by the rebels on the ground. See, we were not on the ground. How is President Obama responsible for something he was not a

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 3:34pm

      I am not an Obama supporter, but Libya is the one thing he really has done correct. You are placing too much on the role of the President. I would say the same if it was a republican in office. I am a conservative, and I believe we have a duty to stop any violation of a government killing it’s own citizens. It is the same reasons why we went to Iraq. You can sit and knit-pick the nuances, but we do not have a CIA agent in every arm stockpile in every block of every foreign city. Most of this information is after the fact knowledge. The French, UN, Danish, and UK didn’t do anything to prevent the missing arms…. So why is it all of a sudden President Obama’s fault.

      Hell, I don’t think the WMDs missing in Iraq was a lie from President Bush. I think they were there. We spent months working with the UN and arguing about going to Iraq before we actually did.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_timeline_1990%E2%80%932003
      The Iraq war was approved by Congress in October of 2002. On March 17, 2003, Bush gives 48 hours for Saddam to step down and the beginning of the war.

      However, everyone conveniently forgets that. There were reports of pipeline that was built between Iraq and Syria and the movement of arms to Syria. Don’t forget the centrifuges:
      http://articles.cnn.com/2003-06-25/world/sprj.irq.centrifuge_1_nuclear-program-gas-centrifuge-nuclear-weapon?_s=PM:WORLD

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
  • offsir13
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:59pm

    Why is it if Obama stumbles he gets sympathy but a conservative doesn’t? I hope everyone sees what there trying doing to Herman. I’m still supporting him!

    Report Post »  
    • UnrepetantCurmudgeon
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 2:11pm

      Um, because conservatives are honest and liberals are not. And because the MSM generally gives Obama a pass on everything, a failing that we are constantly and rightly critical of. I can accept it that Cain is a novice on foreign policy; I have a lot of trouble with him looking like a deer in the headlights when asked a question about something as current as Libya. I don’t expect him to be a policy wonk but I do expect him to be at least fluent by now. He is not. And there really are no excuses.

      Report Post »  
    • Fly on the Wall
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 3:13pm

      Obama is called on many issues…especially on almost every FOX show. Most of what he does, or doesn’t do, is criticized. I‘m not saying it isn’t warranted at times but for you to comment that he’s “never” held accountable is a false statement. And Mr. Cain needs to realize that it comes with the job, whether it’s always fair or not. I’m waiting to see if his party comments on his take on collective bargaining or whether that will be swept under the rug. I can‘t think it’s one of his parties policies to back union bargaining.

      Report Post »  
  • jimf01
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:52pm

    Again, you are making a false or at the very least misleading statement blaze blog. “Herman Cain didn’t have a solid answer when he was asked whether he supported the way President Obama handled the conflict in Libya”, is simply untrue. Cain did not have the answer on the tip of his tongue, true. But even in the out of context clip, you see that he did come up with an answer. Tired or not, if a reporter asks a non specific question during a long interview, Cain took 11 seconds to sort out his thoughts, and then asked for the question to be clarified. He then gave a perfectly reasonable and competent answer.
    Give the guy a freakin break. Sheez

    Report Post » jimf01  
  • Fly on the Wall
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:32pm

    Cain’s diversionary tactics are becoming obvious. It reminds me of a 10th grader who studied for a test but can’t remember all the “facts” he learned. He doesn’t seem to have the knowledge of a wide variety of issues that will be needed by a person in the position of president. Several times lately he’s given vague non-answers. And I can‘t imagine any job more tiring and stressful than the one he’s vying for…and he’s just not qualified.

    Report Post »  
    • gambit5555
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:51pm

      Verifying what is being asked before commenting is far from diversionary. It’s just pathetic that people need 5 second soundbites to keep their attention

      Report Post »  
    • Fly on the Wall
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 3:07pm

      GAMBIT5555…You‘re hiding your head in the sand when it comes to recognizing that Cain doesn’t know much about foreign policy, as well as other issues. I was hoping he would be a viable candidate but having watched him over the last few months has convinced me he isn’t capable of doing the job. I understand “think time” and asking for clarification of a question, however Herman is floundering and some of this is because he’s not informed.

      Report Post »  
  • gambit5555
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 1:16pm

    Oh look, another Eddie Scarry piece on the Cain campaign and their “ Failings”. Yet when Mr. Scarry was asked a question in the comments of his last post, he never answered. What’s your excuse for not being able to answer a simple question Eddie? Cain is running a presidential campaign and still managed to answer the question after verifying exactly what was being asked. Yet you continue to try your lame Huffpo attacks. Give it a rest. The Blaze was supposed to be a sanctuary from the type of liberal spin you’ve attempted to put into these pieces.

    Report Post »  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 11:53am

    Tired? Then why agree to the interview?

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
  • Thetruththink
    Posted on November 15, 2011 at 11:47am

    Mr Cain is real, not polished and has educated himself successfully. He is not a career politician and inspite of the media and political attacks, has prooven to be conservative and honest within the past ten years.The The NWO and Obama machine is scared to death to face off with him. Thus the lies and inuendo al a hack job. He must be extremely careful what he says because it will be turned around just like this interview. He has prooven he surrounds himself with great experienced people in the business world and obtains all the available facts before embarking on a successful outcome in turning around national companies. He will do that as our President which is what our country needs. Not another corrupt, smoothe talking, polished politician. Of course he is going to make mistakes, but he learns and stands up and fights back. He is one of us. Newt as VP or Ron Paul in the cabinet or Mitt onboard will make it a jugernaut to begin to take back our Republic

    Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:31pm

      Not to mention that the initial question was rather vague:
      “Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?”

      On what part of Libya? On what part of the plan, or the military aid? On the support of the rebellion or the actions of the Gadhafi?

      The question brings up to many possible answers depending on the exact interpretation of the way it was worded. This is what confused Cain. Along with the lack of sleep. I prefer the fact that he asked for clarification as to understand exactly what the reporter was asking.

      @ NOBALONEY The President will sometimes be wakened in the middle of the night having to answer a serious question or make a serious decision. I prefer a president who says, “Wait a minute… what are the details of the situation?”

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  

Comments are closed.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now