I have been reading and hearing some about Herman Cain recently. Cain is the presidential candidate and former CEO from Georgia who is trying to make a name for himself among the right leaning. He seems to be a go getter with a personality that presents well on stage. But, his early performance indicates he will exit stage right fairly early in this campaign.
Asked in March if he would consider putting a Muslim in a top position, the Atlanta businessman gave a cringe-causing answer to the left leaning blog Think Progress. He said he would not, “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government.”
Herman Cain tries to clarify what makes him uncomfortable.
The campaign trail, especially for the uninitiated like Cain, can be a rough and tumble place. Sometimes, an answer a newbie candidate gives in the heat of the moment doesn’t reflect his true feelings. For that reason, I thought it fair to give Cain a little time to clarify what he meant in a setting more substantial than a question and answer exchanged while exiting a building. Two such opportunities presented themselves yesterday and Mr. Cain’s answers did not improve much.
He went on Glenn Beck’s show, a decidedly friendly forum for Mr. Cain. When asked about the earlier statement he said it had been “misconstrued” and went on to say, “I immediately said – without thinking – ‘No, I would not be comfortable.’ I did not say that I would not have them in my cabinet. If you look at my career, I have hired good people regardless of race, religion, sex gender, orientation and this kind of thing.”
I am not sure any American would like being referred to as “them,” but I will not dwell on that any more than I will contemplate how Cain would define “this kind of thing.” He seemed to be making a little headway, or at least making an effort to not affront an entire religion. It wasn’t until he got to CBS that I began to be convinced Cain’s first answer two months ago may very well reflect how he thinks.
When Brian Montopoli asked Cain to explain his comments about Muslims, Cain said, “When they asked ‘would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet’ I said ‘no, I wouldn’t be comfortable. I didn’t say I would not have one in there if they put the Constitution of the United States first.” He went on to express concern about the imposition of Sharia law, or strict Islamic law, into the American legal system and pointed to a particular case in New Jersey.
That was the clincher for me. Every president is bound to require his appointees put the Constitution and the laws of the land first. This test is not any more important for Americans of one religious faith than it is another.
So, according to Cain, he is uncomfortable with appointing a Muslim unless he is able to prove allegiance to the United States. Does this make Cain comfortable with a Christian or some other believer who puts faith before nation and liberty? Cain seems to suggest that by being Christian one is automatically a patriot and by being Muslim one cannot be assumed patriotic until proven so by Cain’s personal litmus test. That is an outrage.
Mr. Cain is unable to see the hypocrisy it takes to say these things days after attending a forum held by the Family Leader, an organization excessively open about ensuring their take on Christian values are written into law, where Cain quoted the book of Matthew and insisted that laws come from God and “the Biblical purpose for government is to punish evil and encourage good.”
Mr. Cain has had plenty of time and a minimum of two national opportunities to explain his earlier off the cuff response. It has become clear his original statement may not have been misconstrued after all. His curtain call may come sooner than he had planned.
###
Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment