Herman Cain Defends America

Herman Cain is catching up with Bachman in the loonie kazoonie department. Last night on Jay Leno he again “clarified” remarks on his the Sharia law and the prospects of Muslim Americans joining his cabinet or administration. Many state legislatures have passed bans against Sharia law, including some where the percentage of Muslims is microscopic. Most of the republican candidates have also gone “on record” in their opposition to Sharia law as well, all too happy to jump on an unconstitutional McCarthyite bandwagon which demonizes all Muslim Americans in a least common denominator chase for conservative votes. There is of course zero chance that Sharia law will be incorporated into the laws of any state or the federal government.
But Cain tried to do them one better by saying that he would not appoint a Muslim in his administration and telling Christiane Amanpour that “I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”

Though Cain later apologized to Muslim groups, he has continued to spout his anti-sharia law rhetoric on the campaign trail. The issue came up with Jay Leno last night.
After Leno suggested the position “didn’t seem very American” Cain clarified his remarks. "I wanted to drive home the point that there are peaceful Muslims, and then there are those that want to kill us. And I basically, when I was asked that question, I did answer, would you appoint a Muslim, and I said no. I was thinking jihadist, and I did not qualify that point, but I qualified it later." Oh, so now I understand, he did not mean to cast all Muslims in the role of terrorists for the chance to chase votes, what he was really saying was that he would not appoint a jihadi terrorist-- “those that want to kill us”-- to his cabinet. Apparently some of other candidates think it would be OK. Well, that is very clear and does not sound like pandering to the Tonight show audience at all.

In fairness, not all of the republicans are xenophobic hotheads. Chris Christie appointed a Muslim Judge, Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer with long history of defending the civil rights of those in his community, like civil rights lawyers have done since the founding days. Few remember that as a lawyer John Adams defended a British Soldier in a capital case long before he was a founder, but I digress.
Forced to defend the nomination at a town hall meeting Christie said, “If it is disqualifying for the bench to be an Arab-American in New Jersey who represents innocent people and gets them released, then this isn’t the state I believe it is,” Christie said. “I’ve known this man for 10 years. He’s a good, decent American and New Jerseyan, he’s an outstanding lawyer, and he deserves the opportunity to be on the bench. I am proud to have nominated him.”

If Christie refused to take the “not one dollar in taxes for ten dollars in spending decreases” pledge as all the others have done, and actually proposed policies designed to unite rather than play to the narrow minority it might have been interesting. As Tom Friedman wrote today, it would have likely forced Obama into a more conciliatory centrist posture. As a liberal that is pretty sick of that posture, I am not sure that would have been a good thing, but I do think this campaign would have been much more about ideas than slogans.

Now we’re stuck with a Texan that can put a sentence together, a patrician New Englander that hates most the policies he himself proposed and authorized while Governor of Massachusetts , Ron Paul, and a cast of wing nuts, extreme in their positions, bizarre in their statements, safely unelectable. And Herman Cain. At least we know he will not appoint any “people that want to kill us” to his administration. Whew… That was close.