Perry doesn't speak 'hypothetical,' but he should

Look, I don't expect presidential candidates to be foreign policy experts. I do, however, expect them to have a solid working knowledge of international affairs especially as it relates to current hot spots. I also expect candidates to do their homework before showing up at a debate before a nationwide (if not worldwide) audience. But as JFK is reputed to have said during the Cuban missile crisis, "There's always some sonofabitch who doesn't get the word."

Last night, Rick Perry was that fellow. During the debate, he was asked: "[I]f you were president, and you got a call at 3 a.m. telling you that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons, at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?" The Texas governor badly flubbed the answer. This wildly hypothetical question is mostly designed to goad a hapless candidate into saying: "I would invade" -- which, ironically, is probably the correct literal answer. In such a dire scenario, the U.S. would in fact have little choice but to invade and seize the nukes. But stating the obvious aloud would make a candidate sound crazy in a Big Breaking News kinda way. No, Perry didn't fall into the trap. But he might have been better off if he had.

A wily, top-of-his-game candidate would have responded along these lines:

Brett, if you're asking hypothetically, well, that's a doozy. Cuz I'm just a small-town Texan who never learned to speak "hypothetical." [Laughter] The idea of the Taliban suddenly seizing Pakistan's nukes is far-fetched. Game changing events in the real world don't happen like they do in Hollywood blockbusters. Trust me, my White House won't operate like the lefty West Wing episodes Obama tries so hard to emulate. [Laughter] We Republicans live in the real world. [Applause] The idea is to prevent such "bolt out of the blue" scenarios in the first place. As president, I would take all necessary steps to forestall Taliban plotting long before it ever reached critical mass. That means actively engaging Pakistan as an ally and helping it to secure its nuclear arsenal. It means reducing tensions in the region in partnership with India and other allies. And strategically, it means advancing nuclear nonproliferation to keep terrorists from ever getting their hands on nukes. A 3 a.m. phone call of the type you suggest, Brett, means your foreign policy has utterly failed. Unlike President Obama, I would act proactively ahead of a potentional crisis instead of reactively "leading from behind." [Rousing applause]

This is Politics 101. Reframe the question to make the points you wish to make. Be knowledgeable (or appear so), decisive, and coherent. Come across as presidential and someone who wisely thinks ahead and anticipates problems. Toss in some red meat and contrast yourself with that "appeasing" Obama fellow who's too busy "apologizing" for America to think straight. I'm told Republicans like that.

But here's how Gov. Perry's answer actually went down:

"Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That's one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with -- and that's the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16's, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them. Today, we don't have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality."

I'd love to comment, but I literally have no idea what Perry is talking about. Relationships, F-16's, Taiwan? As the Washington Monthly observed, this is unadulterated gibberish. It's like the dude popped a Quaalude or something. In this case, Perry might have been better off just saying "I'd nuke the bastards." Then, at least, we'd know where he stands. As it is, Perry is proving he is clueless about foreign policy and seems unprepared (or unable) to do anything about it. If you've ever wondered what a second-rate mind looks like, wonder no more.