Romney's trip abroad has demonstrated that his foreign policy operation is "bush league" in more ways than one.
By now the entire world has gotten a chance to see that Mitt Romney is no foreign policy or diplomatic genius.
He went to Britain and insulted his host's preparation for the Olympic Games -- leading major British papers to run banner headlines like: "Mitt the Twitt" and "Nowhere Man."
He massively damaged whatever ability he might have had to broker Middle East peace were he elected president by theorizing that the economic difficulties of Palestinians stemmed from their inferior "culture."
On his visit to Poland, Romney received the endorsement of former Polish President and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. The Polish Solidarity union itself -- with which Walesa is no longer associated -- responded by issuing a statement attacking Romney as an enemy of working people.
Romney's debut on the foreign policy stage opened to horrible reviews.
He seems to insult people wherever he travels. He has demonstrated that he is completely tone-deaf -- that he has no ability to understand what other people hear when he speaks. That's bad enough in domestic politics -- but it disqualifies a leader from effectively representing the interests of the United States in dealings with other countries.
America simply can't afford to have a president who is a bull in a china closest careening around the world insulting people and making enemies. As Obama campaign spokesperson Jennifer Psaki put it, "he's been fumbling the foreign policy football from country to country."
And he has fumbled not just in failing to show diplomatic skill -- but also when he has tried to demonstrate policy expertise. In explaining his theory that Palestinian economic difficulties resulted from their "culture," Romney cited the difference between the per capital Gross Domestic Product of Israel and the Palestinian territories. "....for instance," he said, " in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capital just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000."
But he didn't even get that right. Not even close. In fact, according to the World Bank, Israeli per capita GDP is $31,282 compared to only $1,600 for the Palestinian areas.
All of this led the Washington Post to conclude that:
Romney has distinguished himself from Obama, but perhaps in ways he did not intend.From a tactical point of view, Romney has faltered at times in trying to prove he has the policy expertise, personal skills and cultural intelligence to represent the country abroad.
Pretty bush league, right? But Romney has demonstrated his foreign policy operation is "Bush league" in another way as well.
Twelve years ago another Republican was running for president with very little foreign policy skill or experience. He made benign noises -- sounded almost like an isolationist -- during the campaign. But when George W. Bush took office he surrounded himself with a cadre of foreign policy Neo-Cons who left the country unprepared for 9/11 and then sent the country careening into the worst foreign policy disaster in half a century: the War in Iraq.
The worst part about Romney's audition on the foreign policy stage is that it made it crystal clear that the Neo-Cons are back.
All you need to do is have a look at the Romney foreign policy team:
All of these people were on the Bush foreign policy team. Now they are all on the Romney foreign policy team.
In fact, Dan Senor, who was one of the most ardent apologists for the disastrous War in Iraq, has emerged as Romney's chief foreign policy spokesman.
This same group -- together with people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney -- surrounded the inexperienced George W. Bush and led him around by a ring in his nose. They will do exactly the same thing to the utterly spineless Mitt Romney if he is elected president.
This week's Newsweek magazine has a cover story about Romney's "Wimp factor" -- the fact that he has no core values and as a result would, if he were elected, be a puppet for the far right of the Republican Party.
The same would be true when it comes to foreign affairs.
Bottom line: if you liked the War in Iraq, you'll love the Bush foreign policy.
Americans United for Change has put up an excellent Web Video about the Bush/Romney foreign policy team. To view it, click: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I4bgccrReg
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.
Follow Robert Creamer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbcreamer
Chris Kelly: Mitt Romney: The Accidentally Insulting Tourist
Jason Stanford: Mitt Romney's European Vacation
This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy, where the interests of the US, its client countries, its allies, its enemies, and the military and political establishments of all those nations come into play. No president since John Quincy Adams has had any real diplomatic experience to speak of before they took office. And just about every president stumbles over it during their first year.
So, electing a president comes with no guarantees—it's always a leap of faith.
All that said, I'm afraid that in Romney's case it's a Grand Canyon-sized leap. I don't think Evel Knievel on his best day could make it. I know I sure couldn't.
It would not even occur to him that there should be shared sacrifice or that if a war isn't worth paying for that perhaps it isn't worth sending soldiers and countless civilians to the deaths for.
proving the point that republicans are less intelligent, which is backed up with the facts that red states have less education
http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/
He'll want war with all enemies at once, and at the same time, have all allies headed in the opposite direction.
What a foreign policy disaster the mitster would be.
Hasn't the Obama administration tried political change in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria? ... so far two have fallen into Muslim brotherhood control, the third is a civil war and lets not forget about how Obama abandoned the Iranian uprising ... Foreign policy indeed... excuse me but I'll take the outcome of Iraq any day. It bodes well for a Romney administration and at least we will have jobs ....
And who's being delusional, It was Jimmy Carter who made Iran what it is today... well not to forget Obama cowering to these militants ...Left minded folks do not understand the Iranian culture of their government...gestures to talk without a show of force is perceived weakness in that culture. that's what happens when you let a Rookie in the game.
War with Iran will be worse than either Afganistan or Iraq and will more probably follow the Vietnam model , it may also be the start of WW3.
Jobs ? Yes true jobs in the army , arms manufacturers and caring for casualties.