It was actually much tamer than comments made in the British press in the runup to the Olympics. That's not really the point though. Whether or not Romney was correct in what he said is immaterial. As it happens he wasn't really correct because the Olympics has gone off without any significant problems other than a problem with a lot of freebie tickets given out to the 'Olympic Family' not being used and having to be filled with soldiers. But even if there had been a problem with the 'spirit' of the British people and the organisation had been a shambles, you just don't need to say these things on your first major foreign trip as a Presidential candidate.

I suspect Romney's team were a little taken aback by the savaging he got in the British press, which must have come as a shock after living in the bubble of the rather more supine US press for so long. Ultimately it won't prove to be a big deal because nobody in the US pays any attention to the British press anyway, and the whole thing was a storm in a teacup, but this has been a valuable lesson for Romney in how not to do diplomacy. Soon to be forgotten I'm sure, but Romney and his team would do well to learn the lessons.

Sassenach wrote:Ultimately it won't prove to be a big deal because nobody in the US pays any attention to the British press anyway, and the whole thing was a storm in a teacup, but this has been a valuable lesson for Romney in how not to do diplomacy. Soon to be forgotten I'm sure, but Romney and his team would do well to learn the lessons.

Would you say President Obama has learned from his mistakes with regard to diplomacy with the British?

It seems to me that if anyone has been slow to learn it's our President.

I've seen reports from the Poland trip that Romney has avoided the following press (indeed, no press conference since the UK) and that on of his aides shouted rude stuff at journalists. Not just Polish ones, or awkward British ones, but American journalists. And that Romney went on to Fox to moan that the press were not reporting what he wanted them to.

Surely he did this trip to have it reported? It is not the fault of the media it has not been an unqualified success, and perhaps they'd report what he wanted if he held a press conference and answered their questions and a poltician really is reaching when they start this kind of complaint anyway. It won't help keep the press on side for, say, an election campaign.

To answer your question, DF (which I will assume is just a question and not some kind of egregious 'trolling') I think Obama has learned from those mistakes, but part of what he's learned is that most people don't really much care. Which applies to this too - it matters little for November - but part of the reason that Romney went in the first place was to try and show a clear difference, and for a reason.

Still, we are enjoying having Michelle over for the Games, which perhaps is a lesson learned.

Obama is hardly the gold standard when it comes to Anglo-American relations. You'd like to think Romney would have somewhat higher aspirations in that regard.

I think the point here is that Romney's gaffes were clearly inadvertant. I'm sure he didn't set out to insult his hosts, it just happened that way because he made inadvisable remarks that a candidate for the highest office in the land should really be sure-footed enough to avoid instinctively. With Obama I get the feeling that there was more an element of deliberate snub involved.

danivon wrote:I've seen reports from the Poland trip that Romney has avoided the following press (indeed, no press conference since the UK) and that on of his aides shouted rude stuff at journalists. Not just Polish ones, or awkward British ones, but American journalists. And that Romney went on to Fox to moan that the press were not reporting what he wanted them to.

Surely he did this trip to have it reported? It is not the fault of the media it has not been an unqualified success, and perhaps they'd report what he wanted if he held a press conference and answered their questions and a poltician really is reaching when they start this kind of complaint anyway. It won't help keep the press on side for, say, an election campaign.

Well, that is certainly a fair and balanced discussion of the issue.

Where exactly did this take place? Were the questions time and place appropriate?

Never mind, I'll answer my own questions (watch and learn). While this is obviously slanted, it comes at it from precisely the opposite angle you've taken and actually interacts with the "charges.":

No reporter asked Romney anything.

What this gaggle of locusts did do, though, was to obnoxiously shout, scream, and holler questions from Pilsudski Square -- just a hundred yards from where the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is laid. And there really should be a law that requires crybaby left-wingers to actually kiss an ass after doing something so craven and disrespectful.

The media's behavior was childish and disrespectful, but most of all it was obviously an organized attempt to "create a moment" designed to hurt Romney by furthering The Narrative that his trip overseas has only been made up of gaffes.

Even if the Romney guy hadn't popped off, if you watch the video of the moment (below) what you see is a conspiracy playing out where a gang of Obama-supporters disguised as journalists attempt to embarrass Romney by hurling shrill questions about what they perceive to be gaffes.

So, we learn 1) where the event took place (near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) and 2) why a Romney aid responded a bit shrilly.

To answer your question, DF (which I will assume is just a question and not some kind of egregious 'trolling')

Actually, it was a rhetorical device. President Obama has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for Britain. Oh, sure, in formal settings he says nice things, but he's got a string of gaffes that make Romney look like an astute Anglophile.

. . . I think Obama has learned from those mistakes, but part of what he's learned is that most people don't really much care. Which applies to this too - it matters little for November - but part of the reason that Romney went in the first place was to try and show a clear difference, and for a reason.

For those paying attention, I think we get it. Obama, while professing a desire to mend alliances, blah, blah, blah, has actually managed to offend our closest allies while apologizing and "resetting" relations with our competitors to little effect.

But, you are right. This is not going to settle the election. The President will lose for his abysmal domestic performance. This is just a shiny object some are using to distract from that.

Still, we are enjoying having Michelle over for the Games, which perhaps is a lesson learned.

Agreed, since the President failed to secure the Olympics for Chicago (in a notable debacle), it is probably wise to send the First Lady to put a good foot forward.

Sassenach wrote:Obama is hardly the gold standard when it comes to Anglo-American relations. You'd like to think Romney would have somewhat higher aspirations in that regard.

I think the point here is that Romney's gaffes were clearly inadvertant. I'm sure he didn't set out to insult his hosts, it just happened that way because he made inadvisable remarks that a candidate for the highest office in the land should really be sure-footed enough to avoid instinctively. With Obama I get the feeling that there was more an element of deliberate snub involved.

Well said.

My only qualification for that is what Romney actually said, which was that he had read press reports, etc. A slick politician would not have said what he said.

One more note about Romney "avoiding the press":

Over at Politico, Jonathan Martin repeats the media talking points we're now reading and seeing everywhere:

Romney has not held a media availability for his traveling press corps since taking three questions outside 10 Downing Street in London last Thursday.

The trick the corrupt media is playing here is in what they don't tell you, which is that Romney has probably answered over a HUNDRED questions during his overseas trip.
Yes, that's right, Romney sat down with Greta, Brian Williams, Piers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer at different times DURING this trip and answered every question thrown at him.
So the media's nonsense narrative to justify their appalling behavior is a bald-faced lie.

Is that ducking the press?

He had left the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and was walking away from it. Certainly at the tomb is inappropriate. Also, on his way to it would be. But not after the ceremony is over, going off to do something else, and 100yards away. Apparently it was over by the Sofitel Hotel Victoria. Which I'm sure is a nice place, but not likely to be 'holy' to the Polish people.

And I'm sorry, but if the guy can't handle being trailed by the press asking awkward questions, what is he doing running for the highest office of the land?. Being asked annoying, politically motivated, embarassing questions is part of the job of a politician - the more senior, the worse it can get.

Of course, if it hadn't been for his sweary aide, brushing the pack off would have been fair enough.

There is also a difference between sitting down for a 1-to-1 with a chosen journalist (and perhaps with pre-vetted questions), and a press conference. I'm not saying he has to answer their every question, but if he's not going to engage them, how can he expect them to report what he thinks they should?

danivon wrote:He had left the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and was walking away from it. Certainly at the tomb is inappropriate. Also, on his way to it would be. But not after the ceremony is over, going off to do something else, and 100yards away. Apparently it was over by the Sofitel Hotel Victoria. Which I'm sure is a nice place, but not likely to be 'holy' to the Polish people.

And I'm sorry, but if the guy can't handle being trailed by the press asking awkward questions, what is he doing running for the highest office of the land?. Being asked annoying, politically motivated, embarassing questions is part of the job of a politician - the more senior, the worse it can get.

I don't think you want to go there.

A reporter for a conservative news Web site interrupted President Obama’s announcement of a new immigration policy in the Rose Garden on Friday, drawing a rebuke from the visibly agitated president.

The reporter, who later identified himself as Neil Munro of the Daily Caller, shouted out questions while Obama was explaining that his administration will block deportations of young illegal immigrants. That prompted the president to respond: “Not while I’m speaking.”

At the end of his remarks, however, Obama returned to Mun­ro, who was standing in the press corps area of the manicured lawn outside the West Wing and had asked why Obama’s new policy favored “foreigners over American workers.”

“And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people,” Obama said, before Munro shouted out again. The president added: “I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.”

How many times has the President blown off questions?

He spent months dodging the press.

How many dumb things has he said? How about the Cambridge police incident?

Of course, if it hadn't been for his sweary aide, brushing the pack off would have been fair enough.

There is also a difference between sitting down for a 1-to-1 with a chosen journalist (and perhaps with pre-vetted questions), and a press conference. I'm not saying he has to answer their every question, but if he's not going to engage them, how can he expect them to report what he thinks they should?

Wait, so Brian Williams is in the tank for Romney? Piers Morgan? Wolf Blitzer?

Do you have any evidence the questions were pre-vetted? Typically, not even the President gets that courtesy--unless he goes on some complete fanboy show.

Wolf Blitzer is a great name, but he's in the wrong profession. He really should have been a linebacker.

Again, DF, there's a convention in a press conference. During an opening statement, or an answer to a question, the person is not supposed to be interrupted.

Romney was not giving a statement to interrupt. The journalists were trying to get him to say something.

Comparing oranges to apples so you can return to your obsession with Obama is cute and all, but veering off, somewhat.

Does someone from Fox News complaining about Romney's inaccessibility have more credibility for you DF? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/3 ... _ref=media

Sassenach wrote:Wolf Blitzer is a great name, but he's in the wrong profession. He really should have been a linebacker.

I'll say it again. We need a like button.

Classic!

danivon wrote:Again, DF, there's a convention in a press conference. During an opening statement, or an answer to a question, the person is not supposed to be interrupted.

Romney was not giving a statement to interrupt. The journalists were trying to get him to say something.

Uh-huh. Have you actually watched the video? What were the journalists asking?

1. Do you have a statement for the Palestinians?

2. What about the gaffes? (Have they ruined your trip?)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... in-poland/

Yes, I can certainly see the deep, probing nature of those questions. I wonder why they waited 2 entire seconds after he thanked his hosts to begin shouting them?

Comparing oranges to apples so you can return to your obsession with Obama is cute and all, but veering off, somewhat.

And, ignoring the months (I posted) that Obama failed to hold even one conference is cute. Ignoring the context of the questions in Poland is cute.

The thread is about Romney's trip. That's why I'm ignoring unconnected stuff about Obama. You have any number of threads you started off for the purpose of criticising Barack, or you can start a new one.

On the context of the question barrage in Poland, I did not ignore the context. I responded to you, which is the very opposite of ignoring it. Perhaps you assume that I fully back the actions of the journalists? I don't. They were pushy, but the point is that candidates (and their staff) are going to have to deal with that over the next few months.

Purple's link is interesting though.