As far as I'm aware, the idea of Mitt Romney's trip overseas was to show that as opposed to Obama's policy of trying to please everyone in the world, he would concentrate on solidifying the relationship with the USA's main historical allies, such as Israel and the UK.

So it's not that an American President / hopeful made some gaffes on a trip that is amusing - it's that he was trying to look good compared to Obama's gaffes (such as the DVD collection that our PM could not watch unless he got a cracked player; removing Winston's bust).

In that, he seems to have failed. Individually the mistakes are probably meaningless. Ok, so you can forget an Opposition Leader's name, or get confused on protocol and think you have to call him Mr 'Jobtitle'. Sure, as someone who once ran a Winter Olympcs he has an insight into the issues surrounding a major games. Hey, how was he to know that you don't tell everyone you met someone from MI6 for a chat? And why not presage the visit by talking about 'Anglo-Saxon heritage', it's not like that could annoy anyone from the UK or USA who is not 'Anglo-Saxon'?

Combined they are a little embarassing, perhaps, but nothing like being fatal to a campaign. As gaffes.

What is interesting, however, is that the Conservatives, who are internationally aligned with the Republicans, have been responding robustly. Cameron put in a sly dig about Salt Lake City being 'in the middle of nowhere'. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London last night used the 'Yes We Can' line in response to Romney.

Of course, the Tories have been feeling a but miffed by the Republicans, after they were snubbed at the RNC 8 years ago.

So, while it's not a disaster, it's not a success for him. If it had been the French, hey, America would probably have lapped it up, but it was not. He set out to make Obama look bad in the eyes of us Brits. He couldn't even convince his closest potential allies in our governement.

He needs to up his game with Bibi.

By the way, if anyone isn't aware, the hashtag '#romneyshambles' is also an unfortunate piece of bad luck. A few months ago our government started making silly and public mistakes (a badly handled budget, causing a run on petrol, having to undo earlier policies), and this became known on Twitter as the 'omnishambles', after the word which was coined for the political satire The Thick of It.

Poor Mitt turned up with a rhyming surname at just the wrong time.

But it is amusing

Yeah, it does feel like a race to the bottom over here.

He needs to up his game with Bibi.

Fortunately no one will parse his every word in the Middle East

Objectively, what he said about the Olympics wasn't exactly wrong. A lot of people here have been making the exact same points. It is a litle bit tactless though. I got the impression he did it so as to try and big himself up for his own Olympic expertise, which was always likely to piss off his hosts.

Ultimately it's a storm in a teacup though. Nobody really cares.

Anyone watching the Opening Ceremony? Even a republican like me has to love how the Queen took the rise out of herself.

Sassenach wrote:Objectively, what he said about the Olympics wasn't exactly wrong. A lot of people here have been making the exact same points. It is a litle bit tactless though. I got the impression he did it so as to try and big himself up for his own Olympic expertise, which was always likely to piss off his hosts.

well, yes, 'we' are allowed to be self critical. Guests, especially those trying to look all diplomatic and statesman-like, would be better not joining in. And there's a difference between noting some of the organisational issues and casting doubt on the spirit of the host audience.

Ultimately it's a storm in a teacup though. Nobody really cares.

No-one would if Romney had not made an issue of improving relations with the main allies before he went. Over here, to be honest, we don't really care much. And Romney's comments probably helped to unite people for the Olympics.

The audience that Romney cares about is the one back home, and maybe they don't care what the foreign press and public think, but will they see this bad or neutral for Romney?

Danivon:

The audience that Romney cares about is the one back home, and maybe they don't care what the foreign press and public think, but will they see this bad or neutral for Romney?

Personally, I'd like to see Romney show some wisdom when traveling abroad. I do agree with his toughness as it relates to the status of Jerusalem and Iran (no desire to hijack the thread), but I also want him to show that he understands the complexity of the world and diplomacy. Obama comes across more as a wiser statesman (again, not meaning to hijack this).

Overall, I think it is meaningless to most Americans. In the end, this election is going to be about the unemployment rate.

Meh.

Let's look at something "equally important" to voters: the consistent lies of White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer:

I wondered if the Obama public relations team was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, whether Krauthammer had gotten inside their head, or whether Krauthammer had put them on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Dr. Krauthammer has not drawn on his psychiatric training to opine on that question, but he has returned to the subject with a call for an apology. After recounting Friday’s events, Krauthammer concludes:

The decent thing to do…would be to acknowledge the (inadvertent?) deception and apologize for it. He could send the retraction to Mediaite, the nonpartisan media Web site run by Dan Abrams, whose report on this contretemps was headlined: “British Embassy Confirms Krauthammer Right, White House Wrong: Churchill Bust Returned in 2009.”

Or he could send it to New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who at first repeated Pfeiffer’s denunciation of the Churchill bust “falsehood,” and then later honorably corrected himself, admitting that “I got some facts wrong, because I made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer.” Rosenthal then chided Pfeiffer for posting “a weaselly follow-up comment” after the facts became clear that “fails to acknowledge that his post the previous day was false.”

In my view, this whole affair was completely unnecessary. Pfeiffer devoted an entire post (with accompanying photography) on the White House Blog to a single sentence in a larger argument about foreign policy, and blew it up into an indignant defense of truth itself and a handy club with which to discredit the credibility of a persistent critic of his boss. (After all, why now? Why this column? Since the return of the Oval Office Churchill in 2009, that fact had been asserted in at least half a dozen major news outlets, including Newsweek, CBS News, ABC News, the Telegraph and The Washington Post.)

So I suggest Mr. Pfeiffer bring this to a short, painless and honorable conclusion: a simple admission that he got it wrong and that my assertion was correct. An apology would be nice, but given this White House’s arm’s-length relationship with truth — and given Ryan Zimmerman’s hot hitting — I reckon the Nationals will win the World Series before I receive Pfeiffer’s mea culpa.

Obama has consistently had a tin ear with Britain. An iPod for her Majesty, complete with Obamaspeech? Malvinas? Churchill bust?

Romney was less than slick. So bloody what? We have had 3 1/2 years of slick. We've seen how the President surrounds himself with lying attack dogs.

Again, this whole Olympic thing? Blip.

GDP. Unemployment. Debt. Leadership.

Across the board on performance, the President is a 'D' at best, and usually an 'F.'

Ray Jay wrote:Personally, I'd like to see Romney show some wisdom when traveling abroad. I do agree with his toughness as it relates to the status of Jerusalem and Iran (no desire to hijack the thread),

It's not really a hijack - he's on a three-nation tour. The UK was first and was not a success. Israel was next, and he played to one side and against the other there. In Poland he's apparently going to play Cold War politics.

but I also want him to show that he understands the complexity of the world and diplomacy. Obama comes across more as a wiser statesman (again, not meaning to hijack this).

I do worry that it's all a bit monochrome with Romney. It's all very well to be supporting of Israel, but probably not wise to be too enthusiastic about aggression towards Iran or indulge in what may be 'smugness' about how poor the Palestinians are. I guess Americans don't really care what other people think, but those other people do care.

Overall, I think it is meaningless to most Americans. In the end, this election is going to be about the unemployment rate.

I think it will be over a lot of things. The Economy is going to be the biggest issue. But it won't be the only one. If it was, why is Romney trying to court the pro-Israel vote?

If it was, why is Romney trying to court the pro-Israel vote?

That's a fair point. I guess it is partially to get money from your pal Sheldon, and partially to win Florida.

Ray Jay wrote:

If it was, why is Romney trying to court the pro-Israel vote?

That's a fair point. I guess it is partially to get money from your pal Sheldon, and partially to win Florida.

Precisely.

For any Jewish voter who is up in the air, the difference between the relationship the President has with Nethanyahu and Romney has with him may be the decider.

I wonder if Romney can now win Chicago--Lech Walesa endorses him.

Of course, I know he can't.

Obama has consistently had a tin ear with Britain. An iPod for her Majesty, complete with Obamaspeech? Malvinas? Churchill bust?

This is very true, and in fact you forgot about Gordon Brown and the infamous DVD boxset that he couldn't even watch.

I don't think anybody is trying to read too much into Romney's performance in Britain though. It's just interesting to note that he made such a balls-up of what really ought to have been an open goal. For all that the British Conservatives are probably further left than the Democrats on many issues, they see themselves as the natural sister party to the Republicans and Cameron made a big effort to be as welcoming towards Romney as protocol would permit. The fact that Romney managed to throw that back in his face by slagging off the Olympic preparations (a sensitive subject that he really should have known to avoid) clearly irritated the PM and turned the whole trip into a PR disaster.

Dr. Fate:

I wonder if Romney can now win Chicago--Lech Walesa endorses him.

There is a higher percentage of Polish people in Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,than there are Jews in Florida. (source Wikipedia)

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

I wonder if Romney can now win Chicago--Lech Walesa endorses him.

There is a higher percentage of Polish people in Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,than there are Jews in Florida. (source Wikipedia)

I dub thee, Sir Factcheck!

Sassenach wrote: The fact that Romney managed to throw that back in his face by slagging off the Olympic preparations (a sensitive subject that he really should have known to avoid) clearly irritated the PM and turned the whole trip into a PR disaster.

Okay, setting aside the tabloid hyperbole, was what Romney said really so far afield?

Was it wise? No.

Was it a national insult? I don't think so. I'd say it was more an honest observation that should not have been uttered.

How bad was it? Here's a measuring rod: lets's see how many commercials Obama and Co can make out of it. My guess is close to zero.