Romney's travels abroad last week gave us some insight as to how well Romney would represent America should he become our next president. Could he handle meetings with international leaders? Would he represent the U.S. positively? And what sort of relationships would he be able to foster with foreign leaders and people abroad?
Well, based on his experiences in London, Israel, and Poland, Romney's ability to connect with people abroad pretty much is consistent with his ability to connect with folks here in the U.S. -- it's terrible.
Romney stumbled his way through the three countries tripping over each awkward gaffe on his way out. While I can understand his desire to appear to want to have strong foreign policy experience, his multiple gaffes only further supported the fact that he is out of touch with not just most Americans but also, the rest of the world.
As Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican operative stated recently, the trip was "short of a unqualified success" and “Romney abroad is the same as Romney at home.”
Um, yes, I think we can all agree on that one.
Should Romney have gone abroad? I say no. First, our relationships with the United Kingdom or Poland are not top priority for most Americans. It's not what will help American's understand why Romney should be our commander in chief. Voters are concerned with how they will afford a decent education for their children, social security, health care, and of course when this economy will turn around. Not whether we will be invited for tea with the British Prime Minister.
Secondly, does it bother anyone else that a portion of Romeny's internation "tour" included watching his horse compete in the Olympics? Something about that just makes the visit less authentic and genuine. Actually, maybe awkward is the right word.
This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Mitt Romney Be Campaigning Abroad?
Image via DonkeyHotey/Flickr