Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Debut In Great Britain: Total Disaster!

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the GOP Presidential nominee, has struck out in his first foray into foreign policy, of which he has no background or experience at all!

Of all places, he bombed in Great Britain, the closest ally and friend of the United States for the past century!

He stupidly criticized London as not having prepared adequately for the Olympics, which totally insulted the mayor of London, as well as British Prime Minister David Cameron.

This man cannot utter a statement that is not seen as inadequate, as incomplete, needing further explanation, or being a pure embarrassment!

The British press is comparing Romney to Sarah Palin and George W. Bush! What kind of hope of diplomacy with our closest ally is seen as possible when the first impression is so negative?

British observers have said that Romney came across as without “charm, warmth, humour, or sincerity”!

What is a greater indictment of Romney than that statement? All of it is TOTALLY TRUE, as Romney is clearly a total PHONY, unconcerned about how people feel, and clearly, if he can alienate Great Britain, imagine Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, etc!

Romney is giving further proof that he is the WORST GOP Presidential nominee since James G. Blaine, the extremely corrupt nominee in 1884, against Democrat Grover Cleveland!

Realize this includes Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but realistically, Romney is far worse than either of them or any other nominee since Blaine 128 years ago!

Romney is clearly digging his own grave!

6 comments on “Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Debut In Great Britain: Total Disaster!

  1. labman57 July 26, 2012 11:57 pm

    “Committing a Mitt” has now entered the political vernacular, joining “Pulling a Palin” as expressions for committing a series of blunders while on the campaign trail.

  2. Paul Doyle July 28, 2012 1:47 am

    A new campaign bumper sticker in the making:

    “Mitt Happens!”

  3. Paul Doyle July 29, 2012 2:35 pm

    Professor,
    To expand upon your comment about Romney being the worst GOP Presidential candidate (he’s not officially the nominee until next month), I am in the middle of “Where They Stand” by Robert W. Merry.

    Subtitled: “The American Presidents in the eyes of voters and historians”, it elaborates upon the Arthur Schlesinger, Sr original polling in 1948 and other subsequent rankings since then.

    Just wondering. Have your read the book yet?
    Regardless, to get away from the current political
    pulse and more in the vein of a historical view,
    can you comment on who you feel would rank in the following categories: Great, Near Great, Above Aveage, Average, Below Average and Failure among the Presidents throughout history?

  4. Ronald July 29, 2012 3:33 pm

    I actually wrote about this a couple of years ago, so it can be found on this blog–the top ten and the ten worst–I do not recall the date right now, but if you search you will find it, either 2009 or 2010, I believe.

    Anyway, briefly, in summary, the Greats are Lincoln, FDR, and Washington. (in order)

    The Near Great are TR, Truman, Wilson, Jefferson. (in order)

    The Above Average include LBJ, Reagan, Ike, Jackson, Polk, JFK, Clinton, Monroe ,Adams McKinley, Cleveland (approximate order)

    The Average include JQ Adams, Madison, Hayes, Taft, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Bush I (not in order)

    The Below Average are Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, Coolidge, Bush II (not in order)

    The Failures are Van Buren, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, A Johnson, Grant, B Harrison, Harding, Hoover (not in order)

    Not listed–WH Harrison and Garfield (too brief a term)

    Barack Obama will rank in the Above Average category as of now!

    I welcome your input! 🙂

    By the way, I have the book but have not yet read it!

  5. Paul Doyle July 29, 2012 4:11 pm

    Pretty much spot on, Professor.
    I do disagree with Van Buren. Panic of 1837 was co-owned by Jackson, in my opinion.
    Van Buren’s contributions include:

    Founder of the two-party system; founder of party caucus; founder of nominating convention.
    “Deserves” at least a below average grade ; )

    Also, Grant’s first term at least tried to correct some of Johnson’s reversals of the Reconstruction. (A reversal of a reversal?). He deserves at least some credit for that, so failure is too strong in my books.

    Just like trying to historically rate baseball players , everyone is entitled to “my” opinion ; )

  6. Ronald July 29, 2012 4:21 pm

    You make a good point about both Van Buren and Grant! 🙂

    I also love debating baseball players, great and otherwise, so we have that in common as well! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.