Romney Comments at Fundraiser Outrage Palestinians

[Flagg]

Google/AP

Another hiccup? Romney's foreign trip not smooth

By By KASIE HUNT and STEVE PEOPLES

GDANSK, Poland (AP) — It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Mitt Romney outraged Palestinians on Monday, stirring fresh controversy on his visit to Israel just days after insulting the British on what was intended as a feel-good visit to the Olympics in London.

Whether or not the trip changes votes back home, the effect hasn't seemed to be what Romney's presidential campaign had in mind.

His first steps onto the world stage as President Barack Obama's Republican challenger were carefully crafted to avoid political risk. He visited countries that are staunch U.S. allies, limited questions from the media and arranged made-for-TV appearances at symbolic venues in London and Jerusalem. It was all intended to demonstrate he was ready to handle foreign affairs smoothly and lead during dangerous times.

Instead, as he made his final stop of a three-nation tour in Poland late Monday, Republicans and Democrats alike were shaking their heads in the U.S. Though Republicans said they saw no lasting harm, Democrats raised questions about Romney's ability to handle delicate topics with sensitivity on foreign soil, even under the friendliest conditions.

Romney's latest trouble stemmed from a speech he gave to Jewish donors in which he suggested that their culture was part of what has allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians. Kind words for Israel are standard for many American politicians, but Palestinian leaders suggested his specific comments were racist and out of touch with the realities of the Middle East.

Romney's campaign later said his remarks were mischaracterized.

"Because it's billed as a layup — it's billed as something that should be simple — perhaps he let his guard down," said Hogan Gidley, a senior aide under former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. "You say, 'Gosh, this guy is so scripted, the campaign is so disciplined, so smart, how could this happen?'" Still, he doubted that Romney would suffer any long-term effects among voters who are still undecided three months before the election.

Predictably, Obama's campaign was more critical, with senior strategist David Axelrod saying on Twitter: "Is there anything about Romney's Rolling Ruckus that would inspire confidence in his ability to lead US foreign policy?"

It's unclear whether voters in the U.S. are paying attention to Romney's stumbles, especially as concerns about the nation's economy dominate most Americans' concerns.

"I'd say it has the same impact as a stubbed toe," said Iowa Republican John Stineman, a marketing consultant in Des Moines. "People are still focused on the economy."

And Debra Hayes, a Republican-leaning independent from Denver, said Romney's overseas comments have no impact on how she'll vote.

"I'm interested only in the economy - jobs, and the prices of things," said Hayes, who is undecided. "We need to stand with Israel. And our president needs to show leadership overseas. But things are going downhill at home, and that's what matters."

And Romney drew his share of favorable media coverage back home. A speech on Israel policy, delivered at dusk against the scenic backdrop of Jerusalem's Old City, drew praise for its setting and delivery. He and his wife, Ann, appeared relaxed and engaged in an interview on CNN, where Ann Romney described her husband as loving and emotionally engaged.

Still, missteps in the past week have fueled opponents' contentions that the former businessman and Massachusetts governor is out of touch with the nation and the world he hopes to lead.

As the trip got under way, Romney caused a stir in Britain by questioning whether officials there were fully prepared to host the Olympic Games. The dispute overshadowed his efforts to highlight his personal experience leading the Salt Lake City Games a decade ago. Instead, Romney was widely assailed by the London media and criticized by British leaders.

Then on his first day in Israel, Romney distanced himself from an adviser's suggestion that he would "respect" a decision by Israel to launch military action to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.

On Monday at a fundraiser, opened to the media after the campaign first said it would be closed, Romney shared a sentiment he sometimes talks about on the campaign trail in the United States and repeats in his book, "No Apology." But his decision to highlight cultural differences in a region where such differences have helped fuel violence for generations prompted new questions about his diplomatic skills — and enraged Palestinian leaders.

Comparing economic output per capita in Israel and "just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority," he declared that "you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality." He was speaking to about 40 wealthy donors at the King David Hotel, which is within sight of the Palestinian territory on the West Bank.

He said some economic histories have theorized that "culture makes all the difference."

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence." He said similar disparity exists between other neighboring countries, including Mexico and the United States.

Palestinian leaders quickly objected.

"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "It is a racist statement, and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation."

"This will cause a lot of damage to American interests," he said.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the comments "were grossly mischaracterized."

The campaign added that Romney's comparison of countries that are close to each other and have wide income disparities — the U.S. and Mexico, Chile and Ecuador — shows his comments were broader than just the comparison between Israel and the Palestinians.

At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said, "One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you're traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation."

Earnest sidestepped questions about whether Obama agreed with Romney's comments about culture, saying only that Obama believed economic issues are among the matters that would need to be addressed by the Israelis and Palestinians during any peace talks.

Romney flew on to Poland for two days of visits with leaders.

He met with the Cold War-era Solidarity leader Lech Walesa in Gdansk, earning his endorsement: "I wish you to be successful because the success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe as well and to the rest of the world, too. So, Governor Romney, get your success, be successful," Walesa said through a translator.

Walesa suggested Romney's leadership was needed to restore America's position in the world.

Romney is to meet with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski on Tuesday before delivering his final foreign policy speech of the trip.

The Romney campaign hopes Walesa's backing will influence Catholics and labor union members in the U.S. But Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, told reporters Monday that the Polish visit "is nothing more than a superficial diversion and a desperate attempt to pander to Polish Americans and Catholics across our country."

Romney's visit to Poland was not without controversy.

Campaign officials said the visit with Walesa came at his invitation, but the current leadership of Solidarity distanced itself from the event and issued a statement critical of Romney. Solidarity characterized Romney as being hostile to unions and against labor rights. It emphasized that it had no role in organizing Romney's visit and expressed support for American labor organizations.

Steve Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, Karin Laub in Jerusalem, Thomas Beaumont in Iowa, Beth Fouhy in New York and Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

What a fucking clown.

[Lord MJ]

Between this, and Romney's praise of Israel's health care system (which is socialized medicine by the way), among many other things, Romney is full of gaffes and outright ignorance. Yet virtually nobody in America will care. Attempts to call him out on this point will only be shot down as "Trying to distract from Obama's failed economic policies" and Romney rides the money train into the white house. Best chance is for Obama to trounce Romney in the debates this fall.

[General Mung Beans]

Between this, and Romney's praise of Israel's health care system (which is socialized medicine by the way), among many other things, Romney is full of gaffes and outright ignorance. Yet virtually nobody in America will care. Attempts to call him out on this point will only be shot down as "Trying to distract from Obama's failed economic policies" and Romney rides the money train into the white house. Best chance is for Obama to trounce Romney in the debates this fall.

I think there will be at least a slight shift in poll numbers once the trip is over and Obama is no slacker at raising money-he raised more than McCain in 2008 and opted out of public financing to use this advantage.

[Lord MJ]

Yes I don't think Obama will fail to raise money, the question is can it compete with what Romney is raising. Obama was outraised two months in a row now. It could very well be three after tomorrow. Obama also spent more last month than he raised.

[General Mung Beans]

Yes I don't think Obama will fail to raise money, the question is can it compete with what Romney is raising. Obama was outraised two months in a row now. It could very well be three after tomorrow. Obama also spent more last month than he raised.

That's true although the economic news in the last few months probably affects that. He'll probably get a bigger boost than Romney after the conventions though.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Between this, and Romney's praise of Israel's health care system (which is socialized medicine by the way), among many other things, Romney is full of gaffes and outright ignorance. Yet virtually nobody in America will care.

However, this foreign tour was apparently supposed to benefit him, show off his supposedly superior skill at foreign relations compared to Obama. So even if American voters pay no attention, that's money, time and effort down the drain that he could have spent on something else.

[Simon_Jester]

Anyone have any thoughts about how the debates are going to go?

[NecronLord]

Between this, and Romney's praise of Israel's health care system (which is socialized medicine by the way),

Israel has socialized medicine... Israel and the entire rest of the first world, so if he can't praise a socialized healthcare system, he can't praise any of the good systems. There's also Romneycare to consider. It's quite likely that he went right for the primaries, and will go to center for the election; he doesn't necessarily believe the "orthodox" view on the matter, given his actual history.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The Democrats need to be getting these quotes in ads on television, because that's the only way most voters are going to hear about it.

[Flagg]

Between this, and Romney's praise of Israel's health care system (which is socialized medicine by the way),

Israel has socialized medicine... Israel and the entire rest of the first world, so if he can't praise a socialized healthcare system, he can't praise any of the good systems. There's also Romneycare to consider. It's quite likely that he went right for the primaries, and will go to center for the election; he doesn't necessarily believe the "orthodox" view on the matter, given his actual history.

There's been no indication of any kind of pivot. He's trapped because of his top advisors "Etch-a-Sketch" comments during the primary.

[CarsonPalmer]

Obama gained a lot of ground and credibilty on his Europe trip. Romney has at best gained nothing, at worst lost a little.

Honestly, I think Obama will win, not in a landslide but not in a nail biter, because Romney simply doesn't seem to be nearly as skilled a politician as Obama. His campaign, at least, is much more disorganized than Obama's 2008.

[Flagg]

I think it's Obama's election to lose. Because unless he does a big turnaround I don't see Romney being able to win unless Obama's team just falls apart.

[Broken]

While I would like to think it is Obama's election to lose, it is very easy to lose perspective. Hell, I have an associate at work (normally full of moderate to liberal individuals) who wore a black ribbon on his chest for almost 2 years after Obama was elected because he was "mourning for America". The deep pockets of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and the like are barely even tapped yet compared to what they have stated to be willing to spend to defeat Obama. There is going to be a fuckload of money spent this election cycle and my gut says it's going to be pretty much as dirty a campaign (even if the worst attack positions get farmed out to super-PAC's and the like) as we have ever seen. Romney may be a robotic moron but he's backed by a lot of money and some pretty mindless hate.

[General Mung Beans]

Anyone have any thoughts about how the debates are going to go?

Romney might have a chance on economic issues but gets clobbered on health care and foreign policy.

[Mr Bean]

Anyone have any thoughts about how the debates are going to go?

Romney might have a chance on economic issues but gets clobbered on health care and foreign policy.

Why do people assume this about him? His one term as Governor was bottom of the barrel despite lacking any economic woe to blame something else. His economic plan is boiler plate Republican "Step 1, Lower taxes, Step 2 ????? Step 3 Profit!". What non-tax cut related economic initiatives are the same removal of regulation for removals sake and making government functions private business opportunities. What he directly did to make his millions is frankly useless experience for the American President as the US economy can not operate as a predatory investment agency, and operating as a reorganization and reinvestment agency would be frankly ultra socialist.

He can claim credit as a businessman and CEO, but aside from being able to manage people he gained no greatly useful economic skill from his years at Bain because what Bain did the government can't do.

[Flagg]

Romney thinks he can sail into the Presidency as long as the economy is flailing. He might be right, too. Luckily his entire foreign adventure was wracked with gaff after gaff. But to most voters it won't matter. Alot of people will vote for him simply because the economy is weak and he's not the one "in charge" of it, despite how ridiculouse that is.

[Max]

Yes I don't think Obama will fail to raise money, the question is can it compete with what Romney is raising. Obama was outraised two months in a row now. It could very well be three after tomorrow. Obama also spent more last month than he raised.

That's true although the economic news in the last few months probably affects that. He'll probably get a bigger boost than Romney after the conventions though.

I'm not certain how donations work, but is Obama allowed to use what he raised in 2008 in 2012? IIRC, he had quite a bit left over.

[Lord MJ]

Well Romney's trip was not all bad. He picked up an endorsement of Lech Welesa in Poland. That should endear him to the Polish-American bloc, maybe.

[Simon_Jester]

I often wonder if there's a point of diminishing returns in campaign finance. If there is, Romney might hit it. Say, you can buy the first million voters at 20$ per person in campaign funding, and the next million at 30$ each, but if it starts costing 50$ or 100$ or whatever as you go on from there... having vast amounts of money can only get you so far.

We've never yet seen a presidential election obviously bought, with a huge pile of money reversing an outcome all commentators would have predicted to go the other way. Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry were both elections hard to call ahead of time; we might say in hindsight that funding made the difference in 2000 but that's only because it turned out to be an incredibly close election. In 2004 the big spender lost, in 2008 everybody who wasn't living in a cave knew Obama was going to win whether he had a funding advantage or not.

So, can Romney (or anyone else) really use huge piles of money to substitute for political acumen and a popular platform? All wisecracks about bought-and-paid-for politics aside, I really don't know.

If we could run a controlled experiment on hundreds of identical Americas to see how much money it took, I would think this was a very interesting question. Since we can't, it just makes me nervous.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Honestly, watching Romney's international tour is more interesting than the Olympics. I"m really very sad he had to cancel his Germany visit after he learned Frau Merkel was going on vacation. It would've been wonderful.

[Mr Bean]

I often wonder if there's a point of diminishing returns in campaign finance. If there is, Romney might hit it. Say, you can buy the first million voters at 20$ per person in campaign funding, and the next million at 30$ each, but if it starts costing 50$ or 100$ or whatever as you go on from there... having vast amounts of money can only get you so far.

There is a point of diminishing returns if you run a 271 electoral vote strategy instead of a 50 state strategy. Kerry was running a 271 EV strategy which means he ignored entire states despite his money advantage because he figured he had no chance. Obama won in states he had no business winning in 2008 because of the fifty state strategy.

Remember there are no safe states if one side achieves turnout dominance. If 70% of the Democrats show up and only 40% of the Republicans in a place like Georgia then that state will go blue in 2012 and vis-versa. The way to win when you have gobs of money is to literally cover every single county. You maintain a 2-1 advantage in the battleground states because 7-1 does not help you near as much. And then you go after your opponents home state/states. Romney should be using those piles of money in Illinois not just Ohio and North Carolina. Doing so forces the other side to defend and when they are defending they are not doing as much attacking.

Remember he got to this point because he won the Republican primary despite the fact everyone disliked him by burying his opponents in piles of negative ads.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not certain how donations work, but is Obama allowed to use what he raised in 2008 in 2012? IIRC, he had quite a bit left over.

It was about 30 million dollars, and yes he had the option of placing it in a fund for a future campaign. It could also be passed to other candidate's campaigns and to the Democratic (or any other political party) or charity. I think he did a mix of the options, other then the one other one that would be silly, refunding the money to the people who donated it in the first place. If you accept federal matching funds though and have a surplus, you have to refund a portion of the surplus that is proportional to the amount of your total funding that was matching funds. Not an issue for Obama.

I often wonder if there's a point of diminishing returns in campaign finance.

A single firm point no, but no question you suffer from diminishing returns in the US system. Obama spent twice per vote as McCain did, and while he solidly beat him, it wasn't by 2:1 odds. A lot of this is because only a few percent of voters will actually change votes, huge blocs on each side would never vote for the other, and so a lot of spending is simply aimed at motivating your own loyal voters to actually vote.

There is a point of diminishing returns if you run a 271 electoral vote strategy instead of a 50 state strategy. Kerry was running a 271 EV strategy which means he ignored entire states despite his money advantage because he figured he had no chance. Obama won in states he had no business winning in 2008 because of the fifty state strategy.

Kerry also ended his loosing campaign with a 15 million dollar surplus, his campaign team was pretty damn incompetent in general. you really have to wonder WTF anyone was thinking in the last week when they could have projected a surplus, and didn't go buy more ad space as quickly as possible when at worst this might have meant they went a few million into debt if donations suddenly ceased.

[nobody_really]

What a fucking clown.

And he actually has a chance of winning the presidency (intrade is predicting a 40% chance currently, and 57% for Obama.) Sometimes I think we do it just to watch the reactions on the rest of the world when someone who is clearly not ready for the office and has made comments that he supports war (when it's in someone else's country) has control over many hundreds of nukes.

[Eleas]

What a fucking clown.

And he actually has a chance of winning the presidency (intrade is predicting a 40% chance currently, and 57% for Obama.) Sometimes I think we do it just to watch the reactions on the rest of the world when someone who is clearly not ready for the office and has made comments that he supports war (when it's in someone else's country) has control over many hundreds of nukes.

Just try to see if you can remember the Bush years, it's a much cheaper solution all around.

[Irbis]

Well Romney's trip was not all bad. He picked up an endorsement of Lech Welesa in Poland. That should endear him to the Polish-American bloc, maybe.

Well, except for the minor fact that to majority of these Wałęsa is traitor, agent "Bolek", crusher of DA BEST POLISH GUVERNMINT SINCE 1795, inept clown, puppet of Kiszczak, etc., etc.

What can I say, they're mostly backers of Tea Party, and it shows.