Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Romney's not fit to be President

^{Visual source: Newseum}

NY Times:

Mitt Romney offended Palestinian leaders on Monday by suggesting that cultural differences explain why the Israelis are so much more economically successful than Palestinians, thrusting himself again into a volatile issue while on his high-profile overseas trip.

Chris Cillizza:

'I find this entire trip borderline lunacy,' said one senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly. 'Why on earth is he seeking to improve his foreign policy cred when there will not be a single vote cast on that subject?'

Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican operative, was more measured, but acknowledged that the trip was something short of a unqualified success.

'Romney abroad is the same as Romney at home,' said Rogers. 'His performance is uneven at times, but overall, pretty good.' Added Rogers: 'Let's face it, Romney can't win, but Obama can lose.'

LA Times:  

Mitt Romney is rapidly discovering the downside of a high-profile overseas trip ' a visiting American presidential candidate makes an irresistible punching bag for foreign political leaders, and the resulting blows can overshadow whatever message the campaign had hoped to convey to voters back home.

Romney's supporters can't count on "no one cares what Europe thinks". It's here in the US that people think he's in way over his head.

The Fix:

If Romney's trip to London was supposed to highlight his own stewardship of the (Winter) Olympic Games, it appears to have failed. And apart from that, we haven't seen much messaging on the issue from his supporters.

CBC News:

Romney called racist for his view of Israel's success
Republican candidate steps into hot water again on overseas tour

U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney's overseas woes intensified on Monday as he managed to insult yet another entire nation of people ' this time Palestinians ' as he praised Israel's "culture" for fuelling its economic success in the Middle East.

Gallup:

Two-thirds of Americans -- 66% -- have a favorable opinion of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, tying his record-high favorability rating recorded at the time of his inauguration in January 1993. Clinton nearly returned to this level of popularity at two points in his second term, but has generally seen lower ratings, averaging 56% since 1993.

Hey, look what the Big Dog is reading (my Daily Kos review of that book is here):
Drew Westen:

So, beyond the anemic economy, why do the latest polls show the former Massachusetts governor in a dead heat with the president? Because Obama's administration made three crucial errors that enabled the Republican obstructionism that has tied his hands for the past two years, with GOP leaders shooting down any idea ' even if it's one of their own ' that might have helped the president strengthen the economy. And those mistakes have made possible what was unimaginable in January 2009: that a private-equity baron lacking a sense of noblesse oblige, and preaching the gospel of deregulation and lower taxes for the rich, might actually win the presidency four years after those policies led to the collapse of the U.S. economy.

Kevin Drum, writing about Drew Westen's critique of Obama's first term:

I really don't understand why people like Westen can't make their critiques of Obama's leadership in a way that takes into account obvious political realities. Not that it would be an easy critique. If you look at past presidents who made big changes, they were mostly surfing on waves that were already cresting: FDR and the New Deal, LBJ and civil rights, Reagan and taxes. Obama just didn't have that kind of wave to ride. It's an open question why he didn't have that ' one that I tried to tackle here ' but one way or another, he didn't. And while I think Obama has done a poor job as leader of his party, I say that tentatively. The fact is that modern presidents simply don't have the party leverage that some past presidents have had, and Obama in particular simply didn't have a big enough majority to get his way.

Ryan Lizza:

To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life. The person to understand is Paul Ryan.

Jonathan Bernstein:

Ryan's budget leaves all the pain until after the election ' pain that's only necessary in order to achieve the low tax rates, especially on the rich, that Ryan and other Republicans deem essential. Either Ryan's fiscal vision really would dramatically cut government, or his numbers don't add up. In short, Ryan is either a radical or a fraud.

Sol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind, writing in the Harvard Business Review,  try again to bridge the partisan gap with a good-faith facilitated approach to the issues.

Suppose, for instance, that some non-partisan organizations waged a media campaign that promised every American voter, "Your voice will be heard on the issues vital to your family's future if, on our website, you tell us: Among all the people who've spoken out on how to reform taxes, Medicare, Social Security and federal spending, who would you trust to speak for you?" The most trusted individuals might perhaps come from advocacy groups, think tanks, industry, labor unions and universities.

It's doomed to fail because the authors don't recognize the radical nature of the Republicans who would rather bankrupt the country than see Obama succeed, and who get bankrolled by the same groups currently supporting Romney. You can't negotiate with people who lie about their goals as well as their methods. They should read centrists Mann and Ornstein (Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem) again. And again. And again, until they get the picture.