Even Republicans say Romney wasn't prepared to handle his overseas trip

Yesterday, Mitt Romney blamed his embarrassing week abroad on the media.

"I realize," Romney said, "that there will be some in the Fourth Estate, or whichever estate,  [ed. note: apparently Mitt has trouble keeping track of his estates] who are far more interested in finding something to write about that is unrelated to the economy." But if Romney really believes that, then why make the trip in the first place? If he wanted the media to talk about the domestic economy, what was he doing in London, Israel, and Poland?

And even if Mitt were right about the media, it's not like he's under any obligation to keep on giving them shiny objects to talk about ... yet that's exactly what he does. But despite Romney's tacit concession that the trip hadn't gone well, his campaign declared that it had in fact been "a great success." Yeah, sure, such a great success that the Democratic National Committee compiled a two-plus minute highlight reel of local coverage of Romney's last day overseas:

 

That's truly brutal coverage. If Romney's campaign thinks that's "a great success," then please, deliver more of them. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin tried to pump up Romney by saying "Romney, frankly, has been at his best," but I don't think she realizes that the Obama campaign hopes she's right'and smart Republicans are scared to death of it. They know that if Mitt Romney can't do better, he's toast.

About the best spin Republicans outside Romney's immediate orbit can put on his trip is that it won't cause lasting damage.

Republican strategist Ed Rogers, a former Reagan aide and a veteran of the Bush-Quayle campaign, awarded the trip a 4 on a scale of 10. "The question always is if you had to do all over again and get the exact same results, would you do it again?" he said. "Well, in this case, no. But it's not that big of a deal.'

That really is the best spin you can put on it. Much better than this:

'It comes under the heading 'seemed like a good idea at the time,' ' assessed John Pitney, a former Republican National Committee aide and now a political-science professor at Claremont McKenna College.

Or this:

Republican consultant John Feehery, a former House GOP aide, said that the problem boils down to the Romney campaign being unprepared for an unforgiving international spotlight. 'The media is throwing fastballs at Mitt Romney's head and he's got to do a better job at ducking them,' he said. 'What they didn't anticipate was how hot the media glare was going to be. They wanted to go over there and not make any news and they ended up making some.'

I'm sure Feehery wasn't actually trying to do Romney any harm, but really that's a pretty amazing statement. If he doesn't think Romney was prepared to handle the spotlight of international media as a responsibility-free candidate, how in the world can he make the case that Romney has what it takes to actually serve as president?