Mitt Romney departs late Tuesday for a weeklong visit to Great Britain, Israel and Poland, a trip reminiscent of the one taken by Barack Obama four years ago. Obama’s trip showed he was already an international celebrity but still seeking to assure voters at home that he could be commander in chief. What will Romney’s trip reveal about him, his candidacy and his worldview?
Romney advisers have set expectations relatively low in their public comments about the trip. They say it is an opportunity for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to learn and listen in three countries that are among America’s staunchest allies. He will hold a series of private meetings with foreign leaders, deliver speeches in Israel and Poland, attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, visit historical sites and conduct interviews with U.S. television networks.
Obama’s 2008 foreign trip set a new standard for presidential candidates in terms of length and ambition. For Romney, there is little value in trying to compete with the optics of Obama’s trip. Candidate Obama drew 200,000 people for a speech in Berlin, found himself fawned over by then-French President Nicholas Sarkozy and managed, while out of the country, to totally overshadow his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, back in the United States.
Romney can anticipate nothing quite like that. He is not a political phenomenon, as Obama was at the time of his trip. But as a possible next president, he will get a thorough look from his hosts. His visit should help to answer questions about his own views.
One question is whether, as a conservative Republican, he would be closer in philosophy to former president George W. Bush or to former president George H.W. Bush. The other, obviously, is how he would differ with President Obama.
Romney’s opportunity to carve out differences with Obama will come Tuesday afternoon in a trip-setting speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nev.
Obama went abroad with questions surrounding his candidacy and his foreign policy views. Was he up to being commander in chief? Was he anti-Israel? Would he end the war in Iraq precipitously? Did he believe Bush’s Iraq surge policy, implemented by then-Gen. David Petraeus, was working? Did he have a plan for the war in Afghanistan?
Those issues were either dealt with carefully — most obviously when he was in Israel — or they were overshadowed by his Berlin appearance or went mostly unanswered. As a political exercise, the trip was a huge success, but not because he broke ground on foreign policy. His rhetoric in Israel was meant to be reassuring but in office, relations with the Israeli government have been strained. On Iraq, he fudged when pressed as to the surge’s success in helping to hasten an end to the war. His speech in Berlin was less memorable than the images of the people stretching from Victory Column back toward the Brandenburg Gate.
Abroad, Romney will tread lightly in talking about Obama, out of a tradition of not criticizing a president while outside the United States. In all three countries, he can declare solidarity with his hosts. He will, as do all American politicians, talk of the special relationship with Britain. In Israel, he will talk of standing side by side with Israel against its enemies and, by implication will suggest that the president has done anything but that.
Romney advisers have set expectations relatively low in their public comments about the trip. They say it is an opportunity for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to learn and listen in three countries that are among America’s staunchest allies. He will hold a series of private meetings with foreign leaders, deliver speeches in Israel and Poland, attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, visit historical sites and conduct interviews with U.S. television networks.
Obama’s 2008 foreign trip set a new standard for presidential candidates in terms of length and ambition. For Romney, there is little value in trying to compete with the optics of Obama’s trip. Candidate Obama drew 200,000 people for a speech in Berlin, found himself fawned over by then-French President Nicholas Sarkozy and managed, while out of the country, to totally overshadow his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, back in the United States.
Romney can anticipate nothing quite like that. He is not a political phenomenon, as Obama was at the time of his trip. But as a possible next president, he will get a thorough look from his hosts. His visit should help to answer questions about his own views.
One question is whether, as a conservative Republican, he would be closer in philosophy to former president George W. Bush or to former president George H.W. Bush. The other, obviously, is how he would differ with President Obama.
Romney’s opportunity to carve out differences with Obama will come Tuesday afternoon in a trip-setting speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nev.
Obama went abroad with questions surrounding his candidacy and his foreign policy views. Was he up to being commander in chief? Was he anti-Israel? Would he end the war in Iraq precipitously? Did he believe Bush’s Iraq surge policy, implemented by then-Gen. David Petraeus, was working? Did he have a plan for the war in Afghanistan?
Those issues were either dealt with carefully — most obviously when he was in Israel — or they were overshadowed by his Berlin appearance or went mostly unanswered. As a political exercise, the trip was a huge success, but not because he broke ground on foreign policy. His rhetoric in Israel was meant to be reassuring but in office, relations with the Israeli government have been strained. On Iraq, he fudged when pressed as to the surge’s success in helping to hasten an end to the war. His speech in Berlin was less memorable than the images of the people stretching from Victory Column back toward the Brandenburg Gate.
Abroad, Romney will tread lightly in talking about Obama, out of a tradition of not criticizing a president while outside the United States. In all three countries, he can declare solidarity with his hosts. He will, as do all American politicians, talk of the special relationship with Britain. In Israel, he will talk of standing side by side with Israel against its enemies and, by implication will suggest that the president has done anything but that.