He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises by speaking before thinking.
Romney has given himself a reputation that everytime he touches foreign policy, he breaks things.
He went on a friendly trip to Britain – the easiest possible test for a candidate — and stepped on a mine by questioning London’s readiness to host the Olympic Games.
The British newspaper, The Sun, named him “Mitt the Twit.”
From there he was off to Israel, where he insulted Palestinians and left some Jews uncomfortable by praising Jewish culture in the context of making money.
Now with the Middle East exploding because of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad, Romney dived in with a statement that hit everything by being erroneous, inflammatory and offensive.
Moments like this do happen in presidential elections, and when they come, they tend to matter.
For unlike the posturing and platitudes that constitute the bulk of what happens on the campaign trail, big outside events give voters something real and valuable: a test of the temperament, character, and instincts of the people who would be commander-in-chief.
And when it came this past week, the difference between Obama and Romney could hardly be more obvious.