Romney's Disappointing Campaign

By Joe Klein

Mitt Romney is the fastest-talking Presidential candidate I have ever seen. He dashes through his stump speech like a racehorse in full gallop -- he even looks a bit equine -- his feet barely touching the ground as he skims the surface of issues. He conveys a sense of power and fluency -- and fun. He has a self-deprecating sense of humor and uses it to good effect. But his speed of delivery also has an element of sleight of hand. He moves so quickly, it's often hard to notice that there's not much nutrition being offered and much that is being avoided. He never mentions Iraq in his stump speech. He talks -- well, offers one sentence -- about the challenge of "global Islamic jihad." And because he doesn't dwell on it, his audiences don't. On a late-May New Hampshire swing, he cruised through two performances before the word Iraq perforated his balloon. And then it was a high school student, who simply asked, "What would you do about Iraq?"

Romney offered a welter of details, of Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds, which sounded sort of knowledgeable but was actually quite superficial -- he said there was a risk that Iran would "take over" the Shi'ite areas, which is entirely unlikely -- until finally, heading into the home stretch, he got to the point: he would support the President. In fact, when Romney slowed down and focused on a single issue -- immigration -- at a press conference in Dover, N.H., the brazen cynicism of his candidacy became almost embarrassing. He has flipped on immigration, to better suit the Mexican-fearing tendencies of a segment of the Republican base. He's against the comprehensive reform bill being considered by the Senate, and, of course, that's because the bill would offer a path to citizenship for the 12 million illegals currently in the country. A reporter asks, What would you do about them? Make them get in the back of the line. Would they have to leave the country to do that? Mumble mumble evasion. Would you be in favor of kicking them out? Oh, no, not that. Then what would you actually favor? "I'm not going to lay down a posture different from the others being considered." Interesting: Romney takes postures, not positions.

Romney is on a roll right now. He jumped ahead of the pack in recent Iowa polls, a consequence of television advertising -- he was on the air in Iowa before any of his competitors -- and his strong debate performances. He has the money to play big in the Iowa straw poll this August. He has a perfectly Republican demeanor, sunny and businesslike, and a perfectly Republican stump speech. He tells a Chamber of Commerce lunch in Rochester, N.H., about how he successfully applied business principles like "strategic auditing" to the problems of Massachusetts. And then he hits the Reaganite stations of the cross: "I believe Republican policies will strengthen America, and Democratic policies will weaken it." It's the same old strength: stronger military, stronger economy (through lower taxes), stronger families. "You know," he often says, very Reagan, "there are people out there who actually believe America is great because of its government." Gasps and groans. "Well, we have a great system of government, but America is great because of" -- pause for effect, cue passion -- "its people."

There is something slightly anachronistic about all this. Romney is the most perfect iteration I've seen of the television-era candidate. At one point, I squinted a bit and saw him in the middle distance: blue suit, white shirt, red tie, high forehead, slick black hair, tan, tall and ramrod straight -- he could have been an exhibit in some future Museum of Natural History: Politicianus americanus. Matt Lauer and a Today show crew were following him around, and at the high school speech Romney did a slightly cheesy thing, inviting Lauer on stage, amping his candidacy with a.m. glitz. Romney said that "in a moment of frivolity" he had picked up a tabloid magazine and found that Lauer had been named the early-morning host with "the best bod in a bathing suit." To his credit, Lauer asked Romney a tough question about Iraq: What happens if things don't get better by September? "I don't like to forecast from failure," the candidate replied.

I suspect that Romney would be a better President than the current occupant of the office. He actually got along with Democrats, some of the time, as Governor of Massachusetts. He passed a universal health care plan that, more generously funded, could be a model for a national system. But there isn't the slightest hint of courage or conviction in his stump act. It's a candidacy for the era before 2001, before things got serious. And his success or failure will be a reflection of how serious the electorate is in 2008.