Millman expects Romney would be "a leader that nobody wants to follow":
Mitt Romney has few demonstrable political (as opposed to managerial) skills, and commands no particular loyalty. His two campaigns for the Presidential nomination have been characterized by widespread mistrust and an eagerness, on the candidate’s part, to placate critics. From my perspective, all signs point to him being a weak President. And regardless of what one thinks about his agenda, and whether or not one wishes to see a structurally weaker presidency, a weak President is, in and of itself, not an asset to the Republic, particularly not when unexpected contingencies present themselves.
Dreher thinks Millman is on to something:
I would much prefer a pragmatic conservative than an ideologue in the White House. The problem is that Romney’s pragmatism seems to be built not on a sense of prudence, but rather a lack of conviction. That’s not necessarily an obstacle to success in presidential politics. What did Bill Clinton believe in, after all? The difference is that Clinton had enormous charisma. Romney has none. He’s a good and decent man, but it’s hard to see how he gets anyone to follow him when he has to make a tough and unpopular call.
You only have the past to judge. At every conceivable moment, Romney has caved to his base in this election. He would lead his own party from behind.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty)