Time’s Joe Klein writes today about how “disappointing” Romney’s campaign is:

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.

Apparently Klein admits the unseriousness (if that’s a word) of a particular presidential era prior to 2001. Now, however, we need a “serious” candidate – someone dark, brooding, and most of all angry. This isn’t the time for someone with optimism and a sense of humor. We need someone who will agitate and irritate, yell and scream, and generally follow the Al Sharpton/Howard Dean school of politics. No, Klein, I think the American people have rejected that type of candidate again and again – even in the Democratic party.

But what about Romney’s courage and conviction? It’s certainly a hard thing to quantify and is a qualitative assessment. So, I would ask, what do the people who are seeing him think? About the only indicators I know of are polls and endorsements. As people have become acquainted with Romney his poll numbers have increased. Romney also is not lacking for endorsements (although always willing to accept more). So what is it that Klein sees that so many others do not? He faults Romney for being too light on substance and heavy on style, making a jab at Romney audiences: “And because he doesn't dwell on [policy], his audiences don't.” But it’s hard to see how that is so when Romney has been so forthcoming on policy proposals (the most recent found here on MMM). Such criticism is not founded on fact, but on fantasy.

Labels: endoresements, policy, Polls, Time magazine