Mitt Romney is debuting a new ad in which he challenges Republicans to get back to their historic principles:

"If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order,” warns Romney, as he walks towards the camera. “We can't be like Democrats – a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno.”

Romney adds, “When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It's time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans. It's time for a change and change begins with us.”

Romney's ad is being interpreted as an effort to distance him from the Bush administration as well as from Congressional Republicans, and bolster his status as a Washington outsider.

I don't find the ad particularly controversial; certainly its sentiments will resonate with most Republican primary voters. But will it make a difference in Romney's position in the Presidential race?

It seems to me that one of the sub-plots of this complicated Republican primary season has been Romney's failure to catch on with the party's rank and file. His numbers in national polls have really gone nowhere; his current RCP average is only 9.1%, not much over half that of John McCain, whose campaign's struggles have been another of the season's stories. While I'm sure our friend Hugh Hewitt would say that everything is going according to plan and Romney has the nomination just about wrapped up, Romney can't be happy with the fact that his efforts so far have failed to make much of an impression on Republicans nationwide.

It's early, of course, and Romney is doing much better in states like New Hampshire and Iowa where he has invested a lot of resources. But the fact is that many Republicans around the country are paying attention. John McCain's poll numbers have surged recently, for example, and Fred Thompson has done better than Romney in the polls notwithstanding his late entrance, relative lack of funding and his own campaign's stumbles. So: why hasn't Romney done better, given his deep resources, obvious talents, and policy positions that line up well with the party's base?

No doubt several factors are responsible, but I think one is especially significant: as a politician, Romney is basically an amateur. By profession, he is a businessman, and a great one. Businessmen are numbers people. They live in a world of spread sheets and measured metrics. Most businessmen would make lousy politicians because they have the "wrong" skill set. It was plausible that Romney could cross over because he has a polished style and good verbal skills. One on one or in a small group, he is very impressive.

But Romney has a serious problem as a candidate: he is not very good on a stage. This is not because he can't speak well or make cogent points; he can and does. But he lacks the key ability to draw people in, to engage them in an emotional way when he is speaking remotely, as from a stage or on television. This isn't easy to do; it is an acquired skill common to (some) actors and politicians. People often say that they find Romney "slick" or "plastic." To the extent that this suggests insincerity, it is unfair. But I think that people who say this are responding to Romney's failure to connect with them when he speaks. In a formal setting, he projects a surface that keeps the viewer at arm's length, rather than drawing him in. When I watch Romney, I often get the feeling that the real Mitt is off somewhere else, crunching numbers.

I think this deficiency helps to explain why Romney has done well in states where he has spent a lot of time doing retail politics, but not nationwide, where most people rely on seeing him on television, as in the Presidential debates. Unfortunately for Mitt, his chief rivals are blessed with the on-stage skills that he lacks. Rudy Giuliani, in particular, possesses to an unusual degree the ability to draw a viewer in and engage him or her on an emotional level. John McCain is not far behind. Fred Thompson has some of this ability as well, although I think he has other deficiencies as a speaker.

I think that Mitt Romney would make an excellent President. Unfortunately, I think we may be finding out that he lacks some of the skills necessary to be an excellent candidate. If that's correct, it will take more than a new ad campaign to connect with the Republican rank and file.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt responds to my post here. Hugh's views, as always, are worth reading.

To comment on this post, go here.