To be sure, some politics gets done behind closed doors; much diplomacy does. But that only goes so far. Eventually, a president has to take a position. Laws have to move through Congress, and that requires debate and voting. Back in April, in a remarkable interview with The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes, Romney repeatedly refused to offer any specifics on how he'd govern. For example: "So will there be some [federal programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I'm not going to give you a list right now." On the foreign trip, Romney tried but didn't really succeed at drawing real contrasts between Obama's policies and his own proposals on Afghanistan and Israel.

Romney's refusal to stake out positions might not be so glaring if not for the fact that he and his allies have repeatedly assailed President Obama for failing to lead.

It's tempting to tie this to Romney's business experience. For his entire professional career he operated in an environment in which it was best to keep one's cards close to the vest and do all the talking "in quiet rooms." Trying to carry that approach into politics is a tough sell. First, it's hard for voters to know what they're going to get -- which could be especially dangerous for a candidate like Romney, who's been accused of, let's say, ideological flexibility. Second, it's not a very effective governing strategy. Just ask Barack Obama, who refused to articulate what he wanted on a health-care reform bill until well into the process, let Congress dictate most of it, and ended up with a massively unpopular law that's proven nearly impossible to defend politically.