Jon Ralston on the silky smooth, almost human Mitt Romney

Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007 | 7:08 a.m.

Mitt Romney is virtually unflappable, doesn't reveal too much and seems effortlessly articulate. He is genial without being smarmy, glib without seeming shallow , and dexterous without seeming calculating.

Those are all good qualities to have in a president, and he seems as presidential as anyone I have interviewed. He also may be the scariest.

After interviewing Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and potential GOP presidential nominee on "Face to Face," I understand why the incomparable Jon Stewart, during a recent "Daily Show" interview with John McCain, asked, "Is Mitt Romney human?"

You hear politicians described as "smooth" all the time. "Silky" is the frequent adjectival addition to enhance the cliche. Romney is so silky smooth that you interview him for a half-hour and you wonder afterward whether you were even there, as if he just slid by you - yes, smoothly, without much effort and looking coolly presidential doing it.

He might be just the man you'd want facing down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, perhaps averting a nuclear disaster. But you also might worry that Ahmadinejad, unsure what the man across from him really believes and worried that he might change his mind the next day, might push the button.

Romney's duality, which has been caricatured as flip-flopping and praised as evolution, surely is troublesome for the contender. The seriousness behind Stewart's question - is this guy for real or is he a hologram of a candidate? - will become central to whether he can get the nomination and win a general election.

Consider how he handled some of the subjects we discussed Tuesday:

Humanely? That's the kind of word that is used at animal shelters when talking about euthanasia and yet somehow here seems tough and sensitive.

"My plan is based on personal responsibility," Romney argued. "No new taxes required. No government takeover of health care. Hillary Clinton's plan, along with Barack Obama and John Edwards, they're thinking about a single payer system, a setting where individuals don't have the choice they have today. In my opinion, it would just kill our health care system in this country."

I suppose that is as simplistic a reading of what the Democrats want to do as it is to caricature his Massachusetts plan, as the libertarian Cato Institute did, as an "unprecedented expansion of government power." But it sure resonates with the faithful, right?

And yet, when I confronted Romney on this, he pivoted into a state's rights discussion and insisted Nevada had every right to legalize it. Possessing the pivot reflex myself, I then wondered whether Romney would also support the Nevada electorate's decision nearly two decades ago to cement a woman's right to choose in statute.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level once size fits all for the whole nation," he told me. "Instead, I would let states make their choices ... My view of course is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."

Even caught off-guard, he handled that fairly well, just as he seamlessly dodged (even when pressed) my question about whether George W. Bush has been a great president.

We also discussed Romney's Mormonism, which caused him to launch into a soliloquy on secular leadership and religious influences. Indeed, he ultimately struck me as many LDS politicians here have - deliberate, modulated and opaque.

Scarily, and effectively, opaque.