MANCHESTER, N.H.

The event sounded positively presidential: Chris Christie at Saint Anselm College, the academic epicenter of the New Hampshire primary, for a speech on “Restoring American Leadership.’’ And the trappings certainly imparted a sense of significance: a dais flanked by two American flags and a teleprompter.

Imagine, then, the anticipation when, after a ringing introduction from a fellow former US attorney, Christie strode to the podium.

Alas, the aura of gravity soon started to dissipate.

As paragraph piled upon paragraph, one found himself wondering, OK, when will this potential president describe what his restored American leadership would look like? What its guiding principles would be? Realism? Idealism? A hybrid approach?

Then reality dawned. There was no intellectual center, no philosophy, no tenet at the core of the speech, beyond the idea that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are weak, tentative, and clueless, and that with a forceful, courageous leader — i.e., Chris Christie — in the Oval Office, the unruly world will quickly start to behave. Whereupon certain nagging questions began to manifest themselves. As in: For this, he needed a telepompter? Wouldn’t a Post-it note have sufficed?

The speech’s real message was almost entirely political: If the GOP wants to prevail in November, it must coalesce behind a candidate who can unite the party, and that man is a certain Christopher James Christie.

But why, you might ask, is he uniquely qualified to be the Grand Old Party Uniter?

Certainly not because of any overarching grasp of global affairs he’s displayed in this campaign. In the world according to Christie, the principal reasons appear to be: (1) He has been elected and reelected in the blue state of New Jersey; (2) He is battle-tested as governor of New Jersey; and (3) He knows how to get things done, as he’s shown in New Jersey.

“Bluster is not the leadership we crave,’’ he noted. That was apparently meant as a swipe at Donald Trump, but it may also help explain why 62 percent of Garden Staters now disapprove of Christie’s own performance. Of course, so too may the repeated downgrades of New Jersey’s credit-worthiness.

Now, Christie did display some political skills. For example, an ability to pander. Christie wants voters to know that while he “has no tolerance for nativism,’’ he also understands the emotions of those furious at the Obama administration over immigration, feels bad that they are being criticized for their (lightly informed) anger, and shares their “secure the border’’ priorities. (No mention that said border is now more secure than it’s been in decades.)

Or take trade. Christie is “certainly a supporter of free trade’’ — but that doesn’t necessarily mean he supports free-trade deals. He’s on the fence about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he’ll review and decide on once he takes office. (Ah, leadership.)

On foreign policy, Christie defined himself by what he’s isn’t: neither an isolationist nor a nation-builder. As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? “In retrospect, it seems obvious that our disappointments in those efforts contributed directly to the rise of . . .’’

Not having processed the “our,’’ I found myself thinking, for a fraction of a second, that Christie was going to say “ISIS’’ or “regional chaos’’ or “an aggressive Iran’’ or something that actually betrayed a foreign policy outlook.

Then came his conclusion: “President Obama.’’

Honestly, this passes for a world view?

In fairness, Christie did seem to impress some in the audience. And he offered a funny quip or two, which left me envisioning him in a new role.

Not as a president, mind you. I’ve yet to see him display the intellectual heft or breadth that job requires.

But I did find myself thinking he’d make an entertaining talk-radio host.

Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh.