If not king, it seems Romney wants to be king maker, saying he would "be helping the person who takes the banner for us." What banner, you may ask? That of "loser?" This is a man who has tried twice to run for president and failed. Last time around, there was so much animosity toward him in his own party that we saw no less than seven highly dubious candidates thrust to the front of the pack to take the "banner" of front runner away from him. Each fell by the wayside, but not because Republicans rallied around Romney, rather because his war chest was so big none of these Republican pretenders had the money to compete with him across the grueling primaries.
As it was, Santorum carried the popular vote in 11 states, Gingrich two, and Ron Paul managed to steal away the Virgin Islands. At one time or another, Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman all led Mitt in national polls before their campaigns self destructed. Yet, here we are two years later, and we are led to believe many persons would prefer Romney to Obama. In fact, Romney is so popular at the moment, the media is making him the presumptive Republican nominee in 2016, should he choose to run.
It doesn't matter what media outlet you turn to, they all seem positively giddy about another Romney candidacy. The man himself has taken to the talk show circuit, saying not only that he would have been a better president than Obama ("no question!") but he would be better than Hillary ("more experienced"). So, what's stopping him from running? The Rom seems to regard it as a question of age, saying that his time has come and gone (such a shame), possibly opening the door for Paul Ryan, who he seems to regard as his political heir.
His interview with Chris Wallace is telling, if you can stomach it. This is a guy who clearly thinks he still has all the answers. It doesn't matter that the economy has been steadily improving since 2012. Even Forbes magazine notes that Obama has outperformed Reagan (whom Romney is being compared with) on jobs, growth and investing at this point in their respective tenures. They both inherited failed economies, although one could argue that the situation was far worse in 2008 than it was in 1980, as a recovery had already begun under Carter. This is a conservative magazine, mind you, that has been sharply critical of Obama throughout his two terms. Yet, Romney thinks he is the champion of the middle class, which despite the recovery still finds itself odd man out in this economy.
At times, Wallace challenged Romney but in the end he too champions the man, noting a recent Iowa poll that put him ahead of all possible Republican challengers, but Chris failed to note that Romney trails Hillary Clinton in national polls by double digits. She would be his prospective opponent in 2016, not Obama, as much as Republicans seem to wish was the case.
The funniest part of the interview is when Romney says Hillary "doesn't have the experience" in foreign policy, referring to the United States as an "enterprise." WTF kind of enterprise is that, sir? Chris Wallace should have asked. Instead, Wallace quickly steered Rombo away from the subject so as not to further embarrass himself, like mentioning Benghazi. However, Chris does bring up former Governor Bob McDonnell, recently convicted of fraud. Romney had him on his "short list" of prospective running mates. Like I said, this was a very telling interview if you read between the lines.
Romney may consider himself the President in exile and many Americans may have "buyer's remorse" in having voted for Obama a second time around, but that is largely because this is the way the media has chosen to shape the narrative, conducting its own polls to reinforce these perceptions. If we had the same election again the result would most likely be the same again because in the end Romney is his own worst enemy.