President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.
I'd argue that Romney underplays America's international standing at the end of George W. Bush's presidency, but that's beside the point. The point is that Romney is in a place where he can lob insults, but doesn't have to offer any meaningful solutions. Noah Rothman at Mediaite calls Romney out for not being constructive at a very important time in foreign policy.
But I'm also curious why Romney is choosing to do this now. If he was genuinely trying to help America with his comments, he would have, you know, offered some solutions instead of concern-trolling. Is he trying to score "I told you so" points? The only people who care to defend Romney's foreign policy are conservative bloggers; this won't serve to redeem Romney in the eyes of the general public. Some might argue that Romney, as the 2012 Republican candidate, is the de facto leader of his party, but his party is already looking forward to 2016 by promoting Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as the politicians they rely on to speak for the party on policy issues.
When I read that editorial, a question came to mind: Is it possible that Mitt Romney is keeping the door open for a 2016 run for president? This editorial sounds less like a man trying to rehabilitate his record for the history books and more like a cagey politician leaving himself an avenue for attack. A few months ago, I laughed off speculation that Romney would even consider another run for the presidency. Now, I'm willing to at least entertain that thought.