Mitt Romney is now "seriously considering a run" for president in 2016, reports the Washington Post.

 "Seriously considering," presumably with an emphasis on "serious."  We don't know how he was considering the run before now.  Perhaps he was unseriously considering a run for president, or humorously considering a run for president.  He lost by a large margin against an incumbent with a weak record and a weak economy; how could his running again be considered anything other than unserious?

So who is excited about this?  Not, apparently, Mrs. Romney.

He said that his wife, Ann — who last fall said she was emphatically against a run — had changed her mind and was now “very encouraging[.]”

Of course!  However, I think we need independent sourcing on this one.  No, here is who is really excited:

Romney’s comments at Friday’s meeting, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, electrified the world of Republican financiers[.]

In other words, the Republican establishment.  When it comes to liberal Republicans, the big money men practice a weird sort of affirmative action: they endorse candidates who can't articulate any views, aren't particularly inspiring, haven't particularly accomplished anything conservative, and  have a record of losing elections, as long as they are "mainstream," the code word for big-spending and big-business Republicans.

Romney’s associates said that he has become restless since conceding to President Obama on a cold night in Boston two years ago.

I think we were all restless, but the reason we were restless was because Romney ran such an inept, issueless campaign.  Sorry it was a cold night; hope he dressed warm!

Romney’s motivation to run again stems from a lingering dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, both economic and foreign, and a belief that he would have set the country on a better course.

What course would that have been?  Against Obamacare, when he passed Romneycare?  Against illegal immigration, when everyone knows he's for it?

If Romney has been so "dissatisfied," how come we haven't heard a single word from him in two years about his "dissatisfaction"?  You want to know what I think?  I think he's perfectly satisfied with Obama's policies; he just wanted to implement them himself.

I think he's very much like George W. Bush, a decent man who has no ideology but who is basically a big-business Republican.  Did George W. Bush offer any critiques of Obama after he left office?  Not one word.  He paints now.  It's as if he has not the slightest interest in politics.

Romney's the same.  Even if you read the entire Washington Post article, you still won't know what it is about Obama's policies that dissatisfies him.

Romney also harbors doubts that [Jeb] Bush and other Republican contenders can defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, advisers said, and is wary in particular about Bush’s political skills.

Is this not the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black?  Where were Romney's "skills" when he was running for president himself?  Note also that he's not worried about Bush's ideology – only his ability to win.  I think he, Jeb Bush, and Obama are basically on the same page.

“I believe Mitt Romney is too much of a patriot to sit on the sidelines and concede the presidency to Hillary Clinton or [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren when he knows that he can fix the country,” said Spencer Zwick, Romney’s 2012 national finance chairman, who accompanied Romney to Friday’s New York meeting.

Have you ever read anything more sycophantic?  This has nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with one man's egotistical lust for power.  Or maybe two, if you count Zwick.

Romney’s advisers said he is approaching the decision pragmatically. “He does not go into things looking through rose-colored glasses,” said one Romney adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

"On condition of anonymity to talk candidly"?  This is candid?  Romney, who lost a race he should have won by a large margin, isn't looking at this through rose-colored glasses?  Then what is he wearing?  Blinders?

This adviser said Romney is far from having his mind made up: “He knows he’ll have to earn it, and he believes in that;

How generous of him!

But here's the funniest part of the article:

On Wednesday, Romney lectured at Stanford University in a class titled “Understanding the 2016 Campaign from Start to Finish,” which is taught by his former policy director, Lanhee Chen. 

The man who worked for the man who clearly didn't understand the 2012 campaign now teaches a course on the next one.  At Stanford.  What do you think Romney said when he lectured there?  Maybe "I understood everything going on during the campaign, but we lost due to bad weather."

The most amazing thing about the article is how uncritically the Washington Post reports all these self-serving statements.  But then you have to remember that the WaPo has two favorite groups.  The first are liberals.  The second are establishment Republicans, before they are nominated to run against liberals.