The Republican Party is a useless collection of me-tooists and slow-downers who have virtually no chance of winning national elections anymore, since they have already lost the pop culture, the educational system, and the mainstream media, all of which pump out the Democrat Party line with a fervor and lack of attachment to the truth that rivals that of any one-party state press organ. But above all, Republicans lose because they have nothing to offer.
What is needed, whether or not we ever get it, is a sea-change in the Washington establishment. A revolution of the mind at the highest levels. The complete removal of standard-issue policy wonks from the State Department, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, and the military. Romney didn't offer that. No candidate did. Would Romney have won if he had done so? I am not saying that. All I am saying is that he offered more of the same at a time when the nation, and the free world in general, desperately needed something very different.
Leftists and Islamic supremacists are crowing today that "Islamophobic" candidates lost. Some of the more unhinged among them are even blaming me and Pamela Geller for Romney's loss, as if we had his ear. In reality, candidates that spoke forthrightly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat were not supported by the Republican Party. Party leaders kept them at arm's length and, if they offered them any help at all, did so in connection with other issues. The point is that honesty and clarity about the jihad threat did not lose yesterday.
But even if they had, the truth about the jihad threat and Islamic supremacism would still be the truth, and no amount of Big Lie propaganda pumped out by the likes of the traitorous Leftist pseudo-journalist Spencer Ackerman will change that.
Check out the comments on Ackerman's piece: Americans know that his propaganda line is nonsense, and are saying so while it is still legal to do so. But that may not be much longer.
To be sure, there was some (although not enough) difference between the parties regarding spending, and it is unlikely that a Romney Administration would have pursued the war against the freedom of speech that the Obama Administration is pursuing with steady persistence. And so in those particulars the choice yesterday was important. The White House has never had an occupant so anti-Israel as Barack Obama since the Jewish State was founded, and that bodes ill for Israel's future defense against the global jihad. But in other key ways, the 2012 election bore out George Wallace's old quip that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democrat Parties.
Watching the third debate, I was amazed at how anxious Mitt Romney was to say "Me, too" to so very many things Barack Obama said he was going to do. There was essentially no difference between the two of them on foreign policy. Both had been briefed, and thoroughly convinced, by Washington foreign policy wonks whose failed policies lie in smoking ruins around the world, and yet never are called to account for the persistent failures of their assessments and recommendations.
If Mitt Romney were president-elect today, he would still be committed to showering money on Muslim countries like Pakistan in a futile attempt to win hearts and minds, ignoring how top Pakistani officials have funneled much of that money to the very same terrorists they were supposed to be using it to fight. He would still be committed to the adage that poverty causes terrorism, and therefore money will end terrorism, despite the fact that billions have been spent with no result, and jihadists have again and again been shown to be wealthier than their peers. He would still be committed to the proposition that Islam is a Religion of Peace and to working with "moderate Muslims," a project that has enabled Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood groups to gain access to high levels of government and law enforcement.
In other words, he would be moving in the same direction as Barack Obama, but maybe just a bit slower.
In any case, Romney's loss is tough on many levels, but not in terms of a realistic assessment of and comprehensive response to the jihad threat. That has never been part of the program of either party. And as the second Obama Administration steps up its obfuscation about the threat and appeasement of Islamic supremacists, it will not manage to end the jihad: the reality of jihad violence will keep impinging upon the politically correct fantasy that only "Islamophobes" link Islam to terrorism.
Whether anyone of any power or influence will wake up to that reality before it's too late is increasingly unlikely. But in any case, that person was not Mitt Romney.