Hey, when Hugh asks, you gotta respond...

Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer/Pundit/Talk Radio Host/Really Smart Guy extraordinaire has sent a call out to the blogosphere to take a look at the ramifications of Kerry's passionate statements questioning why we have a new nuclear weapons program under development involving nuclear bunker busters. Since Mr. Hewitt is what I'd consider the driving force behind the explosion in popularity of blogs in general, and was the sole impetus for the blog you read now, I feel a certain obligation to respond. Mr. Hewitt asks the following questions for what he's calling his First Virtual Symposium:

"Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?"

With each question logically leading to the next, it would appear that they should be taken in order and individually, but it seems to me that the answer to the first question answers the second question at the same time. My reasoning for this is that, on it's face, Kerry's questioning of the bunker busting program, in an almost "As if we didn't already have enough nukes, now we're making more?!" way, will probably sound very much like common sense to a majority of people out there. It's my experience that most people know, to a certain degree, the mantra "We could blow up everyone on Earth 50 times over." Knowing this, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that many, many people could have an "As if we didn't already have enough nukes..." reaction when told of another nuclear weapons program.

This is why I think the answer to question 2 (if it did hurt Kerry, why?) is dependent upon getting the word out, through sites like Mr. Hewitt's, that the nuclear bunker busting weapons may be the only way to pre-emptively end a nuclear program by some of the world's rogue states, such as North Korea. In short, if question 1 is answered yes, it will only be because it was pointed out as a blunder, which is the answer to question 2 (why did it hurt Kerry; because it was pointed out as a blunder).

How much damage this would do to Kerry (question 3), relies on the degree to which question 1 is shown to be a blunder. I think the damage level will depend on how much word gets out to the masses. If the blunder is hammered home on a consistent basis, with some of Kerry's past voting records that would have shut down many other weapons systems (especially those that were non-nuclear), but is confined to the center/right blogosphere, I think the damage will mainly be done with those who already know Kerry distrusts American might. If, however, the question enters a news source my parents could get a hold of (that's my litmus test; if my parents find out about it, anyone can), then the damage could become devastating. In the past, this would have necessitated one of the MSM news networks getting a hold of the story (which would be unlikely); today, The New York Post, Fox News, and countless smaller middle America newspapers with web savvy can all be used to point out Kerry's almost pacifist like instincts. The damage could be especially devastating, ironically, if people find out about this after having seen Kerry's "tough talk" during the debate (specifically mentioning killing terrorists, etc).

A great commercial could be Kerry talking about how he'll hunt down terrorists, cut to a trustworthy source explaining that many rogue states use deep underground bunkers for protection, then cut back to Kerry's impassioned disbelief that we're "actually thinking" of using nuclear bunker busters?!

I think the vast majority of America, at that second, would see that Kerry's speaking in the first clip shown is much, much less passionate than his speaking in the second clip.

And passion counts these days.