In defense of Hugh Hewitt

There's been a fair amount of outrage at Hugh Hewitt's remark that he looks forward to enjoying one last Ohio State game because it will be "probably the last football game we'll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama."

Now I disagree with this, clearly, as an Obama voter who considers himself strongly anti-getting-blown-up. But I don't see how this comment is really beyond the pale. If someone describes "national security" as a key campaign issue, and one which favors John McCain, that's not a controversial statement. But what is national security these days except the matter of which candidate minimizes voters' chances of dying in a fiery terrorist attack?

I think it's worth distinguishing between the real smears (e.g. Obama as a Nazi appeaser, "not anti-war, just on the other side", wants to give Ahmedinejad a foot rub, etc.) and forthright statements of why hawkish McCain voters prefer John McCain. These people really seem to believe that but for the iron codpiece of George W. Bush, we'd all be speaking Farsi by now. They're not kidding.

Plus, I want to be free to list increased risk (or at least continued high risk) of terrorist attacks as one of the top 30 or so reasons John McCain's election would be a bad thing, and I'd hate to be vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.