Whatever you want to say about Hunter, he is on the conservative side of most issues. It will be interesting if he can generate some talk about the significant threats from Russia, China, etc. Remember that each still uses the US as its target during war games. They sell lots of things that go bang to other countries, and to each other, you know, like subs, supersonic ship killer missiles, space weapon technology. They train others in how to use them. They sign friendship pacts and other treaties to oppose the US at significant turns, remember the to-do over our proposed missile defense system - of course Moscow has a system in place. They send big money to some of the most undemocratic regimes. They oppose the US in the UN and make nice with our friends in France. Nearly all unaccounted for nuclear material comes from them. Let us not forget the history of these places and their stated goals or their ’my enemies enemy is my friend’ outlook. One unfortunate outcome of the last few years is that few people will listen to warnings about the really dangerous folks out there.

Yes, and Romney in particular would be smart to address this issue. His talk about "competitiveness" is all well and good, but it won’t light any political fires for him. Nor should it.

The nation is thinking about the war, it isn’t thinking about vouchers.

All domestic considerations are falling away into insignificance before the enormous importance of the war, both for those who desire to win the damn thing, and for those determined to see America sink to shameful defeat.

These are all very good points.

I agree that Romney has a thing or two learn from Hunter. And after spending several days in DC I’m now convinced that there’s no real alternative to Romney.