The Paul Revere of 2008?

Is...Duncan Hunter?! Finlay Lewis suggests he's trying to cut such a path for himself. Hunter has been tearing up the campaign trail with anti-China rhetoric, warning of the threat faced by the United States if China is allowed to continue its arms buildup unchecked. I'll resist the urge to dive deeply into the idea that Hunter is yelling "the Reds are coming," but I do wonder if Hunter will have any impact in at least framing the debate on the Republican side.

It's pretty clearly explained in the Lewis article that Hunter's talk about China is simplistic at best, moronic at worst.

“Whether or not this would be a broader threat on the shape of where it could turn into a new cold war, man, we are nowhere near that yet,” said Robert Work, vice president for strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Hunter's fans, including many with impressive economic credentials, counter that China is not simply being a good neighbor when it recycles its trade surplus by purchasing U.S. government debt. Instead, they say, it is part of a strategy of devaluing its own currency to make American products more expensive in global markets compared with Chinese goods.

Well being a good neighbor is what the United States is all about these days right? I mean really. Mostly so far, Duncan Hunter has gotten attention for his questionable relationship with campaign finance laws. But yesterday as I was leaving work I spotted this bumper sticker touting Hunter as "A Genuine Reagan Republican for America" and, quite frankly, shocking me. Even in San Diego, and even with his decent showing in South Carolina straw polling, is Duncan Hunter actually on his way to being relevant?

Obviously, this is a double-edged sword. He's nuts, which is bad if he actually gets any more power. But he's nuts, which means he'd be easy to beat. I can't see him being more than an asterisk when all is said and done, and I don't think many others can either, but what happens if he forces international belligerence into the Republican primary process?

Iran is already on the table apparently, as is (one would assume) Syria. I'm not sure what sort of plan Hunter is proposing in order to deal with Syria, but the whole "they're out-smarting us" position isn't particularly compelling to me (of course it isn't meant to be I guess). Pulling these issues to the right though, even in the primary process, would have ripple effects. It changes the political center of the debate, potentially moves someone like Hillary Clinton into a more hawkish place, and opens up wider lanes for pseudo-mavericks to manage the previously-physically-impossible end run right up the middle on these issues.

I'd be surprised, though I'd manage to retain my socks, if Duncan Hunter seriously made a run of this. I mean hell, his Progressive Punch score is friggin FIVE and that's not so good in an increasingly progressive country. But if people start taking his words and ideas seriously (even while dismissing him as a potential president) then we're gonna have a whole new slate of issues to fight back on. They may be absurd, but they'll take up time and be a distraction, and that certainly isn't productive.