Sullivan's theory is impoverished

There's no nice way of saying it: Andrew Sullivan's "theory" is the product of a shallow and lazy mind.

Sullivan's "theory" to explain why this "election is so hard,"

"[it's] not so easy to tell who's the liberal and who's the conservative anymore ... You want a future President who will be hard nosed about committing U.S. troops abroad, wants to balance every new spending item with a tax hike or a spending cut elsewhere and backs states' rights on social issues? Then go ahead and vote for the, er, Democrat, John Kerry."

Sullivan correctly points out that President Bush has done a crappy job controlling the growth of the federal government and has never placed any reasonable controls on federal spending. Bush's fiscal performance has been disgraceful.

The fundamental difference is: we can measure Bush's performance by his actions; however, Senator Kerry's record is one of inaction, equivocation, and runs contrary to his campaign promises.

For me, the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates Kerry is unfit to be the president, but Sullivan chooses to ignore that telling moment in Kerry's public life.

Does Sullivan believe Hussein's invasion of Kuwait should have been allowed to "stand," which Kerry's vote against the Gulf War would have permitted?

Does Sullivan believe, as Senator Kerry's vote proved he did, the United States should not take action that ensures the unimpeded flow of crude oil to Western markets? that ensures a brutal tyrant cannot impose his will on others?

Clearly, Sullivan's mind has unraveled if he believes Kerry is anything other than a profligate "tax & spend" Liberal, as he has been painted by Bush. Even EJ Dionne, the devout, Big Government communitarian, has labelled Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal." Self-inflated Michael Moore reminded us Kerry is well named as the most liberal Senator.

It defies common sense to believe (as Sullivan does) that President Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Senator Kerry ever was.

One need look no further than Kerry's flagrant dissembling regarding his health plan. In March, R. Glen Hubbard, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), wrote "Mr. Kerry's Math," in which he told us:

"Laws of math cannot be repealed--one cannot increase federal spending by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, slash the deficit over four years, and raise taxes only on those earning $200,000-plus to pay for the rest. More Americans would pay higher taxes under John Kerry's administration than John Kerry is willing to let on. Fully funding his promises would require repealing the entire Bush tax cuts, implying large tax increases for lower- and middle-income workers."

Ah yes ... the "social issues" of "states' rights." Sullivan has to encrypt his message. Recently, Sullivan has delusionally asserted his sexuality is a "non-issue," but nary a day passes in which Sullivan's "non-issue" is placed front-and-center in his commentary.

Does anyone doubt that if Bush had campaigned for a policy that would allow same-sex marriages that Sullivan would have endorsed Senator Kerry? Does anyone believe Abu Ghraib is more important to Sullivan than his desire to foist same-sex marriages on Americans that overwhelmingly reject them?

No, Sullivan's theory does not explain why this "election is so hard." Livy tells of a time when two armies were marching on Rome; many politicians chose to thwart Rome's mobilization of their armies, for they were more concerned with their political agenda than they were with the defense of their nation.

Our difficulty is Americans are a forgetful nation. We believe wars should be precise and clean as they believe the Kosovo war was -- although the problems that led to it have not been resolved. Unlike the Romans that fought the Volscians in war almost every year for 400 years, we have not experienced an implacable, unrelenting foe.

Today, many (Senator Kerry) long for the "nuisance" of pre-September 11th terrorism, in which hundreds of Americans were being killed at home and abroad, or they (Richard Holbrooke) believe the global war on terror (GWOT) is a metaphor, which cannot be won only lost. Many (Kerry, Holbrooke, Albright, EJ Dionne, etc.) are more concerned with their partisan political agenda, and they view the GWOT as "spending too much money" that should be spent on the ever-increasing socialization of American society.

Yes, "this election is hard" because it is meaningful. Unlike Sullivan, Hitchens knows this is a "single-issue" election -- read my response to their endorsements here. Many wish it were not so, for they value their issue most.

Kerry wants to socialize our health care system. Albright and Holbrooke want to internationalize our foreign policy. Dionne wants to nationalize our health insurance industry. And Sullivan wants to marry his friend.

As Sullivan presciently stated, "[blogging] takes up more time every day, and I'm becoming more impoverished by the minute." (Andrew, you're right, it's reflected in your commentary.)