DATE: 3/29/2004 10:33:00 AM
Egad, Andrew - Andrew Sullivan takes issue with National Review's insistence that he should just "save time and come out for Kerry now. In just a matter of time he will come up with the rationalizations, but it's taking him painfully long to get on with it. I'm betting all Kerry will have to do is say that he's against terrorism." Sullivan responds by bragging on his independent cred, and says he needs more time to make up his mind. What Sullivan doesn't realize is that one need not be particularly partisan this year to back George W. Bush for president - if they take seriously the threat posed by international terrorism. This is a point that Sullivan himself made only months ago.
Nothing John Kerry has said thus far has convinced me that the Massachusetts senator takes terrorism seriously enough. Sullivan has said in the past that he considers the war on terror the most important issue of this next election, yet he's constantly "disturbed" by other actions this administration has taken (the budget, gay marriage, etc.). Bush, for all his faults, has made the war on terror a priority. John Kerry's greatest fault is that he doesn't even seem to believe there's a war on.
There's nothing wrong with weighing the pros and cons of one candidate versus another. So far, though, Sullivan has found virtually no reasons to actually vote for John Kerry. His leanings in Kerry's direction are almost completely a result of his questions about Bush. The only problem is that none of those questions seem to have anything to do with what Sullivan has said is the most important issue facing this country. Sullivan has said he's only taking a more "independent approach" and wants reasons over rationalizations to vote for Bush. It would be nice if such an approach were more consistent with his previous writings.