Andrew Sullivan, my, and many others’ favorite blogger, has been riding the fence lately about Kerry vs. Bush. Many of his devoted readers are taking issue with him about this, accusing him of being obsessed with one issue, i.e., the FMA, the proposed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. He defends himself in today’s blog. Here is my response to his defense:
So what it really boils down to is that you do not believe that the war necessarily trumps all other issues, because 1) Bush has not been that great in the post-victory phase in Iraq, and 2) Kerry might not be so bad. That is certainly an arguable position, wrong but arguable.
My suspicion is, though, that were it not for the FMA, you would not be quite so pessimistic about the current situation in Iraq, nor quite so optimistic about Kerry’s secret plan to continue fighting the war, which he doesn’t like to call a war, which he discusses only when pressed, and then in the most vague terms imaginable. I think this is what many of your readers are sensing, that your understandable passion about the FMA is skewing your view of the main issue of this campaign.
The FMA is almost certainly doomed to failure, and may even turn out to be a boon to its opponents. The Islamic fascist war against America is not at all doomed to failure. It is real and will continue for the foreseeable future. The outcome is uncertain. Time is not on our side. If Kerry is elected President, it will be with an anti-war mandate. This cannot help but be a victory for our enemies.
This is why I, and others, are questioning your hopefulness about Kerry. We can’t be electing someone President because we hope he doesn’t mean what he says, and what his supporters say, just because he doesn’t support a doomed anti-gay amendment to the Constitution.