It's actually pretty simple, though not pretty: Andrew Sullivan is suffering from cognitive dissonance as a result of inability to admit his priorities. Andrew Sullivan is a single-issue voter: gay marriage. Since President Bush backed a measure he, Bush, knew would not pass, which would if it had passed have been against Sullivan's preference, Sullivan could not in good conscience vote for President Bush.

However, Sullivan knows, and has stated very clearly, that the war should be the most important issue, but he is incapable of getting over his self-interested interest in gay-marriage, and this for him trumps his self-interested and altruistic interests in vigorous prosecution of the war.

But Sullivan cannot admit this without looking selfish and, indeed, becoming a copy of the criticisms he used to level at others. Given this schism between what he knows and what he feels, Sullivan has three choices:

• Candidly admit his selfish interest in gay marriage trumps his interests in prosecuting the war vigorously, or
  
• sit out the election on the grounds that neither candidate is acceptable, either by voting third party or by not voting at all, or,
  
• find some way to make Kerry look strong enough on prosecution of the war that Sullivan doesn't look foolish for supporting him (Kerry).

Sullivan has chosen the latter. If Sullivan is as logical as he once seemed to me, then he'll eventually come around (not likely before it's too late for this election cycle, though) to one of the other two choices. Otherwise, Sullivan will continue to rationalize his decision no matter how foolish it makes him look to a rational mind.

I take it then that you are no longer considering voting for the Democratic candidate "in hopes of returning to divided government" between the executive and legislative branches. The thought of a Kerry presidency makes that a little tough to do, doesn't it?

Jeff,

I hope you're correct about Sullivan, but I'm not hopeful. The more he flogs this horse, the harder it will be for him to back up on his prior statements, so I think he'll end up too far down this road to back off.

Lawrence,

I just can't bring myself to vote for John Kerry. The things I dislike about George Bush are legion, but at least I can be confident about what he will do. (Actually, I'm pretty confident I know what a Kerry presidency would involve as well, and I don't like what I see in my mind.) Of course, I'm in Colorado, so it really won't matter much how I vote (other than to cancel out Gary Farber's vote. ;), but Kerry is just too much for me to stomach. I'll probably talk through my though processes about the vote sometime later this summer, as I'm pretty sure at this point who I'll be voting for.

Part of the thinking that Kerry "could be a hawk" is that he was pretty loudly in favor of getting "tough" on Iraq in the late 90's. Of course, that contradicts what he's said more recently, but then you get back to Kerry the flip-flopper and Kerry who agrees with everything and therefore could agree with hawks if he's prodded.

They may be right, but will he still agree with them six months later? Two years?

R. Alex - why wait 6 months or 2 years to see Kerry change his mind? How about five minutes?:)

I'm willing to pound the sidewalks for Bush, not because I agree with him on all issues, but because I admire his willingness to make a stand for what he believes in. At a time like this you have to look at the whole person. In contrast, I can't imagine John Kerry ever putting his career and reputation on the line on a matter of principle. Even when he turned against the war in Vietnam, it was apparently due to expediency rather than conviction. The proof of the pudding is that you can find VVAW buddies of his who resented his self-centered, manipulative ways when he held a leadership position in that group.