In what sounds to me like a grasping attempt to induce Republican apostasy, Andrew Sullivan speculates that a President Kerry would be forced to be tougher on terror as President because, as a Democrat, he'd suffer a credibility gap in this area. This is patent nonsense.

What this problem would mean, in practice, is that President Kerry would talk really, really, tough on the terrorists, and then try to bolster his record with a laundry list of useless (but nice-sounding) micro-accomplishments. ("We've secured an accord with Bolivia, Kenya, and Burma for mutual cooperation against terror. By fighting in a multilateral fashion...")

The difference between the two is stark and obvious. John Kerry will be tough on terror: as tough as he minimally has to be to build his credibility on the issue. George W. Bush has shown, again and again, that he will be as tough on terror as he can get away with. These are, to put it mildly, very different things.

On a related note: I've yet to hear anything from Andrew on the bet I've offered him. He claims that the Full Faith and Credit clause will not be used to force recognition of Massachusetts gay marriages in other states. I'm willing to bet him $250 that, within one year of the first gay marriages being performed there, the Full Faith and Credit clause will be legally used to support recognition of these marriages by another state.

Drop him a line and encourage him to take the bet. After all, if he's right (and he seems awfully sure of it), I'd have to send him two day's pay (and, given the value of the Canadian dollar, closer to three).