Sullivan on Clark

SULLIVAN ON CLARK….Andrew Sullivan says he’s completely fed up with George Bush and the only reason he’s still supporting him is his strong stand on national security. Then there’s this:

Looking forward, there’s a big opening for a Democrat who wants to say the following: “I want to do more to improve homeland security, put more emphasis on securing loose nukes in Russia and around the world, stay the course on Iraq – but also move to mend fences with old Europe and our other allies. Domestically, I’m going to improve our finances by raising taxes on the very rich, but cutting taxes on the middle class. And, above all, I’ll be a check on one-party government in the Congress, and prevent Bush from appointing extremists to the Supreme Court.”

I don’t get it. Wesley Clark talked about loose nukes in one of the New Hampshire debates, and the rest of Sullivan’s points sound like they’re taken almost verbatim from Clark’s website. Scanning though the “Issues” page we’ve got support for tighter airline security, we’ve got determination to see things through in Iraq, we’ve got a commitment to America having the strongest military in the world, and we’ve got a clear dedication to mending fences with Europe.

Domestically, Clark has proposed higher taxes on millionaires along with a middle class tax cut, he’s obviously in favor of being a check on a Republican congress, and Sullivan should certainly be happy with his stand on gay rights.

But even so, he can’t support him. Why? Because he’s been endorsed by Michael Moore.

Does this make any sense at all?

UPDATE: Text changed to reflect Clark’s position on loose nukes. Thanks, commenters!