Andrew Sullivan's vision for Obama is appealing. But what about Afghanistan?

Ever since November 2007, I have both enjoyed and caviled at Andrew Sullivan's heroic chronicles of the Obama presidency, which started as prophecy in November 2007.  That's the case with his latest Newsweek cover, which makes a pretty strong case that if re-elected Obama will have the chance to fulfill his stated ambition of being a "transformative" president in the Reagan mold --one who "changes the trajectory" of American politics, as he famously/infamously posited during the 2008 campaign.

So far, the rhythm  of Obama's tenure has indeed somewhat tracked Reagan's: two years of transformative legislation enacted in tough economic times; an approval rating that dipped low as unemployment broke double digits, leading to a major midterm setback; then the recovery of economic growth and popular approval (at very different paces). In prospect, Sullivan sees for Obama the chance to protect and enact the seismic legislation passed in his first two years; to cut major tax-and-spending deals with a chastened (or at least cornered) GOP; and to help feather down the collapse of repressive regimes and foster democratic revolution in a major corner of the globe. He protests that the forward vision is "potential, not prophecy," but with that caveat lets hope have its creative way.

It's a 3000-word vision, so perhaps one can't demand too much supporting detail.  That said, it suffers from a signature Sullivan sleight-of-hand: the paragraph brief, that builds a case by grammatical momentum, stuffed with "items in series" -- that is, comma-separated talking points that sweep the reader past some pretty questionable claims or omissions. Take the foreign policy side of the vision of second-term "potential':

The GOP conjures up a candidate

Rebutting the notion that Mitt Romney is winning the GOP nomination because his rivals failed to put together professional campaign organizations, Conor Friedersdorf argues that Romney faced no viable competition, but rather a crew with "glaring substantive flaws."  Well, sure. But why did Romney face no viable competition?  The current state of the GOP allowed no "better" candidate to emerge.

If Mitt Romney didn't exist -- and in his current incarnation, he didn't, until circa 2005 -- GOP voters would have had to invent him.  In fact, they did invent him. Forget the Etch-A-Sketch: he is the Ouija board of the GOP base.  Whatever position they collectively demand, he adopts.

If Republican voters are reluctant to back Romney , it's because he caters simultaneously to contradictory desires.  Collectively, the party wants to seem moderate enough to win without compromising far-right fantasy positions.  Romney can perhaps win because people don't see him as an extremist: he had a moderate record as governor, preceded by a long successful career in a field that demands pragmatism and a respect for data, which he credibly claims to possess.  And yet he is sworn to advance every jot and tittle of an extremist agenda: deficit reduction without tax increases or defense cuts, foreign policy without negotiation, dismantling of Obamneycare, broader defenestration of the federal government , defunding of Planned Parenthood, reversal of Rove v. Wade, ruthless hounding of undocumented aliens out the door.