In a Hole, And Digging Myself Deeper

(UPDATE: Make sure to read the latest version of this Almanac, updated at 7:30 p.m. Thursday.)

I don't really like to write about politics, because there are many, many other people doing that, and doing it well.

Also, my politics are as muddied as the bottom of the Youghiogheny River after three days of rain --- as I've pointed out here before, I'm a pro-labor practicing Catholic strong defense civil libertarian limited regulation environmentalist.

Tomorrow, I'll be off this topic, so you're welcome to skip out now.

But today, in light of the responses to yesterday's Almanac, I just want to throw this out to the crowd, and make sure I understand.

If someone is a liberal or a civil libertarian or is in some other way not a "real" conservative, but calls himself or herself a Republican, then they're not really a Republican, and it's OK for real Republicans and TV and newspaper commentators to toss every sort of calumny and slander at them (see also Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, Paul O'Neill, Christie Todd Whitman, etc.).

But if someone is a conservative, and calls himself a Democrat, then Democrats should shut up and vote for that person. (John Scalzi said it better yesterday over at Whatever ... and a Tube City hard-hat tip to Nancy Nall.)

So, in summary: If Democrats insist on voting for Democrats, then they should at least have the decency to only vote for Democrats who act like conservative Republicans.

Now I understand. Let's sing along with Garrison Keillor:

We're all Republicans now
We're all united and how
For national security
And cultural purity
We're all Republicans now
Down with the income tax
Get government off our backs
Less regulation÷let people be free
To work overtime and have two jobs or three
Put strict constructionists back on the courts
Let liberals have it right in the shorts
It's a free country so go and have fun
But not in my backyard cause I have a gun
We're all Republicans
All Republicans
All Republicans now.

By the way: According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Gov. Rendell has now come out with a solid endorsement of Bob Casey Jr. for the U.S. Senate. One state Democratic committeeman says that Rendell's praise of Rick Santorum was "a huge, huge, huge mistake."

Yes. Exactly. Pepsi doesn't issue endorsements praising Coke; General Motors doesn't encourage people to buy Toyotas; NBC doesn't recommend that viewers switch to CBS; and Republicans don't endorse Democrats.

So why should Democrats feel it necessary --- in the spirit of "bipartisanship" --- to cozy up to Republicans during an election year? Ridiculous.

I promise, no more politics for a while. Local silly stuff on Friday. See you then.

UPDATED

7:30 p.m.:

In light of the news breaking today around the world, I thought it was necessary to shoot my mouth off again, just to clarify a few points:

• It is possible to believe that Islamic fascism must be stopped, but that the current administration is not demonstrating the ability to stop it.
• It is possible to think that the democratic (small "d") nations of the world are in a fight for survival against radicals intent on destroying us; but also believe that giving up our own civil liberties --- spying on Americans without cause, imprisoning people without trials--- is foolish and wrong.
• It is possible to recognize that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the United States and the Middle East, but also think that the president's political appointees have made a mess of the war in Iraq, causing more instability in the region --- thus making the threat worse.

I felt it necessary to add these clarifications because of the things that Senators Lieberman and Santorum were saying today.

. . .

Lieberman told the New York Times that if U.S. troops leave Iraq, "it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

In other words, a vote for his opponent is a vote for more terrorism.

Meanwhile, Santorum told the Post-Gazette that Lieberman's loss in Tuesday's Democratic primary means that the terrorists "are winning."

This is shameful. It borders on propaganda of a type unseen since World War II --- and I don't mean the propaganda produced by our side.

I know enough hard-core "leftists" to know what some of them believe. Some of them believe there is no such thing as a "just war." Some of have sympathy for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.

Those people are, to use the medical term, "crazier than outhouse rats."

. . .

Terrorists are not "freedom fighters" or "insurgents," they are cold-blooded murderers. Hezbollah uses children to create human shields around military installations. Al Qaeda kills innocents indiscriminately.

Islamic fascism in general wants to abolish democratically-elected governments and impose theocratic dictatorships. There is nothing honorable about these methods or these causes.

Clearly a war to stop terrorism is just. And clearly we must fight one. (Penn State professor Michael Berube has just written a very sharp and scholarly analysis of this very fallacy. It's long, but worth reading.)

But lumping John Murtha, Ned Lamont or even Teddy Kennedy (a man I find fairly despicable) in with the far-left cuckoos is at best misleading, and is at worst lying.

In fact, arguing that a vote against Joe Lieberman or anyone else is some how a vote in favor of terrorism borders on mental illness. It's delusional.

• I believe the United States has to protect itself against all threats.
• I also believe that it has to behave as an honest broker, whether dealing with the Iraqis, the Lebanese or the Israelis, or with the Canadians, for that matter.
• We are not investing the resources needed to secure Iraq (nevermind the fact that most Iraqis want us to leave) because the White House and Congress don't want to take the political risks that would entail --- namely tax hikes and a draft.

Instead, as many, many people have said, the White House is trying to fight a war on the cheap. Lack of equipment and sufficient personnel is getting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines killed.

It's also allowing Iraq to slip into civil war. And as Iraq slips into civil war, more and more Iraqis turn against us every single day.

• Because we're still not addressing the root causes of Islamic terrorism --- such as support of Islamic radicals by the ruling families of Saudi Arabia --- we're not effectively fighting it.
• I don't think that the White House and many of the Republicans in Congress are being honest with our allies or our citizens about any of this. Instead, they hide behind slogans and toss epithets at their political opponents to score polling points and win elections.

In my mind, this all demands a change in leadership.

. . .

None of this excuses Democrats from coming up with a valid plan for national defense. Nor does it mean that Americans should support any Democrat blindly.

But I am disgusted with political rhetoric that implies that only Republicans and conservatives care about the safety of the United States --- and that only they can protect us.

Or with rhetoric that suggests that anyone who questions the conduct of the war on terrorism is somehow "unpatriotic." It smacks of totalitarianism and one-party rule.

For that matter, history doesn't bear it out: Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy seemed to handle the defense of the United States just fine.

And don't give me the malarkey that today's Democrats are some how "more liberal" than they were. More liberal than F.D.R.? Please.

I thank God that British authorities were able to bust a terror ring. I hope they and U.S. authorities keep stopping the bad guys here and abroad. Our very existence depends on it.

But today's events change my opinions not one wit.

They do, however, make the fevered bleatings of Senators Lieberman and Santorum seem even more shameful.