Notwithstanding his claim to be a peacemaker, James Wolcott has been repeatedly insistent that he's onto some new form of NeoCon evil, which strikes him as a form of dishonesty:

Totten and compadres seem to think that I consider anyone who simply voted for Bush as morally culpable for everything Bush has done since on the foreign and domestic fronts. But I made it clear that I was referring specifically to bloggers who support Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, bloggers who slant conservative Republican in the overwhelming of majority of their posts and--

--and then at irregular intervals rhetorically wag their hands to say, Hey, don't pin a label on me, I support a woman's right to choose, or gay marriage, or decriminalization of drugs, etc.

As if that absolves you for vigorously championing an immoral war based on lies, supervised by a leadership class corrupted by ideological cowards and incompetents.

It would be one thing if I had carefully staked out some sort of political potpourri in order to raise funds or run for office, but this idea that I owe a duty to follow a party line makes no sense. Additionally, Wolcott is saying that I might as well favor sodomy laws, laws against anti-stem cell research, or drug laws, because some of the people who support war do. I think he'd like to say that and more (i.e., that only the antiwar crowd should be allowed take such positions) but I think he realizes how foolish that would be, so he must resort to the charge of opportunistic political insincerity. Somehow, the accusation is that I (and people who might think like me) only pretend to favor legalizing drugs in order to pose as Democrats and build up support for the war or something. (But even that wouldn't hold up unless the Democrats favor legalizing drugs.)

I admit, Wolcott's argument might induce shame among those who either feel guilty about supporting the war (and thus have some insecure need to be given liberal credentials on credit) or who live in constant, deathly fear of being called "conservative," or "Republican." Well, I couldn't care less. I know that a lot of liberals who abhor my philosophy, and I also know there are a lot of conservatives who do likewise (the latter are right wing equivalents of Wolcott who'd accuse me of being as evil as "liberals" for working in "common cause" with them -- and who'd maintain I'm not "absolved" by supporting the war).

What's the threat? That I'll be (gasp!) "exposed"? I'm not hiding my political philosophy. So go ahead, say I'm in bed with Falwell. (I'll laugh as hard as I would if some right winger said I was in bed with Michael Moore.)

Besides, I've admitted repeatedly to being on Karl Rove's payroll.

Hail Satan!