You might be wondering why it’s been so long since I last entered something in to this blog. That’s because I’ve decided to only make blog entries when Ted Strickland makes a public appearance. And not just a campaign stop to some rural county where he’s overrun by Ken Blackwell signs, but an appearance on a TV or radio show would do as well. Maybe ONN’s morning show, where he was called out on his liberal voting record by someone who worked for public broadcasting. Hell, even a commercial here or there where he claims to share your values and then votes against the Pledge of Allegiance would be nice. Anything to let us know the man who wants to be our next Governor is actually still alive.

There are, of course, several theories behind the secret world of Hiding Ted (not to be confused with Drinking Ted, the Senior Senator for Massachusetts). Perhaps he thinks this is the 19^th century, when candidates for public office believed campaigning, making public appearances, and leaving the house- er, I mean, chicken shack- was beneath them. Maybe Ted, like other Democrat office hopefuls around the country, is banking on the fact that the President is unpopular and this must be a Democrat year. I hear San Fran Nan is already picking out new curtains for the Speaker’s office. After all, a party can lose only so many elections in a row before their luck changes, right? Just keep in mind the last political party to base their entire platform on the opposition to a single person folded in 1856.

Or maybe Hiding Ted is simply following in the footsteps of other Democrat gubernatorial candidates. Four years ago another Democrat named Ted ran for the governorship of another state beginning with the letter O. He also spent that summer doing nothing to the extent that a well-known liberal weekly tabloid asked “Where’s Ted?” on the cover. He very-nearly blew a twenty point lead over a candidate who made abortion the cornerstone of his campaign. His razor-thin victory was the closest race in Oregon political history. Keep in mind, this is a state about as blue as the ocean that borders it to the west. Any ordinary bleeding-heart (or ticking-heart, for that matter) liberal Democrat would have clobbered Kevin Mannix if they simply went to Pioneer Courthouse Square a couple of times. If Hiding Ted thinks he can capture Losing Ted’s fortune in a 50-50 state, he will prove himself to be sadly mistaken- and out of work. So how about it Ted, why don’t you come outside for a while? Ohio’s pretty nice this time of year.

Make no mistake about it, what happened last week in Britain was a huge victory for the good guys. Nine-Eleven, Part Deux was deferred thanks to- of all things- a tip from a British Muslim tired of seeing what was being done in the name of his religion. Add to that the heads-up nature of Scotland Yard in making these key arrests. Perhaps the over-arching lesson from last week’s anti-terror raid is to never lose sight of the nature of the enemy we face. But that shouldn’t include mischaracterizing them.

President Bush and his allies in America and around the world deserve to be supported in their continuing vigilance in the fight against militant Muslim terrorists dedicated to our destruction. However, they should also be called out when they use talk show terminology to describe that struggle. The day after the raids, President Bush referred to the enemy we face as “Islamic Fascists,” a phrase popularized by foreign policy experts like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. Hannity, Savage, and others use this term to try and invoke World War II imagery and thus oversimplify this global conflict. These hosts believe their audience is incapable of grasping the essence of the conflict, and hope that by comparing militant Islamic terrorists to that old, familiar enemy, listeners can simply regard it as World War III against the new incarnation of modern evil.

While these hosts are oversimplifying a complex enemy for the patronizing benefit of the audience, they are doing so inaccurately. Fascism and Islamic terrorism are two completely different animals because of clear differences in the very nature of each. Fascism glorifies the state and shuns religion while militant Islam knows no state in their unspeakable acts in the name of Allah. Fascism exists in the open with objectives that are clear and oft-spoken. Militant Islam exists in the shadows, perpetually hiding, keeping the rule of law guessing. Perhaps most importantly, people knew who the fascists were in Germany, Italy, Japan, and elsewhere. They wore uniforms, they carried and waved flags, they told you they were fascists. In Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the cops from the robbers (to the benefit of the latter).

Yes, America and the west are at war. Yes, the enemy we face is both powerful and unspeakably evil. Yes, this is a global struggle on multiple fronts that may not be over for many years or even decades, and our very civilization and culture hang in the balance. However, talk radio’s apparent nostalgia for the 1940’s – and the adoption of such by our leaders- will accomplish nothing. Al Qaeda and their cronies around the world are no more fascist than any other anti-Semitic global military force bent on dominating the world and destroying differing cultures found in history- before or after 1945. Treating this conflict as our grandfather’s war will ensure that we do not have grandchildren ourselves.

Don’t look now, but the last remnants of moderation, cordiality, rational thought, and pro-America sentiment in the Democratic Party may have but a single day left to live. The Connecticut primary is tomorrow and it features one of the most important battles for the soul of the Democratic Party in recent memory. Senator Joe Lieberman- perhaps the last FDR-Truman-JFK Democrat left in elected office- is in the battle for his political life against Ned Lamont, a media mogul with the backing of just about every left-wing organization you can think of, except the Workers’ Party of Korea. Lamont received more than $250,000 from that well-known internet bastion of centrism, MoveOn.org.

The polls are not looking good unless you’re a radical whacko. Lamont is predicted to beat Lieberman tomorrow by anywhere from six to ten points. What’s more, Lieberman is having a very tough time pulling the knives out of his back. His Senate colleagues (and even his running mate six years ago) have either refused to endorse him or have endorsed Lamont. Perhaps most telling, the Democratic National Committee has officially remained neutral. Lieberman’s primary defeat could usher in open season on Democrat moderates currently in office as well as serve as a warning for future centrists to stay away. In short, if you’re pro-life, a capitalist, color blind, pro-Israel, you refuse to condemn a sitting President in wartime, or you support America in the war on terror, don’t even bother running as a Democrat.

It may be that Joe Lieberman’s Senate career may outlive his affiliation with the Democratic Party. He could run as an independent and indeed is polling quite well in three-way races. It may be that Connecticut’s Republicans and Independents, combined with Lieberman’s traditional working class base would serve as an advantage and defeat Lamont in a rematch- a fitting poke in the eye to the party that has sold him down the river. Lieberman’s potential move would be reminiscent of a famous political defection many years ago when another conservative Democrat realized he and his party didn’t see eye to eye: Senator Lieberman will not have left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party will have left him.