We took a gentle tap at state Sen. Dina Titus, who we like, when she came out in favor of lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling the other day. It’s a short-sighted and bad policy, we think, and a foolish gambit if done for political reasons.

Why? Well, check out today’s newspaper, in which Titus is attacked by her eventual Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, on the very issue she sought to inoculate herself on, drilling. Wouldn’t you just know that Titus took a different tack in 2007, voting against a resolution that called for offshore oil drilling, and even attempting to amend the resolution to replace “oilmongering” with “renewable energy.”

Sure, Titus can say today that the resolution didn’t have the language she wanted in it (allowing states to choose whether to allow drilling; allowing them to share in the royalties from offshore oil leases; and restricting the oil for use here in America). But that’s explaining, and if you’re explaining in politics, you’re losing.

Better to have stuck with her original stance — against offshore drilling — not only so she could remain consistent, but also because she was right. Porter’s position — to allow drilling — is wrong. So why embrace it? Because Titus could see the Republican planning to slam her on energy, when drivers are facing record gas prices and looking for somebody to blame.

We’ve said it before, people: Stick to your principles, assuming your principles are right. You don’t gain anything when you abandon them.

Or as President George W. Bush’s favorite political philosopher once put it: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Don’t answer, people. That question is meant to be rhetorical.