Some good friends of mine need your help

These are the words on a referendum in Wisconsin coming up on April 4, 2006. Some very good friends of ours has launched a website, and has asked us to join in their fight. We gladly and wholely support them and their cause.

VOTENOTOCUTANDRUN.COM

These fine folks have stood up and said "Enough". They are sick of the activism from anti-War movements undermining and short-circuiting our soldiers and their families and are fighting back. They need our help; whether you live there or not, if you can donate money, time, writing to politicians or the media...DO IT! Go to their website. Contact them. Do it today.

From the Site:

We are a group of dedicated volunteers from Dane County, Wisconsin; born and raised Wisconsinites and descendants of American patriots; who have served, are married to, related to, or simply support those who have volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces.

The morale of our troops directly depends on the support they receive from the American public. We believe the brave men and women, who are fighting and have died for the just cause of freedom and a humane society, deserve the support and appreciation of every Wisconsin citizen. We want our troops to hear our voices, know our hearts, know that we stand with them until they finish the job they have done so well and return home with honor.

Millions of loyal, hard working patriotic Americans support our troops in every way - their morale and their mission. We are confident the majority of Wisconsinites agree with the rest of America and will vote their conscience on April 4, and a little later will give our Troops the kind of welcome home they so richly deserve.

Here is their full Press Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
www.VOTENOToCutandRun.com
Information: contact@votenotocutandrun.com
Sam Johnson 608-244-2319


Madison group says Vote No To Cut And Run

February 27: The grass roots group Vote No To Cut And Run formally launched their web site, www.votenotocutandrun.com to voice and build opposition to an anti-military referendum that will appear on April 4 ballots in twenty plus communities in Wisconsin.

The referendum (with variations) that Wisconsin voters are being asked to consider reads:

“Resolved: The United States should bring all military personnel home from Iraq now.”

Q: Imagine what would happen if we did this NOW!

The stated aim of the groups behind the referendum is to make Wisconsin a test case for the nation on the “Bring the troops home now” question, without addressing how it effects community members who have, are now, or soon will be serving in Iraq or the impact on the new Iraqi nation.

VoteNoToCutAndRun.com reveals the nature of these groups, exposes their true agenda which is not about the welfare of the troops, as it is embarrassing the military through a hasty withdrawal while moving for impeachment of the President and his administration. Their literature reveals their view of our military as the cause of all violence in the world, rather than their protectors from that violence.

VoteNoToCutAndRun.com challenges the premise and false dichotomy that support of our troops can be separated from support of their mission. (“I support the troops BUT,”)

VoteNoToCutAndRun.com points out that our Armed Forces are volunteers, (not draftees) including thousands from Wisconsin who have served, are serving or will serve admirably in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, are risking their lives daily and have made incredible progress in rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq. Ask a soldier, “How would you feel if this passes?”

VoteNoToCutAndRun.com believes that Wisconsin voters will see the manipulation that this referendum represents and understand the harm that is being done to the morale of Wisconsin service men and women whose home towns have put it up.

VoteNoToCutAndRun.com is a source of information for the 20 plus Wisconsin communities who are paying taxes for the referendum, but are dedicated to defeating it.

A call has been made asking for help. Do all you can for them, as we are here trying to further these very same goals: First Victory, THEN Withdrawal...we expect nothing less.
..neither do they.

At Last! Profiling is back in Vogue

For much of the time since 9/11 this country has gone OUT OF ITS WAY to tell the American people AND the rest of the world that we are not anti Arab or anti Muslim...we are anti terrorists including the Radical Muslim contingents. We have minced words, wrung hands, and done more than most to avoid making Arabs and Muslims feel uncomfortable and unloved.

We have tightened security everywhere imagineable; airports, subways, train stations...you name it. What we HAVE NOT done is to single out anyone who may fit the profile of our enemies SOLELY on the basis of their race, creed, nationality, gender, age, or religious persuasion because we are the most diverse and tolerant nation on the planet; we are the enlightened ones.

In executing these new security systems and measures, we have increased invasive searches and investigations and inquiries(and in some cases seizures) on everyone BUT those who would fit the typical profile of our enemies; young Arab males between the ages of 18 and 45. Grandmas, Nuns, and babies in strollers have a better chance of being stopped and searched and scrutinized than an Arab male between the ages of 18 and 45. Phew...thank goodness our Arab males aren't feeling uncomfortable or unloved.

As we settled into Nirvana, behind our backs and in closed secretive conference rooms, our government has been conspiring to allow the United Arab Emirates to open up shop on our ports...OUR PORTS right here at home in the good ole US of A! The horror! The unspeakable! Those Traitors!

We must stand up and make this stop! We must make the President stand down! He is a dummy and a fool and is opening up the gates of hell so the Arab Muslims can infiltrate this fine, tolerant, diverse, Arab and Muslim loving country and kill everyone and blow everything up!

Come on people. Look at yourselves. Britain is an ally with radical muslims that were born there and that blew up subways and have protests that kill people or burn homes and business...So does France and Spain and just about any other of a number of countries that could have made the bid to buy out P&O. They have banks with terrorist money in them. They have legitimate businesses that are, under the cloak of secrecy, funneling money to terrorist groups within and outside their borders. You're making yourselves look ridiculous. Profiling is back, and everyone railing about this deal is standing up and saying in very clear and loud voices:

They are Arabs and we can't trust them here. We want them to like us from within their own countries, but we don't care how they feel about us when they are in ours.

If you want to be against the deal, be against it for what it is...we are continuing to relinquish control of our businesses to other countries because we can't seem to run them effectively enough ourselves. Why was a British company running these ports? Why are Communist Chinese companies running others? And Japan, and on and on ad infinitem?

All you anti Dubai people out there...are you ready to buy the P&O company with US funds...have it back under US control? Worse still, under US GOVERNMENT control? Or will you bitch and scream about the deficit...about how we need to spend our money in better places like entitlements and waste? Here's a thought...how 'bout we stand up and rail about illegal imimigration some more and maybe give a little air time to securing the borders. There's a thought.

If you are against the deal, you better not stand up and say anybody but UAE...that makes you a hypocrite. Better stand up and say PRO-US Business...

Having it both ways

I try to avoid the topic of abortion here for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the emotions this debate elicit when it is discussed.. I must take a time-out from that today because I just can't stand the hyprocisy any longer.

THIS story makes my head want to explode into tiny little pieces. In it, we are told that no doctor can be found to administer the lethal dose that would execute one pathetic loser named Michael Morales, consistent with California death penalty and execution statutes.

A little research on this case will tell you that Morales was convicted of rape and murder for his part in the death of a 17 year old girl in San Joaquin County California back in January of 1981. As usual, after 25 years in prison at San Quentin, and with time running out, this scum pulled out all the stops after all his previous appeals had been denied, and finally found a US District Judge(Jeremy Fogel) to hear an appeal that the current lethal injection method (3 shots-one to anesthetize, one to paralyze, and one to stop the heart) was a violation of the US Constitution's 8th Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

While his execution was upheld, this District Judge (in his infinite judicial activism wisdom) ordered that Prison officials either bring in Doctors to ensure Morales is properly anesthetized, OR skip shot 2 and shot 3, and simply overdose him on a sedative until he dies. Atta boy Judge...rewrite the science of execution chemicals and just let him have some happy juice til his heart and brain explode...but at least he won't feel it! Thank goodness.

Oh, did I mention how long it took for Morales' victim to succumb to the 23 plus hammer blows to the skull...that she was in and out of consciousness all through the beating and the rape and the stabbing? Did I mention that he raped her AFTER the hammer blows...and after he raped her she was still alive so he had to stab her in the chest a few times just to make sure?

Let's not be mean to him JUST because of what he did to her. After all, execution is SUPPOSED to be the carriage of justice, not social retribution, right?

So why does this have me steamed about abortion?

A Wikipedia read will give you the cold hard sterile description of the Partial Birth Abortion procedure, technically known as "Intact Dilation and Extraction". A read at the National Right to Life website puts it in a little more human context though, and leaves you feeling a little sick inside. Another website puts it in REAL LIFE FIRST PERSON perspective. And I quote:

" I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

Note to class: I am against abortion in almost every case except Maternal Death Risk.

Having said that, I am disgusted that Doctors can't bring themselves to kill Morales because their medical oath prevents them from doing anything but IMPROVE a person's condition, yet they seem to have no problem performing abortions...especially this "Intact Dilation and Extraction", or so-called Partial Birth Abortion procedure, on unborn babies. I'll get no answer, but I feel better for saying this is all a load of activism crap from the Left who has mastered the ability to be FOR Life by being against the Death Penalty while being FOR Death by being in favor of Abortion.

And when you put all this aside, a court order to execute a convicted rapist and murder is not being followed...doesn't that make SOMEONE in contempt of court?

Horse of a Different Color?

You say Tomato, I say Tamotto...you say Redeployment, I say Cut and Run...

If ever there was a time to pick up the pace and get moving...physically MOVING into action, THIS IS IT! I strongly encourage each and everyone of you to decide where you come down on this, and ENGAGE with your politicians directly about where you want them to come down on this in your stead...pro or con.

I want to say up front that this is NOT a hit piece against the Democrats...it is intended to look at the specific issue at hand. While some of you will see it differently, I want everyone from both sides to debate the specifics of what I am about to say...not the party affiliation behind it.

The news article referenced above describes a "commom message on the War in Iraq" around which party leaders are beginning to coalesce. In this case, it is the Democratic Party...but again, that is not the point. The common message is this:

[..]to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

Let's filter out the Politics of this for a minute and look at the concept. The article states that "a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb" coauthored a nine page report last fall. In this report he

sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007

Jack Reed of Rhode Island-an Army veteran and former paratrooper-is apparently a spokesman for this plan, and says this:

The idea of a phased deployment of troops out of Iraq recognizes that a huge US military presence in the country is straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency, Reed said. He added that many military commanders agree that the nation should be moving toward taking American troops out of Iraq, to better equip the military to respond to threats around the world and give the Iraqi government a greater incentive to handle its own security.

''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said.

''We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."

In the plan, co-author Korb further suggests "all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq." Additionally, in a recent interview Korb was quoted as follows:

"setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

''The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. ''If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."

Now, the rest of the article goes on to analyze the political wrangling behind the plan offered up by Korb and others, and sadly, describes the political gain that can be realized in the '06 elections should the Dems (in this case) coalesce around a message and this alternative strategy to the one the Bush Administration has pursued to date...again, I am not out for a debate here as to whether the Dems are right or the Repubs are right...just to debate the fundamental question this story poses:

Is withdrawal and redeployment the appropriate next-step in the strategy to the war in Iraq or is it a new, electable re-wording of the term cutting and running? Comments please...

Here's the Rub...

We all know by now that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in a bird hunting accident recently. Anyone who hunts knows this is a thankfully rare and yet not surprisingly common occurence, at least in the arena of bird hunting.

A quick search in Google will tell you what should be no surprise...they happen. What is interesting in my 5 minutes of work however is that in "Google Search" under the "Web" link, I found 866,000 plus matches to the search string "bird hunting accidents"...and guess what? Under the "News" link I found a whopping 574 matches to the same search string. What does this mean?

It happens a lot, and it almost never makes the news. Why then does the awful experience our Vice President has recently endured been deemed so news worthy? Because it is juicy fodder for any number of groups out there with nothing good to say or better to do than beat the relentless drum of antipathy.

This poor man has shot a friend accidentally while out enjoying the fresh air, comaraderie, and beauty of nature; hell, he was getting good exercise to boot. All anyone cares about is conspiracy theories, Administration secretiveness, and whether the VP came out publicly about it fast enough, or has been sufficiently forthcoming since he has addressed the public on the matter.

A question I would ask is this: "Does anyone care how he feels about what hapened? Does anyone have the slightest bit of respect and decency for the man in the hospital who was on the receiving end of this bird shot? Nope. How many beers? Why did you wait so long? How do you feel about guns NOW? What are you hiding?

I believe the only thing he is hiding is himself from the chum sucking media whores out for their name on a byline...I think he is trying to reckon with himself and his poor friend whom he accidentally shot, and for whom he has deep concern. But that is not news, now is it?

To be equally as nasty for just a moment, I suggest you consider the lack of forthrightness when Bill helped dry off Monica's blue dress; I don't recall him coming forward with it as soon as it happened...hmmm.

Then there's Senator Kennedy ...I don't believe he came out with his little car accident right away either. Then, there's Senator Reid's lack of forthrightness regarding his sroke last summer.

Oh, wait-I believe the Clintons were remiss to address the public after Vincent Foster's untimely suicide, an event the aspiring Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton has been implicated in helping to cover up...

But I digress. Here's the rub:
Accidents happen. People get hurt in accidents. Friends and family mourn and grieve and suffer the heavy weight of these things with their privacy and dignity intact. If anyone on the left side of the aisle were in a similar situation, it would either have NEVER made the headlines, or would, a day later, be yesterday's news...but if you're the evil Haliburton kingpin...different rules.

While we are at war in the Middle East, and are struggling at home to sustain and grow the economy, and are fighting fervently to ensure our security without sacrificing our personal liberties, we apparently are more concerned about a tragic hunting accident which would have never made the news if it hadn't happened to such an unpopular guy in the media, who happens to work for an even MORE unpopular guy in the media; his boss Mr. President George W. Bush.

My miniscule bandwidth says this: I'm sorry for your pain Mr. Cheney, I'm sorry for your injuries Mr. Whittington and may god speed your recovery. I'm sorry Whittington and Cheney families that I live in a country where those who completely control the national dialog has chosen to scorn you, villify you, and abuse and make light of your tragic experience so they can further their advertising and sales revenues.

Deeply sorry.

A suggestion on Voting Reform

No one in his or her right mind would ever support this, but I have a hair-brained idea on a change we should make to the system of voting in this country.

We should have ALL election cycles be set to every 6 months. Yep-6 months.

It is the dawn of the '06 election cycle, and as always, the politicians start anew to talk to US, and tell us how they feel, what they believe, and what they'd like to do for us if only we would elect them into office...this dynamic has been called many things over the years, such as pandering, pushing the palm, and one of my favorites-stumping.

Now, with a couple Google hours under my belt, I could probably find 50 examples of the point I want to make here, but as a Texan, I'll give you ONLY THIS ONE to drive home the point.

My Governor Rick Perry (who I reluctantly voted for, and will reluctantly vote for again because of my dedication to my party affiliation) suggests that he must deploy all available and practical resources to the Texas-Mexico border because the Feds are overwhelmed, understaffed, and apparently incapable of dealing with the border crisis we face. Now, this SOUNDS fantastic...awesome...inspiring...and encouraging.

The problem is that he has had the entire Presidential term of his former boss to address this issue (one that has been internationally debated and discussed) and has done zip to address it until NOW...the entry into the Gubernatorial election cycle of 2006. He has a lowly challenger in Carol Keaton-Strayhorn (a Republican running as an independent because she knows she'll never beat Perry in the Primaries), but this challenge is fearful enough to his strategists that he has to start looking like a Governor now that there is a credible challenge to his supremacy in Texas politics.

My point in today's rant is simple. Since all it seems to take is a threat to keeping the cushy do-nothing, look pretty job of head-of-State of a member of our fine Republic, why don't we make them worry about being unseated every 6 months?

Whenever an election cycle rears its ugly head, the political scum out there starts actually doing the work they avoided for 90% of the term they were elected to serve. If we had them worry about being fired more often; more frequently... maybe(like us chumps that have to earn our jobs and salaries everyday) they'd actually do the jobs we hired them at the ballot box to do.

Na Na Na Na Poopy...

The media has been a buzz of late about the reaction among many in the Muslim community regarding the controversial cartoons depicting Mohammed in an off-color, or derogatory caricature-style way. Embassies have been burned, death threats have been leveled, and Journalists, Editors, and Publishers have gone into hiding. That's the bad news.

The good news, apparently, is HERE in a piece from Reuters which tells us that Iran is sponsoring a cartoon contest in search of the 12 best cartoons depicting the Holocaust. The winners will each receive 2 gold coins.

Phew. For a minute there, I thought they were actually upset about the cartoons on the merits of whether Mohammed and their "divine religion" of Islam was being insulted or defaced. Thank goodness this is just a "I can make you madder than yo can make ME contest"...thank goodness.

Iran is basically going to stick their thumbs in their ears, wiggle their fingers, waffle their tongues in little raspberry sounds, and chant:

Na Na Na Na Poopies...

All is well again among the grown up Nations of the World...

Everything in our Power

In recent weeks, a scant few on the left side of the aisle have begun to engage in the debate about supporting our troops with no preconditions...a very SCANT few...and those still hiding behind the "we support our troops BUT" mini skirt are starting to get exposed in ever greater detail.

One such Politician not afraid to call them out is Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida, who posted this in the St. Petersburg Times recently. In this op-ed, she rails on those who decry a "support for the troops" while trying to maintain the precarious balance of simultaneously being against the war. A difficult equilirium to maintain, indeed.

A passage of great import from Rep. Brown-Waite suggests

Support is not a slogan. Support is more than wearing a button. Support is active. Supporting the troops is not saying things that encourage our enemies. Support is not saying things that make it harder for our troops to fight. Supporting the troops requires a commitment to win.

And this last begs the question, "What is this commitment to win? What does it look like? Will I know it when I see it? Will I know when someone ISN'T committed to winning?"

I look around me, and I see many examples of commitment; children being kissed goodbye at the airport with fear and confidence in their eyes as they are being deployed with tears of pride on the faces of the families sacrificing their sons and daughters to this noble cause. I see commitment in the pride and dignity shown at a family gathering when pictures of children in fatigues with their brothers and sisters in theater are being proudly displayed and spread around the room. I see commitment when I travel on business, and run of the mill Americans approach GI's and shake their hands, or hug them as strangers, or give up their seats on the bus, or buy them a drink in an attempt to show a little touch of affection and love...or just a little nudge of encouragement. I see commitment when, out of the blue, a wide-eyed child asks them for their autograph, or a tourist asks if they can have their picture taken with them...I see every day Americans no matter where I go state out loud and without shame that they admire and respect what our soldiers do, honor their sacrifice, and envy their status as our heroes and protectors. I see America at its finest in these moments.

And then, like a freight train, I turn on the TV, or read the paper, or listen to the radio news, and I hear things like this:

The leader [Nancy Pelosi] voted against funding for the Patriot Act and she voted against establishing the Department of Homeland Security. How about for our troops on the ground? The leader of the Democrats voted to cut intelligence funding by $500-million and voted to cut intelligence authorization by nearly 1 percent. This is how liberal Democrats support the troops.

When confronted with these policy choices, the common refrain from Democrats, and I've noticed it printed often in this newspaper, is to say, "You questioned my patriotism." Well, I defy the editor of this paper or any paper to show where I questioned anyone's patriotism. I don't know of any Republican, from the president to the county chairman, who has done so.

This Author is not so quick to mince my words. Rep. Brown-Waite, after this last passage goes on to defend herself by trying to suggest, apologetically I might add, that she does not challenge one's patriotism when she challenges one's commitment to Victory.

Haystack does. Many of the Americans I meet on the road, in the airport, at the office, around the bonfire on the weekend, and everywhere in between would tell you the same. They would tell you that it is not possible to support one without supporting the other. We ALL have an opinion on its execution, it's strategy at the onset, and whether it has been adjusted accordingly or appropriately since its inception. And we would all, also, tell you that we have a hundred suggestions for the Administration if we had 5 minutes of their attention...and NONE of them would tell you we should "get while the gettin's good"; they will instead tell you we should turn it up a few notches and get it finished and over with. They would all tell you these brave men and women are the most imprtant resource this country has, and every sacrifice should be made here at home to make sure they finish what WE started, and bring them home with the job finished...and with THEM victorious.

Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing less will do. Aything less than full Victory is not an option in the American culture...and is not an option for the American people. To suggest a retreat, or a withdrawal, or anything less than a total defeat of the enemy would be to suggest that we don't believe in ourselves, our strength, or our ability to rise to any challenge near or far and overcome it. This is un-Patriotic, and it can not be accepted.

Rep. Brown-Waite gets the last word on this post. She says this:

The administration believes our nation faces grave threats, and the president has made the choice that we will fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, not in New York or Florida. Like it or not, we are engaged in a global war, and all of us should be doing everything in our power to win the war and protect the American people.

[...]

This month I will be in Iraq and able to see the progress for myself. In the meantime, I know these facts: 10,000 insurgents cannot defeat our Army or our Marines. The cause in Iraq is noble. It is the fight for freedom and for civilization, and with great sacrifice we are winning. Victory will take more time and more sacrifice, but we cannot lose unless we defeat ourselves, lose our nerve or our will to win.

Unnecessary Abuse of Freedom of Speech

is apparently a law on the books in Jordan. I would love that law here in the US!

An article from the BBC through Drudge tells of two editors at the al-Mehwar and Shihan papers in Jordan being fired after publishing the contoversial caricature cartoons of Mohammed in their newspaper. They were also arrested and charged with "insulting religion", and

Jordanian King Abdullah condemned the cartoons as an unnecessary abuse of freedom of speech.

I find the notion of holding free speechers to some degree of account for their actions an amazingly profound one, and one we should take a long hard look at here in the US. The list is too long to repeat here, but all of us can remember at least a couple occasions where just such liberties have been taken by the media where it involves their reserved right to Free Speech under the First Amendment...liberties that have often times been subsequently PROVEN to be wrong with no follow up clarifications or retractions or apologies offered or mandated.

As an aside, perhaps the most significant passage in this article will definitely NOT be played out in the media here in the US in the coming days, but deserves to be brought to everyone's attention who may desire a victorious end to the war on terror:

Mr Momani's paper, Shihan, had printed three of the cartoons, alongside an editorial questioning whether the angry reaction to them in the Muslim world was justified.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote Mr Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

I defy anyone in the media to point out that these Jordanian media personalities, Muslims themselves, were trying to show the reaction to the cartoons by many in the world of Islam is misguided and ill placed.

Election year-itis

The election season is shifting into gear, and will soon be in full swing. States around the country will be having primaries and caucuses to determine who will face off in Novenber 2006. Let the rhetoric begin.

An example of campaign (or pre-campaign) rhetoric is the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania (one whom I have had much respect for over these past few years; standing behind the President on a host of issues and aligning himself with the Party consensus on others with which he may have quietly disagreed).

Then comes this little tidbit from The Hill News. In this piece written by Mr. Santorum, he tells us what issues we Americans care most about. They are, in order, as follows:

1)Access to affordable healthcare
2) Education
3) Energy Independence
4) Growing the economy

Now, from where I sit, those are all fine priorities indeed. But they are not on my list, at least as the top 4, nor are they items people I know are talking most about.

Did I mention Mr. Santorum is running for re-election this year?


Yet here we are, talking about the same popular hit list we have seen regurgitated over and over during each of the most recent campaigns.

They still don't get it.

We are in a war, and not a word was mentioned about it. Nor was the deficit or Social Security, or any of the issues about terrorism, abortion, the death penalty, or any of a whole host of items that may lead to argument and philosophical debate.

One can wax prophetic on the issues Mr. Santorum discusses here, and do so with such eloquence and grace that one can feel real good after hearing it...and forget what really fires them up. One can go home after a big campaign rally and think "man, this guy has my vote" long before it sinks in that none of the things they get emotional about were ever mentioned. Ahh, politics at its finest; tell 'em what they want to hear before they ask about the stuff you have no answers for...