He is still on his heels with Iraq, although we are making a lot better progress than the mainstream media tells you. We learned something important in a recent poll where 68% of Iraqi citizens said the war is going well. We learned that they must not get the N.Y. Times there.

W has been so beaten up in the press that even the buffoons on the Democratic side who have sat on their hands so far, seen the same intelligence and voted the same way on the war, are starting to take him on with this issue of security. That is a sad day when you allow that to happen. The next thing you know is W will be taken to task by Bill Clinton on marital fidelity issues.

In short, with Harriett Miers, wiretaps, Katrina, GOP indictments, etc., compounded by his own hubris, he is in a major PR slump.

As a result he has put in jeopardy in the average American's mind, the edge that the GOP has on being the Party that is best situated to protect our country against Muslim extremism. The key word is the "average American's mind", as the average American seems only to understand media driven perceptions of a person and not their fundamental stances on issues of importance. If you believe that your congressman who grabbed the microphone and condemned this port deal was doing anything more than grandstanding to polish his national security credentials in this election year, you are gullible.

Survival is a basic instinct, so both Parties seem to just react to everything by throwing our tax-dollars at problems right after they occur. And the more of our borrowed money they spend to "close the barn door when the horse is out," the more they think they have done to protect us-when, in fact, increasing our deficit does more to weaken us long-term.

If we do not maintain our economic strength, which has made us a world power (thanks to capitalism and visionary leaders like Ronald Reagan), then we will not be able to fight real threats or real wars should we get attacked in the future. Remember, economics crushed the

The problem that Bush now has is that his most legitimate criticism is coming from his own party members. It has long been a whisper, but many of us feel betrayed by Bush who has turned out to be a big spending President, unwilling to veto any pork presented him. Most recently, I almost read a book by Bruce Bartlett called "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." The book is mostly critical of the fiscal policy of the Bush presidency, but it is yet another former fan of the administration pointing out disappointments. And, as you can tell from my columns, I too am starting to fall into this category.

Per my column a few weeks ago, I think the real legitimate debate should be between the libertarian wing of the Republican Party and the Neo-cons that Bush tends to pacify.

That said, I think we all want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions. These are not popular decisions that he makes, and great leaders are ultimately judged by history based on the tough decisions presented them. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. Further in "W's" defense, our government did not find chemicals in Iraq, but we did not even find chemicals on Barry Bonds, yet we know they were there!

The only thing that could help Bush in the near-term is to find Osama bin Laden, and for the Iraqis to step up in defending their country. Yet, they are having trouble finding Osama bin

Continued On Page 8

For the sake of Mr. Hart’s college bound daughter, I hope that no admissions officer reads his Opinion-Editorial of March 3, 2006. Contrary to Mr. Hart’s assertion, admissions officers do not seek applications from Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans because they are presumptively “disadvantaged.” Admissions officers seek a multi-cultural entering class who will learn from one another’s diverse life experiences to live and work cooperatively in our highly competitive, global society.

Mr. Hart expresses disappointment that universities do not “reward parents who stay married.” Is he suggesting that colleges should blame children for their parent’s divorces?

College admissions officers should resist

Mr. Hart, Harvard University did not oust President Summers for being politically incorrect. President Summers did not “make casual mention that women s math scores tend to lag behind men’s.” Rather in a speech at a major academic conference, without factual foundation, Mr. Summers attributed that undisputed lag to intrinsic intellectual differences between the sexes. Over a period of five years, Mr. Summers

I respectfully suggest that if Mr. Hart for his own competitive reasons wants his offspring to “get in” to Yale more than his daughter wants to attend, then he should back off. If she does dream of attending Yale, then let’s hope that on March 3, 2006 the Yale electronic clipping service did not capture her father’s misguided editorial.

Regina S. Rockefeller