Through my eyes: The primary: Did you vote?

Interesting isn't it that I ask the question after the vote for which you know the results, but, as I write this, I do not. It is the day before the primary for me, and, as you and I always talk over things, I thought we should have a little family discussion about this.

Mitt Romney, of course, has - or had, I should say - a somewhat sizeable lead going into the event according to the pollsters, but that could be misleading due to the fact that we here in South Carolina have a mind of our own and have a tendency to express our opinion, and that certainly does not always jive with the "main-stream press."

Speaking of the liberal press, their pressure to inject their opinion on the primaries, so far, has been really transparent. Take for instance Rick Santorum's quote about social security. He made the statement amidst a number of suggestions about how to cut the incredible out-of-hand government spending, saying that the program needed to be looked at, such as raising the age as to when one could start collecting, pointing out that people were living longer and working longer. Not so bad.

However, the next mornings liberal newspapers ran headlines that read "Santorum wants to end social security." Yep, you guessed it, that was just an effort to make him an unwinnable candidate because no one collecting social security is ever going to vote for a candidate that is going to take income away from them.

Newt Gingrich, who may have the most savvy and do a great job of running this country, has been so demonized by the "status quo" because of his failed marriages and his former wife telling the press that Gingrich asked her for an "open marriage" so he could continue to have an affair. Now, that may or not be true, but it will certainly not bode well with voters in our state. Interesting, that the press takes the former wife's' version of this for the absolute truth. It may not be true; the old phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was coined for a reason. However, when that becomes the first question from a moderator in a primary debate, I think the intentions of the questioner become apparent.

We could go on talking about all of the candidates who are still in the race, but I think probably we have hit the highlights of who may either have a boost in their candidacy or basically be eliminated by their performance in our state.

Let's switch gears, but only slightly. "It's the economy, stupid" seems to be the obvious battle cry for anyone running for President. I know you agree with that.

Having said that, how in the name of common sense could the Obama administration reject the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline planned from Canada to the gulf coast? At a time when jobs are at nearly an all-time low, such a move is unheard of, due to the fact that this would have created thousands of jobs for America.

It is an obvious ploy by the president to solidify his far left-wing voting constituency, filled with tunnel-vision environmentalists. With all of the technology available today, there is no reason why environmental scientists can't be hired to oversee the construction of this pipeline as it crosses the U.S. to insure protection from environmental harm.

Are we to be held hostage by the Mideast oil producers forever while we reject this idea along with the fact that, according to geologists, we are sitting on more oil reserve than all of the Middle Eastern countries? And we refuse to drill? Makes no sense. But you and I talking things over makes sense. It is time for you to speak up - see you at the polls.