By MARK DORNAN The special-education teacher is the son of former Orange County congressman Bob Dornan.

The Register's Dec. 9 editorial ["B-1 drops a bomb"], commenting on Bob Dornan's decision to run against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, missed the target. It reads as if it was conjured up in six minutes, a bite-sized amalgam of liberal mythology spin to defame and belittle a man who has devoted his life to public service.

The editorial asserts there are "no serious ideological differences" between Dornan and Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher wishes that were true. In fact, the voters of California's 46th congressional district are afforded a distinguishable choice. You could drive a newspaper truck through the gulf between them on major issues. For instance, illegal drugs. While Bob Dornan was landing in Burma with DEA agents in support of opium-eradication efforts and accompanying our California National Guard on nighttime drug-interdiction flights along our porous borders, where was Rohrabacher? On a national ABC talk show, proudly proclaiming, "I did everything but drink the bong water." (Isn't that cool, boys and girls?) Rohrabacher also co-sponsored HR 2233 to legalize marijuana. That's not exactly part of Republican ideology. Many of us are frustrated with the inconsistent success of the drug war, but Rohrabacher wants to run up the white flag.

Dornan and Rohrabacher are oceans apart on defense and national security. Dornan is a military and foreign-affairs expert. His very moniker (B-1 Bob) is a tribute to his tireless efforts to supply our military with the best equipment for the safety and success of their military operations. While Dornan chose to serve his country as an Air Force officer, Rohrabacher took a pass; apparently he had a knee injury that rendered him unable to serve but able to surf.

Dornan and Rohrabacher are poles apart on the Middle East. Dornan, while on the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, traveled to Israel repeatedly to support our only true ally in the region. Rohrabacher traveled instead to Arab countries and publicly savaged Israel, its leaders and its military. In addition, Rohrabacher was rebuked by the U.S. State Department for meddling in Afghanistan.

The editorial refuses to acknowledge these "serious" ideological differences, but what it refers to as the "Republican faithful" will be voting on these very distinctions. The editorial calls Dornan's motivation to run "vague," yet Dornan made it clear that 9/11 changed everything. What is so vague about a reason that shifted priorities in almost all of us?

It continues that Bob Dornan is known for "long-winded tirades." Surely the families of our POWs and MIAs from Vietnam to Iraq would not consider Dornan's special orders on the House floor, demanding answers to account for lives, to be mere "tirades."

The editorial somehow manages to ignore these glaring differences. Instead, in ad hominem fashion, it radically reduces Dornan's motivations to two:

First, what the writer calls "ego"; I call it a strong sense of confidence and purpose, which Dornan apparently needs to suffer the personal attacks by liberal detractors. Besides, was "ego" the reason Dornan flew fighter jets for six years on active duty and 17 more on active reserve? I think not!

Second, the editorial accuses Dornan of "spite" as an incentive to run against Rohrabacher. It is not Dornan's spite; rather, it is his right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to challenge any supposedly "entrenched" incumbent. Frankly, more people across this country should answer the call to challenge incumbents, especially the "entrenched" kind.

Finally, a historical footnote: The editorial refers to "allegations" of voter fraud in the 1996 election in which Dornan lost his congressional seat. A $4 million investigation by the House Oversight Committee uncovered 970 noncitizen votes in the election, which the editorial admits was a "razor-thin" nine-vote loss.