Friday, August 1, 2008 marks the 20^th anniversary of talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s historic career on the radio airwaves. Rush has a reported 20 million loyal listeners to his daily 3 hour radio program. He is beloved by those with a conservative mindset, and hated by those who consider themselves liberal and open minded. Limbaugh’s listeners often refer to themselves as ditto heads, which has brought scorn from the liberal critics. The critics cite that the ditto heads are incapable of thinking for themselves and that they wait to be told what to think by Limbaugh. Unfortunately for the critics, the term ditto heads springs from a caller in the early days of Limbaugh’s program. The caller stated that he loved what Rush stood for and prayed that he never went off the air. The next caller simply said, “ditto to what that other guy just said”.

 A Pew Research Center study showed that Limbaugh’s listeners are among the most informed citizens in the country. Those of us who listen to Rush on a daily basis, do indeed tend to agree with him more than we disagree, but Rush’s true secret is the ability to make his listeners think. His monologues and unique perspectives inspire his listeners to research the policies and positions of our elected officials.  Rush began his national radio show shortly after President Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a government mandate that all programs aired over the public airwaves must provide a balance of opposing views. With the Fairness Doctrine a relegated to the ash heap of broadcast history, radio stations quickly lined up for the opportunity to broadcast Limbaugh’s conservative voice. WABC in New York City made the original bet on Limbaugh and it has more than paid off for both WABC and Rush. Limbaugh’s latest reported contract was around $400 million through 2016, which dwarfs Howard Stern’s latest deal of $100 million for 5 years.

Throughout his tenure of the king of all radio, Limbaugh has remained staunchly conservative. His critics have accused him of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, but they discount his vehement disagreement with the White House over immigration reform, the Medicare drug plan, the Kennedy “No Child Left Behind” education bill, the Harriett Myers nomination, and numerous other smaller point of conservative contention. Of course when he agrees with the administration he is quick to explain why they are making the right moves. He has been in stalwart support for tax cuts. He has pointed out the fallacy of the media and the liberal politicians that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich. Simple math will tell you that if a taxpayer resides in the upper income brackets that any tax cut will be larger in dollar amounts than a taxpayer in the lower brackets. They completely disregard that the bottom bracket was dropped from an oppressive 28% to 15%. In true liberal fashion, they plan to allow all of the tax cuts expire in 2010. 

The Rasmussen Reports latest congressional approval tracking data has shown that paltry 9% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job. A closer exploration of the numbers reveals that the Democrat controlled Congress is getting abysmal marks not just among Republican voters and independents, but also among their own party loyalists. A mere 13% of those identifying themselves as registered Democrats are willing to give the Congress high marks. The Democratic Party leadership will surely attempt to shift the blame upon the Republican minority or the President, but a cursory examination of their legislative accomplishments sheds the light of truth on the real reasoning behind the historic congressional dissatisfaction.

While Congress has passed a few pieces of legislation that have made headlines this year, they have become increasingly belligerent on even attempting anything of substance on the climbing price of oil. The American voting public is most concerned about the high cost of energy. Poll after poll has shown that the citizenry are demanding that something be done to curb the rapid increase in energy costs. While virtually every credible expert on energy has pointed to the ever-increasing demand for oil from countries like China and India, congressional leadership has chosen to play partisan politics as usual. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that there is no shortage of oil and that drilling for oil will not solve anything. Yet she proposed releasing the equivalent of 3.5 days worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If drilling off our own oil will not solve anything, how will sending 3.5 days worth of oil on to the market solve anything? Pelosi is gambling that the vast majority of the public will hear her sound byte on the evening news and discount that the price at the pump never changes. 

Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, alluded to the fact that the Democratic leadership would like to use the current high price of gas to move us away from the use of oil. The Democratic Party has decided that the high price of gas is good for us as a country because we will drive less and push for alternative energy sources. The problem with this logic is that the alternative sources are not viable right now. They claim that even if they allowed us to drill in ANWR and offshore we would not see that oil for at least 5 years. At least we would be drilling for our own oil and not be held hostage to the whims of some third world dictator. We would be increasing the supply to meet the increasing demand. 

We need to be working on alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, but we also need to be building more nuclear power plants to meet our own demands. We need to be building new refineries in our own country. It makes virtually no sense that there has been no refinery built in the United States for the past 30 years. It makes no sense that we do not tap into our own wealth of oil in our own country, when we are importing more than 70% of our oil. We have, by some estimates, as much or more oil within our own country than in all of the Middle East. Is it any wonder why we have $4 a gallon gas? The opponents scream about the potential for accidents and the potential damage to the environment, but how much oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico when Katrina blew into Louisiana and Mississippi? After the worst hurricane in history to land in the Gulf States, there was not one drop of oil spilled due the devastating storm.  

A few months ago, Senator John McCain proposed a summer hiatus from federal gas taxes, which is currently about 18 cents a gallon. Most in Congress called it pointless because it would not affect the price at the pump significantly. This week a congressional commission, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, released their recommendations to Congress. Included in their recommendations is a 40 cent a gallon increase in the federal gas tax to help pay for our bridges and highways. Does anyone actually believe that the increase in taxes will ever make it to the bridges and highways? Did the tobacco lawsuit money ever make it to help those afflicted by smoking? While most on the panel do not believe that this will ever come to fruition, it is just another example of why the public does not approve of the job that Congress is doing.

Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the United States this week to supply all of the country’s electricity by renewable and carbon free sources within 10 years. Gore’s proposal includes investments in solar, wind, and geothermal power. He calls for a promise to all coal and oil workers that they will have guaranteed jobs out in the sun and fresh air. He further calls for no new coal or oil exploration. His stand is one that why waste time and money on energy that will not ever decrease in price.

Gore has chosen an opportune time to bring his proposals into the media spotlight. We are living through a time when gas prices are at record highs, and the public anger is reaching new levels on an hourly basis. The price of a barrel of oil is hovering between $130 and $140. Based on what the news is from day to day, the price rises or drops. President Bush announces that he has rescinded the Presidential ban on offshore drilling, and the price of oil dropped by several dollars. It subsequently rose back up when congressional leaders revealed their intention to do nothing. Recent polls of the general public have shown ever-increasing angst over the rising gas prices. The public is growing weary of all of the political posturing over the price of gas, but seeing zero substantial action coming from Capitol Hill. The most recent proposal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would almost be humorous if it wasn’t such an obvious political stunt for the cameras. Pelosi proposed releasing 10% of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and halting all of our oil exports. Releasing 10% of the reserves equates to about 70 million barrels. We currently use about 20 million barrels a day as a country. Her plan would have the effect of 3 and half days worth of oil. Halting all of our oil exports is even more laughable than the 10% idea. Last year we exported a total of 10 million barrels of oil. This plan would give us a half a day of oil. Once again Speaker Pelosi has shown us that she is more interested in political posturing than actual solutions. Is it any wonder that the Congress, under Harry Reid and her leadership, has a less than 10% approval rating by the American people?

Last Sunday, Reverend Jesse Jackson made some comments to a fellow guest on Fox and Friends while they were waiting to go on the air. What Jackson did not realize, was that his microphone was on and caught his remarks on tape. The “good” Reverend asserted his desire to violently remove certain parts of Senator Obama’s nether regions. He made these comments while discussing the presumptive Democratic nominee’s recent remarks on the black community. 

First of all, after decades of making television appearances, how could Jackson not realize that his microphone was on? Most media personalities will admit that when the microphone is clipped on to your lapel, you are being recorded. This is event is similar to former President Clinton’s gaffe from a few months ago. Both men made comments from which they had to back away from, and both men did not realize that they were being recorded. Isn’t a comment made while the microphones are perceived to be off, a more credible account of what that person believes?  A prepared statement for the cameras is just that, a prepared statement. It is generally a politically correct, sanitized statement to deliver a predetermined message. What a person says in private is a truer representation of their beliefs.

Jackson is not new to critical remarks about Obama. In September of last year, Jackson was caught by a reporter from The State newspaper in South Carolina commenting that Obama is “acting white” in his response to the Jena 6 debacle in Louisiana. Jackson later asserted that the remarks do not accurately reflect his opinion of Senator Obama. He didn’t deny that he made the comments, just that he didn’t recall making them. So what does Jackson think about Obama? His public comments are always full of praise and support, which is not surprising for a political opportunist such as Jackson. His private comments have shown a much different picture of his true feelings for the presidential hopeful.

This will come at quite a shock for many of you, but I actually agree with Senator Obama on an issue. Obama’s comments on Fathers Day in the Apostolic Church of God have one concept that I, and many others from both sides of the aisle have been calling for. That concept is personal responsibility. Obama was speaking about the black community as a whole. He pointed out the prevalence of single parent households, the school dropout rate, the violent crime, and the high rate of unemployment within the black community. His point was that the men in the community needed to take the personal responsibility for their families. He pointed out that studies have shown that a strong family unit is the best deterrent for the rampant problems for which the black community is dealing. I believe that personal responsibility is the answer to many of the problems that the country is dealing with as a whole. This is not just a black community problem it is an American problem. If the citizens of the United States would take responsibility for their own lives and stop expecting the government to fix all that ails them, we would all be much better off. Government does have a role in fixing some of the issues, but it was intended by our founding fathers to be a very limited role. I applaud Senator Obama for challenging the black community and all of us, now if only he would apply the same mentality to the rest of the issues of the day.

The supporters of Senator Barack Obama continuously tout their candidate as a new type of candidate, a man that is positioned above the fray of the political process. A political genius filled with new and exciting ideas to “change” our country. Obama is indeed a new and fresh face in politics. He served 7 years in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He served just 2 years in the Senate before declaring his candidacy for the office of President. He has relied on his gifted oratory skills to deliver speeches that have inspired a cult-like following. It will come as no surprise that I do not share the same lofty opinion of the junior Senator from Illinois.

First of all, let’s look at a few of the proposals from the Obama campaign. He has offered up his plans for socialized medicine, faith-based initiatives, windfall profits tax on the “big oil” companies, raise taxes on the “rich”, and bring home our troops from Iraq as soon as he is sworn into office to name but a few. None of these ideas are new or fresh. Hillary Clinton first proposed the nationalized health care plan nearly 15 years ago. President Bush was vilified for even considering a faith-based initiative, but Obama’s supporters are preparing for his canonization. Windfall profits tax is a nice throwback to President Jimmy Carter’s days of malaise. Raising the taxes of the “rich” has been the liberal battle cry for decades. Every single Democratic candidate for President, except for Joe Biden, promised to bring home the troops from Iraq on January 21 of 2009.

Senator Obama has been a staunch advocate for public financing of political campaigns since he burst on to the political scene. Now that he has developed a taste for the millions of dollars of private financing, he has decided that public financing is fine for everyone else, just not for him. His weak assertions that the “Republican machine” is poised to unleash their attacks on him and he desperately needs the money to fight the smears have shown that he is nothing more than a typical politician. He will do and say anything that he feels will get him elected. 

Over the course of the past few months, several high profile Obama supporters have called into question Senator John McCain’s war record and his heroism. The most recent being General Wesley Clark stating that McCain’s war experience did nothing to enhance his qualifications for the Presidency. I suppose that the General could have had a change of heart over the past 4 years. In 2004 he was praising John Kerry’s war record and touting it as a chief qualification for the office of President. Obama is careful to distance himself enough from the comments to appear shocked at such remarks, but yet never fully repudiating the comments or those making these assertions. Again, this aspect of his campaign is nothing new or fresh. The Clintons perfected this tactic back in the 90’s.

Senator Obama is a very gifted speaker when he is delivering a stump speech. He is obviously a very intelligent man and has surrounded himself with some very politically savvy advisors. Unfortunately the list of his qualifications stops there. Even General Clark made the same assertion, although I doubt he realized it, when he said that Obama is running on his communication skills and not a story about getting shot down in Vietnam. Obama and McCain have very different ideas about what America is and should be. Even their ideas about patriotism are vastly different. McCain believes patriotism is putting your country first, while Obama believes patriotism is that faith we have in each other as Americans. It is quite amusing that for the past 10 years the news media has built up McCain as a maverick and a new type of politician because of his willingness to go against his party’s wishes. Now Obama comes on the scene touting the same ideas that have been brought to the table countless times and he is portrayed as a messianic figure here to save us all with his brand new way of thinking. It doesn’t matter if Chris Matthews has a tingling sensation running up his leg while Obama speaks, he is and always will be just another liberal politician.

The Supreme Court of the United States has developed a bit of an identity crisis of late. As a judicial body, they can’t seem to decide if they are part of the legislative branch of government or part of the judicial branch. On the legislative side, they have handed down decisions that have done nothing less than to create new laws, citing foreign laws or public consensus as the justification for their decision. On the judicial side, they adhere to the original interpretation of the Constitution and decide cases based solely on the constitutionality of a law or case. To be fair, it is actually only one Justice that is struggling to find his judicial philosophy. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has been the swing vote on the controversial decisions of this current session.

One of the decisions that have been handed down that has ripped the Constitution to shreds include deeming the death penalty too harsh a punishment for a man convicted of brutally raping his 8 year old step daughter. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote in his support for the decision that there is not a strong nationwide consensus for the death penalty in child rape cases. He also alluded to our country maturing past the point of using the death penalty in such cases. Associate Justice Alito pointed out in the dissent that the ruling would not take into account how many times the victim was raped, how many victims there were, the age of the child, or how sadistic the rape was. Senator John McCain issued a statement strongly denouncing the ruling, saying that there is no greater responsibility as a parent than to protect the innocence of a child. Senator Barack Obama chose to be ambiguous with his response. He stated that he opposed the ruling but went on to clarify his position of opposition.

Another ruling that caused uproar of cheering from the left was the Guantanamo detainees decision. The conflicted court ruled that the enemy combatants that are being held at Guantanamo Bay, have the same Constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen.  They have the right to attorneys and to have their cases heard before a civilian court. The problem with this decision is that at no time in our two hundred and thirty-two year history have our enemies that were captured on the battlefield been granted our Constitutional rights. We have applied the Geneva Convention to prisoners of war, but never brought them into our courts. In World War II we captured several German spies on our soil. The Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered that they be brought before a military tribunal and subsequently shot. These detainees do not fight under a recognized national flag. They do not wear a uniform of any organized country’s military. With that in mind, these enemy combatants do not fall under the auspices of the Geneva Convention, but yet our heartless military and government have granted them the protection of the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court just awarded more rights to our enemies than members of our U.S. military enjoy. Senator Obama applauded the ruling, citing that he has long called for the prisoners to be brought into our courts. Senator McCain was outraged by the decision, stating that he wants to close Guantanamo but does not want them brought into our court system.

The Supreme Court did make a ruling this week that was worthy of praise. They decided that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional. This was the first decision on gun ownership in 70 years and as Antonin Scalia wrote in his support of the decision, there is no doubt about the right to keep and bear arms. The reasoning behind the ban makes for great headlines, but shows very little in results. Once again, the well-meaning politicians asked to be judged on their intentions not their results. Washington D.C. is near the top of the list as one of the most violent cities in the U.S. In 2005, D.C. had statistically over 35 murders per 100,000 people, but yet the law-abiding population was unarmed. Isn’t it funny how the criminals never seem to abide by the law banning handguns? Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain agreed with the decision, but McCain pointed out that Obama has long been opposed to gun rights. Only recently has he come out in support of gun ownership. 

The recent decisions from the Supreme Court highlight the importance of this year’s presidential election.

In the run up to the 2006 mid term elections, the Democratic leadership announced that they had sweeping plans that would ease the burden of high fuel costs. The average price of a gallon of gas at the time was more than a dollar less than what it is now.   Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her leadership in the House have yet to introduce one piece of legislation to help bring the price at the pump down to a less painful level. They have done a lot of posturing in front of the cameras as they hold hearings with oil company executives. They have accused the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Valero, BPAmerica, and others of purposely manipulating the price of gas to reap the huge profits that they have made over the past few years. Lost in all the pontificating from Congress is the fact that although these companies are huge in the Unites States, the massive nationalized companies of the rest of the world dwarf them.

This week, President Bush called on Congress to open up 2000 acres in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR, the outer continental shelf, and allow the exploration and retrieval of oil shale. The estimates of oil reserves in ANWR and the outer continental shelf are about 28 billion barrels of oil. That is more than double the current 21 billion barrels that we have currently. Oil shale is a type of sedimentary rock that through refining processes can produce oil. There are over 800 billion barrels of oil shale in the United States. By comparison, that is more than 4 times all of the oil in Saudi Arabia. The process of extracting the oil from the oil shale is expensive and until the price of oil rose above roughly $80 a barrel it was not economically feasible for the oil companies to go after it. Now is the time for that oil to be retrieved. If the Democrats on Capitol Hill truly are concerned about the high cost of a gallon of gas, they will seriously consider taking action on the President’s proposals. Sadly, the Democratic Party, the “party of change”, are stuck living with a 1970’s mindset on energy.

The Democrats response was the same response that we have heard for the past several years. “It will take 10 years for us to see any oil from ANWR or the outer continental shelf.” That response is pure political posturing, especially when you realize that 13 years ago President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. It has been a few years since I sat in any type of Math class, but I do believe 13 years is more than 10 years. Besides, aren’t the same people making the argument that we need to do something now on “global warming”? Shouldn’t we then do something now for our future energy needs? They also claim that the “small” amounts of oil that drilling in ANWR and off the coast would produce would have little effect on the price of oil. I find it amazing that these same politicians were calling on the President to convince Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. They then cheered when the Saudis announced to produce 500,000 more barrels a day, when just the first 2 proposals would produce around 1 million barrels a day.

I must admit that the Democrats have proposed a few plans on energy that I believe would have the effect of raising the price of oil instead of lowering it. They have proposed a “Windfall Profits Tax” on the oil companies as a way to punish them for making a profit. The end result would be to raise the price at the pump. The oil companies are in business to make a profit. They will either pass the cost of the tax on to the consumers or move more of their business overseas to escape the tax. Either way, we pay more. They have also suggested that the government take over control of the oil companies. Representative Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, called for the government to take over the oil refineries on Wednesday. California’s Maxine Waters admitted that she would like to see the government take over the oil industry to better regulate the price of gas. The Democrats are in good company. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and virtually every other Middle Eastern country have a government controlled oil industry. If government control is the answer to every problem in our lives than why do we have a social security mess? How well did the Katrina aftermath go with a government run agency? How many government programs are actually run efficiently? Why should we expect the government to be able to run an industry that they know absolutely nothing about? This is just one more piece of evidence of where the Democratic leadership wants to take our country. To Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama socialism is the goal and capitalism and the free market is the enemy.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has decided to try a new tack in dispelling rumors and lies during the presidential campaign season. His campaign has produced a web page to tackle what he believes to be lies and rumors spread via email and blogs. One of the more recent stories was one in which reported that Michelle Obama had used the racial epithet “whitey” in a speech in 2004.

Obama’s campaign claims that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh perpetuated the rumor. They claim that Rush stated on his radio program that a tape existed of the alleged slur. The dilemma that Obama now finds himself in is a particular tricky one. His website that his campaign developed to shed the light of truth on the lies and rumors is spreading lies and rumors themselves. The transcripts of Rush’s radio program show that he mentioned the rumor as just that, but weeks after the mainstream media had been speculating on the existence of a tape. The reasoning behind tying the rumor solely to Rush is clear. The left and especially their base have a deep-seated hatred for Limbaugh. The Obama campaign knows that the majority of their supporters will blindly accept anything they say that Limbaugh has done. In another time, before the Internet, a campaign could expect to get away with such distortions, but with pod casting and complete transcripts of virtually everything available online, the truth is only a few clicks away.

Many of the other rumors listed on his Fight The Smears website are old rumors that have been dispelled many times over. The rumors that he is a Muslim have been around for at least a year. I know this may be shocking to many of friends on the left, but I have responded to the email forwards from friends with the truth of Obama’s religion. Another obvious rumor is the one that he was sworn into the U.S. Senate with his hand on the Koran. This is another easy one to dispel. A cursory Internet search will show that Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota was actually the first Muslim to be elected to the Congress.  These lies and rumors are easily disproved, but it does make me pause to wonder if the website is a precautionary tactic for other things yet to come forth. 

Senator Obama has many other areas on which the opposition could attack. His political career is one that has been marked by mediocrity. He has really done very little while in the Senate. He was elected in 2004 to the U.S Senate and began to align himself for a run for the presidency. He has sponsored a few pieces of legislation but hardly anything on which to build a political legacy. He has had relationships with several questionable characters. From Reverend Wright, Father Phleager, Tony Rezko, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayers. All of these men, Obama has since distanced himself from them when it became politically expedient for him to do so. I know that none of these men are running for President, but doesn’t it say something about his judgment? He has said that these men that are not the same men he knew for the past 20 years, but wouldn’t you expect him to be a better judge of character? Especially if he is the messianic candidate that his handlers have built him up to be.

Senator Obama has generated excitement and interest in the political process that has not been seen in years. His speeches have been called inspiring. Women have lost consciousness in his presence at the mere sound of his voice. Many of his supporters when pressed for why they are supporting him, tout that he is for hope and change. Unfortunately they are unable to detail what his change will bring or what they are hoping for. Obama is a very charismatic speaker, but his flowery rhetoric cannot hide his ultra liberal voting record, his expensive, read tax increases, plans for his administration, or his associates continuing to embarrass him.

This week the U.S. Senate began debating America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsored Senators John Warner of Virginia and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The bill is seen as having the best chance of becoming law of all the Global Warming bills up for votes this year. Many liberal groups are lauding the measure, but are urging people to push their senators to strengthen the bill with tighter controls of carbon emissions. The Union Of Concerned Scientists is calling for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The current bill calls for a mere 70% reduction. 

Several groups have studied the impact of Warner-Lieberman should it be passed in it’s current form and have concluded it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Warming predicts that the bill will increase gas prices by nearly 30%, electricity costs will rise by more than 50%, and natural gas will cost 15% more all in less than 10 years. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University sees a $245 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product in 2030 due to the restrictions placed on private industry by this bill.

The Warner Lieberman bill calls for a Domestic Offset Program for companies to buy carbon credits on the international emissions trading market to offset their carbon emissions above the legal limit. Carbon credits are a scam created by global warming alarmists to cash in on the hysteria they have created under the premise that mankind, specifically the United States, is causing the climate to drastically warm. It is amazing that we are supposed to believe that if we reduce our carbon emissions that it will have some magical effect on the climate. The theory completely discounts that China, whose carbon emissions far surpass ours, is not subject to any form of global warming policy to reduce their carbon emissions. It also forgets that India, whose rate of carbon emission exceeds ours, is also not part of any plan to reduce carbon emissions. The result of this bill and many others more stringent than this one will be to cripple our economy and have zero effect on the global climate. The battle cry in 10 years will be that the climate is changing, by getting colder, and we need to act now to stop it. They will enact even more asinine policies that will cost us more at the gas pump, in our electric bills, and even at the grocery or department stores.

The general election in November is forecasted to be a landslide victory for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Some predictions show the Democrats with a 70-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate. The significance of those types of majorities in both chambers is that the Republicans would be powerless to stop any part of the ultra liberal agenda that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are likely to push upon the American public. The argument will be that the American people voted for change in Washington and that change is clearly very liberal. 

The Democratic Party has good reason to be optimistic about their impending victories in November. It started in March with the Republican loss of former Speaker Hastert’s seat in Illinois, and continued with another Republican loss in Louisiana in early May. Both of these seats were Republican strongholds for several decades. Nancy Pelosi commented that it is a clear indication that the American people want the change that the Democratic Party is promising. 

Of all election years, this one was primed for the congressional Republicans to take advantage of the historic negative approval ratings of the Democratic Party controlled Congress. According to a Gallup poll, a mere 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. That number matches a poll from 1992 when that Democratic Party controlled Congress had similar poor marks. That Congress went on to lose control of both Houses in 1994. The Republicans by all accounts should be heading for huge victories in November, but instead they appear to be determined to run head on into a massive defeat.

The Democrats, to their credit, are energized and focused on their election theme of change and hope. The Republicans seem to be still struggling to find a voice, any voice. What I find amazing about the contest in Louisiana in early May was that the Democratic candidate campaigned on his conservative stance on abortion and other social issues. Yet the Republican Party is running away from their conservative positions. They are determined to run as liberals in Republicans clothes. How do they expect to win any election by running away from their conservative base? They simply will not win if their conservative base is not energized behind them. The Democrats won control of both Houses in 2006 in large part to southern Democrats campaigning as conservatives, but yet the Republican leadership appears to believe that conservatism is dead. 

Last year when the race began to become “important” during the primary season, the Democratic National Committee declared that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention in Denver, due to those states defying the party leadership by moving their primary dates. At the time all major democratic contenders publicly agreed with the decision. As the primary season draws to a close, Senator Hillary Clinton has intensified her calls for counting the votes of Florida and Michigan. She clearly needs these votes to close the delegate gap between her and Senator Barack Obama. She won both states in January and hinted that she would work to ensure their votes were not in vain. Obama was on the ballot in Florida but was not on the ballot in Michigan by his own choice. 

The Obama campaign, in a move to try to quell the firestorm that will inevitably explode, has proposed that the delegates be evenly split between the two campaigns. This is obviously the best-case scenario for the Obama camp. He is trying to portray that he really does want the voters of Florida and Michigan to have their voices heard, but if this truly were the case he would have kept his name on the Michigan ballot. Failing to do so, has shown that in January he didn’t care enough to allow his supporters to voice their opinions at the ballot box.

Hillary Clinton has asserted her intentions to take this fight to the courts. Her claim is that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan by not counting their votes. Dean has vetoed every proposal to count the votes. Eight years ago, Al Gore took his case all the way to the Supreme Court to force the state of Florida to recount the votes from three select counties; by the way he lost every recount at the time and every subsequent recount. Now the leadership of a major political party is refusing to count any of the votes in two entire states. 

President George Bush made the following remarks before the Israeli Knesset. “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before, as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” Almost as soon as those words passed the lips of Bush, Senator Barack Obama and a multitude of his supporters decried the remarks as a false political attack against him. In Obama’s words, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." What could have raised the ire of the presidential candidate? The President never mentioned Obama, or that anyone currently running for President had alluded to such action. Why would Obama jump to the conclusion that Bush was referring to him?

Could it be that back in July of last year at a Democratic debate, Obama expressed his intentions as President to talk directly with Iran without setting any preconditions? He felt that Bush’s policy of only talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the condition that they stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons was foolish and too heavy-handed. Repeatedly Obama has asserted that we should talk to our enemies without setting any preconditions. Obama’s own website claims that “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” His stance has been called naïve by his opponent Hillary Clinton. After all, her husband’s administration held talks with North Korea and gave them the technology for nuclear power with their promise not to use the the nuclear material for weapons. To the Clinton administration’s surprise, the North Koreans broke their promise and now we are dealing with a North Korean nuclear threat. Does Obama possess some ace in the hole that will ensure Iran would keep any promises that it makes to him?

Eight short years ago, President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton were on top of the political world. The Clintons left the White House with their party ready to canonize them into political sainthood. Hillary had just been elected to the U.S. Senate from their new home state of New York. Bill was embarking on a very lucrative speaking career. In Democratic circles, the Clintons not only walked on water, but on air as well. Even as late as last year the Clintons were perceived to be the political saviors of the Democratic Party.    What an amazing turnaround of opinions.

It started in early January with the tide slowly starting to turn towards Senator Barack Obama. Then Obama won the Iowa caucuses and suddenly some Democrats started to see the cracks in the political façade. Hillary bounced back and won New Hampshire, but Obama had a surprising Super Tuesday. He now led in the delegate and popular vote count. He continued to roll until Ohio and Texas came along when Hillary shocked almost all of the political pundits. Many experts had called for Hillary to drop out of the race before the Ohio and Texas contests, but she stayed in and won. She continued to hang around and won Pennsylvania. The anticipation built into a climatic frenzy waiting for North Carolina and Indiana. Tuesday showed that the Obama campaign had regained it’s traction by winning a decisive 14-point victory in North Carolina and cutting Hillary’s victory in Indiana to just 2 points. Again the calls have started for Hillary to just drop out.

Former Presidential candidate George McGovern called for her to give up and acknowledge that Obama was the eventual nominee. McGovern should know when to give up, after all he did lose his election to Richard Nixon by an overwhelming margin. McGovern only won one state and lost by over 500 electoral votes. Senators Kennedy and Kerry both claimed that the race is over and Hillary should step down. What surprises me is that many Democrats are acting as if the Clintons have changed over the past few months. They seem to believe that Hillary has become a political opportunist and is only interested in making it back to the White House, no matter what it takes. They also are shocked that former President Bill Clinton has come out so strongly in attacking Obama. Bill and Hillary are the same today as they were last year, or in 2000, or even 1992. The Clintons have always been relentless during a political campaign, yet now the Democrats seem to have lost the taste for their tactics. Is it that they have lost their taste for it? Or is it simply that the Clintons have worn out their welcome? Many of their Democratic critics claim that the Clintons will do anything to win and care nothing for their party. They believe that the Clintons have turned into liabilities for the party and are ready to dump them completely. Aren’t the Clinton critics within the Democratic Party just as slimy and hypocritical? After all, they had nothing but praise for the Clintons for the past 16 years, but now they act shocked and offended by the dynamic duo.

Is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright purposely sabotaging Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign? After weeks of not hearing a word from Obama’s former pastor, and the media playing a real life version of “Where’s Waldo”, Wright resurfaces to give an interview with Bill Moyers, and deliver speeches at the NAACP convention and the National Press Club. The furor over his controversial statements in his sermons had almost completely died out. What would draw this man back into the limelight? Some have speculated that the good Reverend was hurt by his most famous parishioner’s remarks in Philadelphia on race. Others have suggested that he was upset about being pushed into the shadows by Obama’s campaign. I believe that Reverend Wright believes that there is nothing wrong with his outrageous comments and that he deserves to be in the spotlight, even at the cost of an Obama presidency.

I know the Obama loyalists will attempt to persuade us that there has been no damage done to their sainted one, and that this issue is behind them. The facts, unfortunately for the Obama camp, tell a much different story. Obama’s lead in North Carolina has quickly evaporated over the past week. One poll even shows Hillary Clinton winning North Carolina. Clinton is now leading the polls in Indiana as well. This coming Tuesday will show the true measure of the Wright fiasco. If Obama wins big, then he may finally be able to say that it is in the past, but if he loses or barely squeaks out a victory in a state that he has enjoyed double digit leads, he may as well start packing up his campaign. The Clinton camp will have more than enough ammunition to use to persuade super delegates to switch sides.

Obama believes that he has adequately separated himself from Reverend Wright, but a simple glance back at his statements and positions on Wright’s comments causes more questions to arise. When the first videos of Wright’s sermons were aired, Obama claimed to have never heard these statements and to have been absent from church on those particular Sundays. A few short days later the story had changed slightly to the party line that the words were taken out of context. Then he claimed that Wright was like an uncle that occasionally made outrageous statements, but that he couldn’t disown him. A few days later his pastor was asked to leave the campaign as an official advisor. Last week, Wright shows up on TV and not a word from Obama. Wright goes on to the NAACP convention and makes some of the same comments made famous by the video sermons, but silence from the Obama campaign. Wright goes on to the National Press Club and makes the same claims that he has made many times before, and Obama is now offended. 

The votes have been counted in Pennsylvania and Barack Obama is feeling the heat from the furnace of desperation. He lost yet another “big” state to Hillary Clinton, but it is worse than just losing a state primary. Exit polling revealed that a scant 12% of voters were in the age range of 18 to 29 years old, which is not a good sign for a campaign that could rely heavily on the energy of the youth vote. Exit polling also revealed some dismal news for the Democratic Party in November. More than half of those casting a ballot for Clinton in Tuesday’s primary contest promised not to vote for Obama if he is the nominee in November. The same holds true for Obama voters if Clinton wins the nomination. 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean promises that the nominee will be known by mid-June, but everyday that this drags on, more and more dirt is flung back and forth between the 2 campaigns. Hillary ran ads in Pennsylvania condemning Obama’s remarks concerning the “bitter” voters in small towns around Pennsylvania. Obama ran his own commercials against Clinton, but after spending 3 times the amount of money that the Clinton campaign did, he still came away with a resounding defeat. Over the past several weeks, there have been many political pundits that have openly called for Clinton to concede defeat, but the Democratic primary voters came out in force for Hillary. Why should she concede if she is still raising money, $10 million in the 24 hours after her Pennsylvania win, and if it is clear that Obama will not have the needed 2025 delegates to claim the nomination?

Obama is clearly showing the signs of a candidate struggling to finish the race. He has refused to sign on for any further debates in the North Carolina or Indiana. His campaign posits that they do not need any further debates because they are winning, but it is becoming apparent that the candidate is ill at ease answering tough questions. His political immaturity showed in the last debate where he struggled to answer questions from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. Could it be that his campaign is based on flowery, but empty rhetoric? He is in his element when he pontificating about hope and change, but when he is pressed with questions, the flowers all wilt and fall off.

Obama has also started to take criticism from the Republican Party and other conservative groups. One ad in North Carolina brings up his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The commercial was made by the North Carolina state Republican Party against the Democratic candidates for Governor. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, has denounced the ad and asked them to pull the ad, but the state party officials are standing firm with their support of the ad. There is also a proposed ad to point out that Obama was weak on punishing gang members convicted of murder in Illinois. While on the state senate, Obama voted against “expanding the death penalty for gang murders”.