THE POWER OF RUSH

When I think of Rush Limbaugh, I instantly envision a caricature of him. Rush Limbaugh, with his slicked-back hair and cigar in mouth, his puffy little face and rolly-polly body looking a lot like every cartoonist's idea of a banker or CEO. Rush is like that; a character so animated that it's surreal. With his over arrogance (he claims to be 'right' over 90% of the time) and his cigar-puffing, feminist-hating, flag waving rants. It's easy to dismiss Rush Limbaugh as just a egotistical, right-wing conservative that can only influence a small percentage of the public. But that's exactly what Rush wants you to believe. There is an advantage there for Rush. If the other side thinks that he's inert, then they will never see his assaults coming. Underestimating your opponent, no matter the reason, is always a bad idea.

And Rush Limbaugh is no one you should just underestimate.

With his estimated audience of 14 million (who call themselves, "ditto heads"), the #1 Radio Talk Show in America, and a (believe it or not) good grasp of the overall political landscape, Rush is a force to be contended with. And he loves to flex his muscle when he can. The most recent example is; his meddling in the Texas Democratic Primary. With Senator Barack Obama looking to shut the door on rival Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Rush saw an opportunity to cause some mischief. Because of it's open primary, Texas was a perfect target. By telling his followers to vote for Hillary, up to 9% of registered Texan Republicans crossed the line and thereby assured the Democrat race would continue well into the summer. You have to admit...that's a little power.

Rush is now enjoying the fruits of his efforts. With race-baiting going on by the Clinton's, and Barack pointing out all of Hillary's inconsistent statements, the Democratic party looks staged to implode. Mr. Limbaugh could not be happier. Who would have thought the all this could be accomplished by a guy who looks like he should be trying to sell you a car? Once again, it looks like we all dismissed Rush a little too much.

The Left owns most of our media sources, that's just a fact. Newspapers nearly all lean left and some of the big ones have fallen head over heels to the left. Add to that; Hollywood, all the T.V. news organizations except FOX, almost every musician, nearly every movie star, and the vast majority the entire Internet and it's easy to see the Lefts media dominance. The only place where the Right reigns supreme is in Radio. Lately there has been a lot of talk of reintroducing the "Fairness Doctrine". This, I think, would be blatantly unfair as it focuses only one one source-radio. While Rush has certainly shown himself to be powerful, we should be careful not to be zealous in our efforts to be "fair". The day-drive radio market has always been the baskin of older folks who lean right. As much as I hate to admit it, that's what the public wants. My final warning to everyone; When you hate some one's politics, be careful not to dismiss them as an "idiot" just because they don't share your view. You may not like Rush, but in the end you have to admit one thing about him..he's not stupid and he does have power. H.C.

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDIA GIANTS-FIRST UP; NPR'S DIANE REHM

With an estimated audience of 1.7 million viewers nation wide, NPR's Diane Rehm is one of the biggest talk show hosts in the U.S.. She's considered by many to be one of the classiest acts on radio. Even though she doesn't bring in the top numbers in her field, she has had interviews with the top Generals, politicians and pundits in the U.S. and even abroad. She's interviewed both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. She's had Al Gore and John Kerry on her show as well as nearly every major Democrat Senator or House Representative. She's even had quite a few Republicans show up, although they are treated quite differently. Despite her gravely voice, (she suffers from Spasmodic Dysphonia, a disease of the vocal cords) she's a regular stop for the top Democratic candidates in our elections. This is most likely due to her unfairly stacked panels and softball questions. If your a Democrat looking for a favorable interview to fend off an attack or promote your campaign, The Diane Rehm Show is the place to be.

To prove my point, I'm going to go back to an interview she did on March 13, 2008. The Eliot Spitzer story was heating up and Diane couldn't really ignore it any further. Eliot Spitzer was once one of New York City's most feared prosecutors, and through his famous crime busting tactics, he managed to parlay his notoriety into the Governorship of New York. But, unfortunately for him, Governor Spitzer had a taste for high priced call girls (really high priced) and like a lot of politicians, his arrogance was his downfall. Tantalizing and with it's sexual undertones, Governor Spitzer's story soon hit the Talk Show Circuit and found it's way on to Diane's calender. So where's the foul? Allow me to demonstrate once again how this is done.

Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat, a Superdelegate, and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. While listening to The Diane Rehm Show (which starts at 10:00 am on my local radio station), I couldn't help but notice that the word "Democrat" wasn't in the "tease" leading up to her show. Curious, I started watching my clock to see how long it would take her to mention that fact. The opening introductions of her guests took up the first few minutes along with the setup of the Governor's misdeeds. Still no mention of his party affiliation. 15 minutes went by, and still none of the three guests felt it was relevant to even mention that he was a Democrat or a friend of Ms. Clinton. Soon a half hour had gone by, still no mention. Finally, at 10:37 am a caller brought party affiliation into the conversation. The first party brought in? The Republicans. The caller wanted to know why it was so bad that the Governor had a tryst when we had a standing President who had lied to us to push us into a war. 10:45 am finally brought the word "Democrat" into the conversation, but with no reference to Spitzer. 11:00 am ended that portion of her show, and if I didn't already know Gov. Spitzer's party affiliation, I would not have known.

On at least two occasions, I've heard Diane Rehm admit to being a Clinton supporter, but since the battle between Ms. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama has heated up, she no longer feels that information is necessary to repeat. I have no problem with talk show hosts giving their opinion on candidates or even supporting a certain party or ideology. What I do have a problem with is pretending that you are fair and and without bias when the facts do not support it. As you choose your Media sources (as I've said before), it's important to understand that Rush Limbaugh gives the Conservative opinion, not an unbias opinion. In the same way, it's equally important to know Diane Rehm is a tool for the Democrats. Nation Public Radio, like public television, is supported with public funds and for that reason has to be held to a higher standard. Deception of this kind has no place being supported with public funds. If the democrats want a safe haven, let them pay for it. And to Diane Rehm, I have this question, "Isn't it time you stopped this charade and started admitting what you're doing?" I understand that they, (the Democrats) come onto your show precisely because of your supportive tactics, but don't you feel at least a little guilty for misleading your fans, the people who follow you and keep your show alive? H.C.

IT'S JUST A VOTE, RIGHT?

Democracy. Say the word to me and I instantly think; "Free people voting in fair elections to control their own destiny." That's what I believe is the foundation of a true democracy. I have also always believed, (maybe naively), that the United States has fair democratic elections. Although lately, I've begun to have some doubts. I don't mean snafus, those happen at some level in every election. I've seen the troubles that other countries have with their elections and although some of ours are far from perfect, it seems that we have enough people watching it and questioning it to keep it honest by world standards. For instance, whenever one side loses, it always claims that it was cheated. Then, if they win in the very next election, we're expected to believe our system somehow magically became honest again. Since at least one side always claims the election was fair and the other sides problems are usually minor, it's probably pretty close to fair. But, with that aside, I want you to consider the discussion that has been going on at the highest level of our Government here in the "People's Republic of Michigan".

As most of you already know, my home state, Michigan, has been embroiled in a controversy over what to do about our botched $12 million primary election. You know, the one with Hillary Clinton as the only leading candidate out of the top three. The one they told us wouldn't count anyway since our delegates wouldn't be seated. The one where they made us register as a Democrat or a Republican to vote in it. The one where a lot of people crossed over to the other party because their candidate wasn't even on the ballot, and now are told they can't revote. The one where our voting guide, from the state of Michigan itself, told us to vote "uncommitted" if our candidate was missing, and then the DNC would decide later where your vote would go. The one where they essentially recommended that you turn in a signed empty ballot.

Yeah, that election.

Well, it's now seems that their efforts to have another Michigan primary election have fallen apart and I doubt that it can be repaired. Obama, who wisely sees that a large section of his voters may have crossed over to vote for anti-war Republican candidate Ron Paul or even John McCain, realizes that this can't be to his benefit. His argument, and rightly so, is that he was told the delegates wouldn't count and now the dynamics are against him as a direct result of the actions of the DNC and the state of Michigan. This makes sense to me and I don't blame him. My guess is they'll seat the delegates 50/50 in the end just so they can go to the party.

But that's not what's bothering me. What really bothers me is that our Governor, Jennifer Granholm, a committed Clinton supporter, and Hillary Clinton herself, have both now publicly stated that they think our first election here in Michigan was a fair election and the delegates should be seated accordingly. Yes, the same election that I pointed out earlier.

My God.

Look, I can forgive them for wanting passionately to win this election. I can even forgive them for using any means at their disposal, but is that what they honestly think is the standard for a fair election? Have they completely forgotten that this is The United States of America? This isn't some false democracy where the "President for Life" runs elections without challengers. Having only one real choice is the same as taking my vote away. If I only learned one thing of any consequence in my Political Science classes, it is that the vote is the only real power in a true Democracy. It is the fear that is in the hearts of politicians and without it, you work for them instead of the other way around..

Of all the issues that have surrounded the candidates so far, I wonder, "What could possibly be more important than how they would define a fair vote." When you think about it, a vote is our power. It's no wonder that it brings such joy to people who were once denied it. It's no wonder that people will stand for days in the rain to vote in places like Iraq or South Africa. And it's no wonder that people have fought for it, and died for it. It's the one thing that signals to once-enslaved people that their days of bowing are over, and the absolute sign that freedom is safe.

Our Mainstream Media will probably ignore this story, or just right it off as politics as usual. But, if the controversial statements of Barack's preacher are subject to such scrutiny, (because it might give us insight into Barack's thinking about America), isn't it only fair that we ask Hillary and Granholm to explain their statements about the very foundation of America? Wouldn't this give us some of the same kind of insight? If it's so important that we know the candidate's views on our country, (and I believe it is), then I, for one, would like to know what kind of "fair elections" Jennifer Granholm and Hillary Clinton think should be in our future. H.C.

P.S. As promised, I found a great site for all of you to track the Superdelegates. This site gives you the names and who they're supporting. Not surprisingly, Governor Jennifer Granholm is declared as supporting Hillary.

HILLARY'S "SCORCHED EARTH" PLAN

I have to admit, at first I laughed at the offer Hillary and Bill Clinton made to Barack Obama the other day. But I'm not laughing any more. The offer was for Barack to be Hillary's Vice President. On the surface it does seem laughable, even Barack himself poked fun at the notion. After all, Obama's leading in the delegate count, leading in the popular vote, and looks poised to easily win the nomination. Even the betting on Barack getting the nod is approaching 3 to 1 odds in his favor. But I, like nearly everyone else, mistook their offer. It wasn't so much an offer, as a threat.

There's a good reason I didn't see the V.P. offer for what it was, it's because even I didn't think Hillary would be so bold, such a traitor to her own party. What Hillary is planning is to "scorch the earth", leaving no survivors. A plan that works on one bitter notion; If she can't be President...then neither will Barack. Would Hillary be so bitter about her loss as to hand the election over to McCain? I believe the answer is "Yes." Remember, Hillary and Bill have been planning this out since the day they left the White House and the stakes couldn't be higher. Bill needs to reseal those Presidential archives and assure the public will never see the correspondence between himself and Hillary. Would she now except a McCain Presidency she can deal with verses a defiant Barack who wants nothing to do with her? Absolutely. And the proof is right in front of us. Democrats, if you want to see the true Hillary and save your party's chances in November, pay attention.

Most black politicians have learned how to manipulate other black people for personal gain. Take for example Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit. Under fire for his text messaging love affair, Kwame has astutely judged that his best defense is right out of the black politician play book. He makes references to being "lynched" by the media, being called a"nigger", and claims repeated death threats, presumably by racist white people, all in an effort to unify black people behind him. This is all pat black politics and nothing new. He doesn't get the white vote and doesn't care, black people will keep him in.

Obama on the other hand is unique. He understands white people. Barack knows that white people want to be seen as free from their prejudices of the past and so far he has capitalized well on it. But white people have a rule for their black politicians, you have to represent all people, not just black people. Any hint of black issues being at the forefront and white people run right back to their white politicians. Hillary understands this too and has tried desperately to get Barack talking race. She brought out the Madrassa story, she put out the picture of Barack in Muslim garb, she pushed the stories on Barack's church, all in an effort to get Barack talking more like a black politician and less like a people's candidate. She used her surrogates so that she would seem above the fray and could deny being involved. But still, Obama wouldn't bite.

However, it did do one thing rather well. It pushed white males closer to McCain. (Witness Barack's shrinking lead) There was a moment when Hillary thought it was going to all come together though, when Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas moved to her column. But it was too little too late and Wyoming and then Mississippi went for Barack. Frustrated, angry, and bitterly aware of her dim chances, Hillary no longer cares if it destroys her party. She only want Barack to pay for stealing the election. An election she feels is hers by virtue of her last name. An election that was supposed to secure her place in history. As a last ditch effort she made the pitch to Barack to be her V.P.. The message was clear once you see it for what it was; take the V.P. slot or I'll batter you with race all the way to the convention. You may still win the nomination, but I'll run off so many white males you'll go right back to your Senate seat in the main election.

Such is the character of Hillary.

Once she saw that her proposal was refused, she used Geraldine Ferraro, an ex-V.P. nominee herself and a Clinton supporter, to do her dirty work. Ms. Ferraro, apparently as immoral as Ms.Clinton, made a blatantly stupid and unsolicited comment about Barack only making it this far because he's black. (As if that's some kind of advantage) She even claimed that a woman of any color wouldn't get that advantage, despite the fact that if Barack wasn't in the game, it would have, without a doubt, been Hillary nominated. After her statement, Ms. Ferraro waited with baited breath for Barack's reply. As soon as he did she went in to a totally unjustified tirade about Barack's camp claiming racism every time he's challenged. This is totally false! If anything, Barack has gone out of his way to avoid that tack. Check out his answers to the Joseph Biden's "articulate comment", Paul Cunningham's comments, or even Ferraro's comments. He knows the game. But that hasn't stopped Geraldine from flooding the press with interviews.

Folks this is just the beginning. They will keep this up until Barack is unelectable. I myself am an Independent and not usually concerned with the inner politics of the Democrats, but I deplore this kind of politics. If you Democrats want any chance of winning this fall you had better step up to the plate and call out Hillary for this shameful act. White males; Do not allow yourself to be manipulated by this kind of divisive, shameful, politics. Barack Obama has stayed above using race. If you expect him to stand up for you, you have to stand up for him. If you don't like Barack for his stand on issues or if you just don't like him....so be it. But don't let Hillary push this race over to the Republicans just because she's good at using race and gender to divide for her own selfish reasons. H.C.

P.S. For good insite on what Hillary thinks is a fair election.

MICHIGAN'S "REDO ELECTION", DO IT RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL

As the contest on the Democratic side of the Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama becomes more and more heated, Michigan and Florida's disputed delegates and popular votes are becoming crucial to the final outcome. In an effort to correct the utter chaos in Michigan that I explained to you in "Our Out of Control Delegate System" and on my Youtube show with Andre, the DNC is now struggling to find a way out of this mess that is acceptable to both the Clintons and Obama. The price tag we've already paid for our first primary election (that is turning out to have been completely pointless) is around $10 million dollars in a state that is already running budget deficits. Now, everyone is in agreement that we have to have a "redo"(accept the Clintons who are willing to accept any votes, no matter how corrupted) the question becomes how to do it and who pays for it. In this piece I'll go over the options and why I think they are acceptable or not.

The solution being floated right now is to have a mail-in ballot sent only to registered Democrats. I find that solution to be completely unacceptable. The original Primary that we had in Michigan was an "open primary" where Independents and even cross-over Republicans could vote. Whether you agree or disagree with that concept is not the issue. You should not be changing the rules midstream. The dynamics of an election can change the outcome. I also do not trust this form of voting. Look at it this way; Barack is carrying the vast majority of the black vote, so if I want to corrupt the election, all I have to do is make sure that mail coming or going from mostly black housing projects or even predominately black areas gets lost. This can even happen if you have one or two corrupt mail carriers who want to slant it toward Hillary. On top of that, you could have people falsifying the mail-in ballots in other peoples names. This idea get a negative from me.

The next option is a Caucus. While cheaper than a full-blown election (it's also paid for by the DNC instead of the taxpayer), it has the same problem of changing the rules mid-stream. The commonly held belief is that this form of election would benefit Barack Obama as he has done far better than Hillary at all the other state caucuses. While I'm no Hillary fan, this option is still unacceptable to me because I believe it would be unfair to the Clintons. (as much as I hate to say it.)

Another option being floated is the 50/50 option. In this scenario, the delegates are divided equally between Hillary and Obama. Effectively, this is virtually the same as not seating the delegates as far as the race goes because it benefits no one, it just lets the delegates join the party at the convention. Hillary hates this idea as there is no benefit to her in a state where she is sure to pick up at least a few delegates. I would give this option very little chance of passing.

That only leaves us with redoing the open primary or not seating any of the delegates as the DNC stated. Now, the argument against having another primary is that it costs too much money, $10 million at least. $10 million is a lot of money I admit, but when you think about it, it's barely more than it cost Detroit for 1 year of Kwame Kilpatrick, which benefited no one except Kwame. I also have one of my imaginative solutions for the money problem; Since this whole problem was cooked up by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) and Debbie Dingle (DNC) and was then introduced by Senator Michelle McManus (R-Mich), supported by Michigan Republicans and then signed by our illustrious Governor Jennifer Granholm, let's have every single politician in Michigan that voted for this mess or promoted it pay for the redo. We could set up a garnishment of their wages until it's all paid off. That makes more sense than having the good people of Michigan pay for their stupidity. Short of that, the only solution is to let the ban on delegates stand and then vote out every one of these bastards for disenfranchising Michiganders out of perhaps the most significant and historic election of our life. H.C.

WHAT WILL WE LEAVE OUR CHILDREN?

"The Earth isn't something we inherit from our parents, it's something we borrow from our grandchildren." Indian Proverb

In the course of events leading up to this November's election, it's easy to become confused about what matters most to you. Immigration, National Security, taxes, and the war are all important issues. Nafta, health care and Social Security have to rate up there too. For some people Guns or abortion are the make or break issues. Whatever the issue you hold most closely to your heart, let me make a plea to all of you to join me on one main creed; To make this country an even better place for the people who come after us. It seems such a humble request from our own children. To give them a world free of the burden of our debts.

As it stands right now, (mark; 3/4/08 at 4:40 pm) the United States of America's National Debt stands at $9,364,260,316,034. And it's growing. That's $30,848 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.. Now, I know that a lot of you are saying, "Well, so what? they can just push the debt forward to their children and then their children." Well, here's the problem. Of all the money that we give to the Government, 11% of it goes directly towards just the interest on all that debt. As it gets bigger, it eats a bigger part of our paycheck. The worst thing about our children's situation is that there will be even fewer people to pay that interest. As the "Baby Boomer" generation ages more and more, pressure will be put on our young people to pay more and more.

Adding to that, the age of pensions is almost past. Corporations have long ago given up that idea in favor of IRA's or nothing at all. The fact is, a lot of Americans are ill prepared for their golden years The solution for a lot of these aging Americans seems to be filing for the default retirement plan; Social Security.This creates an even worse problem for our already embattled Social Security system. Without some input of money it's mathematically impossible for it to continue without cutting benefits. Since there is and should be a limit on how far back we can cut our support of the elderly, that only leaves more taxes on our children. Slowly their check shrinks on our debts.

But money isn't the only burden we could give our children. The environment they will live in is also directly impacted by how we handle our stewardship. Global Warming is looking more and more like a reality and we should deeply consider if we are in fact part of the problem. Even if we're not we should still work towards polluting less. We produce far too many toxic chemicals and we don't do a great job of cleaning them up. We have to learn to live within nature, with as little impact as possible. The dirt beneath our children's feet is polluted with dioxin and PCB's. The air is filling with hydrocarbons. And it doesn't have to be like that. If we use our resources wisely we can learn to use greener methods and leave our children with a world that's at least as pure as when we got it.

In this upcoming election, I'm pledging to keep one thing above my own selfish desires; To vote for whoever I honestly feel will make his or her best effort to give my children that world. A world that is as clean as they could make it, as safe as they could make it, and as free as they could possibly leave it. We should leave them with none of our debt or have them suffer the anguish of our mistakes. I know there's a lot of different ways people believe our country could be better and a lot of different answers as to how to go about it. But as a starting point I need a leader who can make one unmovable promise to win my vote; That they will do their best to leave America a better place on their last day than it was on their first, for all our children, and their children. H.C.

A STRANGE WEEK FOR OBAMA, CLINTON, AND MCCAIN

A lot of people ask me, "H.C., how can you be so involved in something as boring as politics." Well, in times like these, politics can be as suspenseful as a horror flick or as funny as any sitcom. This week has been a good example. I swear, I couldn't think up situations as funny and strange as what has been happening this past week. With the "Super Tuesday 2" votes coming up this March 4th (Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island are voting) you would expect a few desperate attacks. Obama and Clinton are in a death struggle with Clinton fearing even more calls for her to step down if she can't rack up either Texas or Ohio. I don't know if Hillary will call it quits as long as she wins something. Her desperate clinging to the nomination reminds me of the NRA's motto "when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." Regardless, if she loses both states, I believe she will have to step down. The DNC can't afford a protracted fight while McCain takes shots from the sidelines. So, with that setup, let's take a look at the past week.

In a desperate attempt to align Barack with Muslim beliefs, someone (my guess is Camp Clinton) released this photo of Barack in Muslim garb while visiting Somali. Of course, lots of politicians find themselves in some strange traditional gear out of respect for their guests so this isn't really unique. Barack is hardly the first, nor will he be the last. However, I am seeing more and more sites and e-mails claiming that Obama is secretly a Muslim, even though he isn't. (I'm going to cover these rumors as soon as I get a chance). I guess I should say here that it's also possible that the RNC is behind these rumors, they would, after all, benefit from a long drawn out DNC fight.) The funny part of this story is that the Somalian Government is now suing Hillary (I kid you not) and if they win, they want to be paid by her in livestock. Is it possible they don't trust Hillary enough for a check?

The funniest part of this past week though, has to be all the endorsements.

John McCain got the endorsement of talk show host Bill Cunningham who then went into a tirade against Barack where he repeatedly emphasized Barack's middle name "Hussein" when referring to the Senator. After outrage was expressed by the Obama camp, McCain then denounced the comments by Mr. Cunningham and his support. Mr Cunningham then, in turn, withdrew his support for McCain saying that he was used. My guess? It depends on if McCain told him to emphasize Barack's middle name.

Barack has had his own problem with endorsements this week. First he was endorsed by, of all people, the KKK. Humorously, the Klan claims that even a "Negro" is better than Hillary. (I can never get the enumeration of their 'hate list' straight. Is it now; #1 Jews #2 Hillary #3 Blacks?) Wow, what's next, the KKK endorsing a Catholic? I'm guessing that Obama wasn't that thrilled with an endorsement from the "dunce hat" wearing crowd. But a vote is still a vote. To add to Obama troubles, he was then endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, the nutty black activist who claims that he was taken on a "Vision Experience" where he flew on a UFO. Farrakhan also regularly spouts anti-Semitic rhetoric, and Obama is having enough trouble getting any support from Jews without help from Farrakhan. To complete the misery for Barack, he was then forced by Ms. Clinton during the Democrat debates to "Reject and Denounce" the support of Mr. Farrakhan. Myself, I'd rather hear Ms. Clinton "Reject and Denounce" the support of the Health Care Lobbyists that are backing her campaign. But I'm not holding my breath.

Hillary's endorsements, by the way, haven't changed over the past week. It's still people who have no problem with a Monarchy, Democrats that loved her husband and actually believe he'll have any say at all, and lobbyists. Oops, I almost forgot, and people who think that the most important qualification our next President should have is a vagina.

This next Tuesday should be a make or break day for Hillary. I'm sure she'll be throwing everything she has at Barack so don't count her out yet. Expect to see a last minute accusation by Hillary the evening of Monday, March 3rd when it will be hard for Barack to respond in time. My guess is that Barack Obama will end up being the clear winner in Texas and it will be close in Ohio. Barack has been getting a percentage of the vote about 7% higher than the polling has shown, so I believe his chances in Ohio are better than the pundits think. My last minute advice to Barack? Hint at Bill Richardson becoming your V.P., It might be just the boost you need from the Hispanics to put Hillary out. In fact, I think Bill would make an excellent choice for V.P.. Just a thought Barack, in case your reading. H.C.