I have never swayed sharply to the left or the right when it comes to politics, but one position I do like to take is that popular pundits on television or broadcast should, at the very least, have the credentials to back up their claims.

It seems that some of our nation's most popular political voices have a very checkered past when it comes to substance abuse and education. At what point does a person take a bunch of drugs, drop out of college and then decide, "Hey, you know what I would be really good at? Telling America everything that is wrong with one side of the political system. Yes, that is what I will do with my life!" Whatever that point is, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have both reached it and they now have the popularity and the paycheck to prove it.

Fox News commentator and radio talk show host Glenn Beck struggled for years with alcohol and drug dependence, according to Alexander Zaitchik in a 2009 interview with Salon magazine. Beck was quoted as saying that for 15 years, there was not a single day when he was not high from smoking marijuana. Glenn Beck also has no college degree, according to the same interview. Originally planning on being a part-time theology student at Yale University, Beck only made it through one class before dropping out. Will somebody please explain to me how a college dropout with a history of drug and alcohol abuse got a job as a political analyst and receives a seven-figure paycheck? If I dropped out of K-State to go on a "spiritual search" and converted to Mormonism, could I also buy myself some weed and get my own radio and TV programs? What do you even put on a resume when you have no degree in broadcast? "I didn't go to school, but I was a disk jockey for a radio station."

If Glenn Beck were the only pundit with no credibility pushing the conservative agenda, it would be annoying, but dismissible. However, Glenn Beck is not the only public figure at fault. Rush Limbaugh, who dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University in the early 1970s, has enjoyed wild success through radio, television and book deals despite having no degree and several issues with substance abuse.

In October 2003, the National Enquirer ran a story about the conservative and outspoken radio host having an addiction to prescription painkillers. As little merit as the National Enquirer has, Rush Limbaugh confirmed the rumor on his radio show in 2003 when he admitted his addiction and announced that he would seek in-patient rehab. Fine, Mr. Limbaugh. You go ahead and do that.

It would not be an issue if his problems ended there eight years ago. But they didn't. In 2006, The Associated Press broke the news that Rush Limbaugh was again in legal trouble and could face jail time for violating Florida's "doctor shopping" law. "Doctor shopping" is a term used for people who go to multiple physicians in a relatively short period of time, usually in order to get multiple prescriptions. After paying some steep fines, Rush Limbaugh did not spend any time behind bars, which is once again a subtle reminder that money might not buy you happiness, but it does buy you a clean slate every once in awhile. Those $400 million contracts with Clear Channel Radio sure do come in handy sometimes. So much for his on-air denouncements about the penalties people should pay for abusing substances in America. In the spirit of the pot calling the kettle black, I raise my liberal glass to you, Rush.

The biggest issue I have with these public figures is not that they are successful or conservative. The problem is they are successful despite having nothing other than strong opinions, outspoken attitudes and histories of substance abuse to qualify them. The variety of substance abuse issues surrounding their personal lives seems more than inappropriate. These are the people that are getting huge paychecks to ramble about the liberal agenda and why it is wrong. If you ask me, the biggest problem in this situation is that they are being allowed to ramble about anything at all.