Clarence Thomas to Sarah Palin: "Good Luck!"

The Democrats love minorities. Particularly women and African-Americans, which are two groups that have often placed their political fortunes on the donkey party. The Democrats love these groups, as long as these minorities toe the party line.

Enter Clarence Thomas. Following the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (the country's first African American member of that court), President Bush (41) made the clever decision to replace him with another black leader. But other than skin color, Marshall and Clarence Thomas had virtually nothing in common.

Marshall was, consistently, one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court. Marshall made his career in the civil rights movement and was the attorney in the Brown vs. Board of Education case that advanced the cause of African-Americans. Thomas was equally unique and experienced when he was nominated by Bush and he would become one of the court's most conservative jurists. Thomas was the child of a single mom who grew up in poverty until he moved in with his grandfather who strongly believed in hard work and personal responsibility. Later, in the 1970s, Thomas discovered the works of free market economist Thomas Sowell and libertarian philosopher, Ayn Rand. As a result of these influences, he was bound to oppose the liberal position.

Thomas aspired to great things, graduating from the College of the Holy Cross, he went on to graduate from Yale with a degree in law. Thomas is purported to have said that many didn't take his degree seriously and attributed it to Affirmative Action rather than personal accomplishment. This, again affected his worldview. He went on to become Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth (R-MO), the Department of Education, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

When Thomas was appointed by President Bush, he was the subject of harassment that he described later as being similar to a "lynching" (note that in the above video he is addressing Obama's running mate, Joe Biden). He was accused, based on flimsy testimony by former co-worker Anita Hill, of sexual harassment. The attack by the Democrats was ferocious and the underlying theme was that Thomas needed to be punished for rebelling from the party that "took care of him." When he exposed them of this agenda, they finally changed their tune and he was confirmed.

Fast forward seventeen years later and you have Biden on the attack again. The person in his crosshairs is Sarah Palin (R-Alaska). She, too, won't worship at the Democrat's altar of dependence on the state and ideological obedience. She is the antithesis of what Democrats believe a woman should be. The lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and self described "hockey mom" believes in the woman's ability to succeed without quotas, supports the right to life, and fights for energy independence. By the way, I'm not the only one noting the similarities, including bloggers on the left.

So what would Justice Thomas have to say to Palin? Good luck! What would his advice be to Joe Biden and his lynch mom? Be careful. There are millions of woman who are already angry over the treatment Hillary received.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

McCain Chooses Sarah Palin

A few days ago I wrote about the likely choices of McCain for VP and although I mention Sarah Palin as an excellent possibility, I didn't see her in the final four. In fact, we heard little about her in the final weeks. Of my final four, I felt the number one choice would be a woman. It just happen to be the wrong one (Kay Bailey Hutchinson). Close, but no cigars.

I didn't expect Palin because I must have underestimated McCain. I thought he needed a woman to attract unhappy Hillary Democrats. But I thought that he would have his concern for experience (Palin is in her first term as Governor and was a mayor before), age (she is younger than Obama at 44), and the lack of electoral votes in Alaska (the least a state can have at 3) would work against her. In spite of these issues, I thought Palin was a dream candidate.

McCain, who is in his 70s, needed to prove he could make a bold move. He is known as a "maverick" and it has largely paid off over the years. I don't believe this will be an exception.

McCain needed someone with executive experience on the ticket. As a Governor, Palin knows how to lead government and not merely criticize it (which is about all Members of Congress do). Even though I predicted that Obama would choose Sen. Biden days before the announcement, I certainly think he could have been aided by a running mate with gubnatorial experience.

McCain needed a woman. I don't believe anything short of a woman or a minority would be acceptable in this election year. A woman, in light of the Democrat's problems with Hillary, was particularly helpful.

McCain needed to shore up his Conservative support. Palin certainly knows how to do that. She is one of the most conservative women in electoral politics today. She is pro-family and pro-life and can talk about such with the experience of having had a child with Down Syndrome. When the Democratic men try to talk with empathy about the challenges women can face with pregnancy, she certainly has a trump card.

A nice aside would be if McCain could find someone who could talk authoritatively about the Republican's strongest wedge issue -- energy. Who better than the governor of the state that the Democrats want to protect from drilling, yet she argues that such must be pursued.

This choice puts the Democrats on notice that they are no longer the only ones poised to make history this November.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

McCain Makes His Choice for VP

Days before the official announcement I predicted that Barack Obama would choose Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The article enjoyed a great deal of traction outside of my blog and now I am getting pressure to do it again when it comes to John McCain. This may not be as easy.

Picking Barack Obama's choice was relatively easy because his weaknesses are so obvious (and Biden was a great balance to them), he is very predictable and actually resistant to change (and the Delaware Senator is very "safe"), and Obama is perceived as an elitist by many because of his Pro-Europe rhetoric and statements viewed as anti-American by many, plus his $4.5 million in income last year alone (Biden, on the other hand, is considered one of the poorest members of the Senate).

So who will McCain choose? We hear about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as Conservative favorites. But Romney does not have a history of conservatism to make anyone on the Right comfortable and Jindal has been very clear that he doesn't want the job. It is too bad, because Jindal is young, very conservative, and being of Indian descent, he could certainly bring some excitement to the ticket in terms of making history. Another commonly mentioned "safe choice" is Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Recently the chatter has been very strong in his direction, but few can cite what he can bring to the ticket.

Then there are the "bold" choices. These include Sen. Joseph Liberman, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Many believe that although none of these choices are very conservative, they are the kind of candidates who could pull votes from the Democrats while the rank and file Republicans will overlook their lack of right wing credentials because of their concerns over Obama.

One of the latest ones being mentioned and is quickly rising is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX). Although considered a moderate, she is one of the more conservative females in either Houses of Congress. In fact, she voted the GOP position 89 percent of the time. She brings the female appeal that could attract many disenchanted Hillary Democrats, yet she doesn't scare off traditional Republicans. Another often mentioned female is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is solidly conservative and knows about energy. She would certainly defend the domestic drilling case being pushed by Republicans.

In my Obama/Biden piece I was a little bold. I said it was going to be Biden. Period. I am going to hedge my bets a little and name the top four. However, I will stick my neck out there and place them in the order of likelihood.

Number four on the list is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I don't believe this a "good" choice by any measure. Yes he is attractive and articulate, but he can't bring in the voters and he became a conservative too late in life for the comfort of most. Furthermore, the Democrats will have a field day providing film footage of the bitter fighting Romney and McCain had in the primaries.

Number three is Condi Rice. She may very well be the best choice. It is true that she is largely unknown when it comes to domestic policy, but she is solid in many national security areas. Furthermore, she is an African-American woman. That covers many voters who are interested in history. The down side is that she and McCain are both considered foreign policy experts. Someone with domestic policy strength could help the ticket.

Number two on the list is Gov. Bobby Jindal. You never know, he might even accept it from a hurricane center in his state, showing "hands on" leadership. Jindal, more than any other candidate in my opinion, combines a bold move for independents and comfort for the conservative base that is crucial in getting Republicans elected.

Candidate number one and the one I believe McCain is going to choose is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. She has fifteen years of experience in the Senate, and a substantial voting record that people could judge (it is moderate-conservative), she is a woman (which will help attract disgruntled Hillary supporters), and she is from the South (crucial for the GOP to win elections).

In the end, this is what I am expecting and not hoping. Jindal would be my choice, if I could call it. But Hutchinson could very well be the right compliment, at this time, to get McCain elected.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Michelle Obama's Performance

On Monday night Michelle Obama took center stage in Denver, Colorado and tried to present a different and softer image from what voters had gotten use to. Furthermore, she tried to convey some specific messages to persuade voters going into November that Obama is their man. The reviews as to whether she achieved such objectives, thus far, have been mixed at best.

Democrat strategist James Carville had little good to say about the convention, saying “Well, if this party has a message it has done a hell of a job of hiding it tonight I promise you that,” Carville said on CNN Monday night. “Right now like I say we are playing hide the message pretty good.”

Michelle Obama has described the US as "mean" and, until her husband enjoyed national electoral success, she wasn't very proud of it. One of her main objectives was to placate the concerns of many over what type of First Lady would be in the White House. Historically, one of the prerequisites for being in the White House was being a fan of this country. Because of the statements above, people have had their doubts. She attempted to wipe out those concerns by announcing that she "loves this country." The jury seems to be out as to whether this statement alone will reverse concerns.

She jumped in with an effort to show that she and her family was like so many others around the country. A person who was concerned about her daughters and who wants to provide hope for all Americans who have been "left out." Her husband didn't take a fancy Wall Street job (typical of a fresh Ivy League graduate), but worked in the inner city and represented those who were largely without hope.

Although she loves this country, she also said there is the "America that is" and the "America that should be." The latter one seems markedly different than the ones we all know and makes many wonder what she loves about this country? That remained unanswered in her speech.

She spent part of her time doing an inventory of the many great things done by others. Joe Biden, who "represents" the working class and is a voice for so many Americans who have "no hope" and Hillary Clinton (whose delegates are still less than happy) was praised for the contributions the Senator has made for the advancement of women in politics.

In the end, the presentation was largely a family friendly infomercial. Michelle was articulate and passionate, but she expended energy in a speech that most will find of little lasting value. James Carville has said that the Republicans should be a party on the run and in total defensive mode. Neither Edward Kennedy nor Michelle Obama acted as people who saw the Democrats as a party on the move. Instead, Michelle Obama behaved as a woman who has a party and a husband that needs to be defended. That has Obama and the Democrats operating from a position of weakness instead of strength. That is not the way to begin a convention.

The truth may be in the numbers. Typically such speeches by potential First Ladies lead to a polling bump. Obama's Gallop Poll numbers are down two percent since the speech. Again, not the way to begin a convention.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters.

Subscribe to his newsletter here.Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Energy, Competition, and a Simple Lesson in Economics

For quite some time many Democrats and virtually everyone in the extreme environmentalist movement have discredited Republican calls to increase domestic drilling. Obama in particular has been very dismissive. Repeatedly he has told voters that we could begin building rigs today and it would have zero effect on gas prices for at least six or seven years. My sophomore economics professor would beg to differ.

When I took my first macroeconomics course in college, I remember the professor saying something that is considered unorthodox by many liberal economists today. He stated that “monopoly is virtually an impossibility today. As long as there is the possibility of competition, preexisting business must behave competitively. About the only way you can have a monopoly,” he argued, “is when the government sanctions such (e.g., utility companies).” The professor went on and noted that as long as businesses can enter the market place, the so-called monopolies have to keep prices down and products at a high enough level to deter competition.

For several years our US government has protected the virtual monopoly that has existed in the Middle East when it comes to oil. The Saudis, Iranians, and other energy powers have known that we will protect our trees before we help our families with lower gas prices. Therefore these competitors have driven prices without consequence. For years, the United States hasn’t even had a serious discussion on the subject of increasing oil supplies. Until now.

Now, what seems out of the blue, is a dramatic drop in oil prices. A few weeks ago it was close to $150 a barrel. Now, it is around $115. Obama is right, oil prices wouldn’t “drop a penny,” instead it has been tens of dollars and more should soon follow. Talk alone is beginning to break the foreign monopoly on oil. Our foreign competitors do not want a single drop of new source oil to be produced in this country. That is why they are increasing supplies in order to lower our prices. It isn’t because they suddenly like us. Our competitors hate the possibility of competition. What the liberals don’t understand is that competition works. Our foreign competitors get it. The Republicans who are occupying the US House and demanding more action on drilling understand it. But the liberals do not.

This only reaffirms my conviction that we need Presidential and Congressional leadership that understands simple economic principles. If our members of Congress don’t understand how competition works, they should do something else for a living. The same expectation should be there for any person who would be our President. We need leadership that understands the power of the market place and will harness that power to make the US energy independent and economically free.

In fact, I am fairly confident that if the Democrats occupy the Congress and the Presidency, I expect an exponential increase in oil prices. If Republicans win both we will see a rapid decline. If we split government, expect a stalemate. I think I know what most Americans desire.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

On Obama's Choice for Vice President

On Wednesday I predicted that Barack Obama would, in fact, choose Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. He formally made that announcement very late Friday night. I have been suggesting a probable Obama-Biden ticket for quite some time. It simply makes sense. Biden brings decades of experience, a common man background (he is one of the poorest members of the Senate), substantial (if not accurate) foreign policy knowledge, and an understanding of the Congress that is possibly unsurpassed.

Since Thursday, speculation as to who would be the Democratic VP choice has been at a fever pitch. Starting on Friday, the front runners started falling like flies. There was talk that a lowly House Member from Texas (Chet Edwards) was going to get the nod, which made me sweat a little, but to me it was all part of a larger plan to keep Obama in the headlines. It worked. There have been very few stories that have been on anything, except the VP choice.

We now have a sense of what Biden brings to this race, but his down side is fairly significant too. He represents Delaware, which is a state with only three electoral votes and votes Democrat any way. The fact that he was born in Pennsylvania does not mean he will carry that important state, in my opinion. Obama lost that state in the primaries and could do so again in November. Biden also has a problem with saying more than an occasional gaffe. He “speaks his mind,” often to his own demise. He described Obama’s early electoral success as being due to the Illinois Senator being a “storybook” character: a first “clean,” “articulate”, and “handsome” black candidate. There is no surprise that an apology soon followed.

The single biggest advantage that Biden brings is his candor, though. He is extremely tough minded and sharp tongued. His ability to speak his mind will be refreshing compared to Senator Obama’s extreme caution. Recently, that reluctance to speak freely, has made Obama look afraid and is a man who has simply bit off more than he can chew in pursuing the Presidency. Obama is not the “rough and tumble” type (although that side was demonstrated in his early races for state office). A traditional role of Vice Presidential candidate is that of “junk yard dog.” The guy who will go on the attack so the Presidential candidate can maintain the appropriate image. Presidential. Joe Biden is just the man for that job, probably more so than any VP candidate since Spiro T. Agnew back in 1968.

I feel like the pressure is on for my next prediction – the GOP choice for VP. This will not be as easy. I have speculated on the leading possibilities and the ones whom I believe would be the best addition to the ticket, but I am not ready to call it yet. Stay tuned though. I plan on taking a stab at it before long.

I would have blown my horn earlier on this, but I spent my weekend in the hill country of Texas in the middle of no where. It is so nice to be back near technology.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

PC Fights Back: Yada, Yada, Yada

I love the Apple vs. PC commercials, though I remain faithful to the latter, less cool, technology. The commercials are funny, but thought provoking. The PC representative reminds me of a slightly overweight Bill Gates and has a look on his face that indicated that he doesn't get what is happening to him. The same may be true with the brain trust behind the technology he represents.

CNBC points out that the Apple commercials are "so effective, they even annoyed Bill Gates, who says when he first saw them, he didn't get them; didn't understand them." The marketing industry concurs with Gates assessment in light of the ad campaign Microsoft is developing in order to fight back.

Microsoft is choosing Jerry Seinfeld to be its new face. Hmm, put a little weight on him, some glasses, it might actually help Apple. Regardless if Seinfeld goes through an image change or not, marketing experts believe he will do nothing to improve the image of the PC.

Apple used two unknowns who depend on funny lines and obvious weaknesses in PC technology to thoroughly win its argument. They convey that they simply don't need big names to drive their campaigns because PC is just too easy to make fun of all by itself.

Seinfeld has evolved from the cutting edge and hip comedian of a decade ago to a cartoon voice and product pitchman (I am sure you have seen the American Express commercials). The stand up comic as spokesman is safe, but decidedly not clever. Because he still is one of the bigger names in entertainment, it conveys that PC is in trouble and that they need the "big guns" in order to fight back. This approach conveys that "PC technology doesn't have a prayer," we better make sure that are spots are, at least funny. Many doubt Microsoft will be happy with the returns on its $300 million investment ($10 million for the comedian alone).

So what should PC (and Microsoft) do to fight back? Critics say a great place to start would be to improve the technology. Touché! Beyond that, they should focus on their strengths. They still dominate the business market place (maintaining communication between systems), new software is often more affordable for PCs (because of a larger economy of scale), and PCs themselves tend to be more affordable. None of these are that interesting, exciting, or sexy. Unfortunately, neither is Jerry Seinfeld.

Maybe PC should go to the most basic form of crass commercialism and pull a page out of the beer companies' handbook. Hire a few scantily dressed and beautiful woman who adore their computer. No one will have any idea what they said about the commercial, all they know is that they need too buy one. Now. Furthermore, they would be much less expensive than the $10 million required by Seinfeld.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Breaking News: Barack Obama's Choice for Vice President

It is all but official. Barack Obama has made his pick for Vice President. No, the Illinois Senator and I are not golfing buddies and I don't have a crystal ball, but I have a couple of decades of experience in politics both working on campaigns and commenting on them and I think this is a fairly safe bet. I'm not at all a gambling man, but this would be one time where I would be willing to pull out my wallet. Obama has made his choice and you will hear about it soon.

Before I name the nominee, let me give you an idea of how I came to my conclusion. The VP choice is more important for Obama and McCain than it has been for any candidate at any time in recent history. Obama has demonstrated several serious weaknesses in recent months (and McCain has a few of his own) and he needs someone to fill his gaps. These are the weak spots in his armor, in my opinion:

* His age. Obama is among the youngest nominees for President in US history and he appears younger than his age. His recent flubs in his foreign policy statements have only accentuated his perceived immaturity.

* His inexperience. Six years ago he was in the Illinois State Senate. His rapid movement from no where to the top spot has everyone (including many of his supporters) a little nervous.

* Foreign policy inexperience. The situation in Georgia, the deteriorating problems with Poland and Russia, and Obama's soft response to these situations have made people very nervous about him as Commander and Chief.

* Demonstrates too much change. Change may be nice, but he is beginning to convey a level of change that many are not comfortable with. No, I am not merely talking about skin color, religion, or several other areas that relate to surface items, I mean his political philosophy (according to the National Journal, the most liberal in the US Senate) and his inexperience. He needs something to anchor his change and that could be his running mate.

So who is the best choice in light of these weaknesses? Well the field has been narrowed considerably in recent weeks to Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virgina, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, and (as a dark horse) Senator Hillary Clinton. If this is the list, the choice is simple, in my opinion.

* Evan Bayh accentuates all of the weaknesses that Obama brings to the race of the Presidency. He has more experience and is far more ready to lead tomorrow than the presumptive nominee. It is true, everyone on this list is in a similar position, but Bayh is comparably young to Obama, making the matter worse.

* Kathleen Sebelius has very little name ID outside the Democratic party, she will possibly anger the Clinton crowd who will remember the other female who could have been on the ticket, and she brings no experience on foreign policy in a race that is increasingly being focused on this important subject.

* Governor Kaine is one of the few in serious consideration who is as inexperienced as Obama. This isn't an advantage though, because it will have everyone asking the question of "who is in charge?" Two inexperienced candidates in trying times like these will translate into electoral disaster.

* The "bad blood" between Obama and Hillary Clinton takes the New York Senator out of serious consideration. Imagine the ad campaigns McCain will have of nothing more than what Obama and Clinton said about each other in the primaries. Ugly. Very ugly indeed.

* That leaves Joe Biden. On the down side, many suburban cities in America now have populations that are larger than the state of Delaware. However, he brings incredible foreign policy experience to the table, he has years of experience that matches his maturity, he is witty and can give a solid speech. Furthermore, both Senators have a very similar experience. Biden assumed the office of US Senator at the young age of 31 and he can empathize with the challenges of age discrimination. He is simply a very safe bet, which is needed for a candidate who has become too closely associated with change.

I believe Joe Biden is a done deal. If I am wrong, it will be because he decided to go bold and deep. If that is the case, he will choose Clinton.

I'm pretty good at assessing such things. For example, I accurately predicted the demise of Katie Couric at CBS Evening News back in September of 2006. Sure it isn't official yet, but wait and see.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.


Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business radio show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Conservative Rhetoric Wrong on Credit Crisis

I believe in the power of free markets, the importance of private property, and the necessity of limited government as much as anyone. Very few question my "conservative credentials." However, I have recently begun to question some of the rhetoric that is being used by many rather prominent proponents of free enterprise when it comes to the credit crisis.

In recent months I have had Steve Moore (Wall Street Journal), Jonathan Hoenig (Fox Business), Craig Smith (frequently on CNBC and Fox), Charles Payne (Fox Business), and others on my radio show and the topic of the mortgage situation will often come up. I typically agree with the experts on the vast majority of issues we discuss and they are among the most brilliant analysts in the media today. In fact, I even agree with them on their assessment of the sub-prime crisis, I just strongly disagree with their rhetoric.

In every case and without exemption, these authorities said that the crisis was simply due to a "large group of people who had no business buying a house in a first place" (almost a direct quote of several of those listed above). Conservatives are often accused of being elitist and it is due to statements such as this.

Who is it to say which person should qualify for a home or who should be a home owner? If you believe in free markets, that is the responsibility of the mortgage companies and other financial institutes that are willing to take the risk, not the government or pundits. However, it is also imperative that those companies take responsibility if things go wrong with the loan. The economy shouldn't have to suffer from the moral hazard being created when mortgage companies take risks and then get bailed out by the government. That will lead to businesses taking more risks, with the belief they will be bailed out in the end if it doesn't work out.

Because of the anti-consumer rhetoric being spoken by these free market thinkers, people who could get a loan no other way than through a sub-prime approach may never qualify for a loan again. Yet, the number of loans by such persons that are going into foreclosure are in the single digits. The majority of these people are pleased to own a home this way because they wouldn't have been able to get one any other way because they are self-employed. They had all the "business" in the world getting such loans, the financial institutions that underwrote them had no right to a government bailout. That should be the focus of conservative critics.

The results of this crisis are bailouts for the mega rich corporations and the future punishment of every person who needs variable interest rates loans in order to get a home. Some how, the latter is being projected as the "bad guy". Advocates of freedom should defend the individuals who were creative in their pursuit of their homes -- the vast majority who have kept up their payments. Those who couldn't pay should suffer the consequences. Meanwhile, the businesses who made poor decisions in whom they loaned money to should be allowed to suffer the consequences for their decisions. Heads should roll, companies should be purchased by others, and changes should be made internally. But prohibiting sub-prime laws publishes the wrong individuals.

The free market advocates at the beginning of this piece are largely right in their thinking. The government should not bailout bad business decision making. However, they were wrong in the rhetoric. No one, but the ones who make a loan, should say who is worthy of being financed. Not only does such rhetoric do nothing in winning hearts and minds to free market principles, it is contrary to the ideas of freedom itself.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Who Won the Saddleback Debate?

It wasn't really a debate, but there certainly was a contrast in the presentations of the two major party candidates for President of the United States. The venue was the Saddleback Church, famous for its rapid growth and out spoken Pastor, Rick Warren. The contenders were John McCain and Barack Obama and the differences in style and substance was surprising.

The format was simple. A table, two chairs, and two hours. The first hour was Obama and Rick Warren and the second was John McCain and the Pastor. McCain wasn't suppose to be listening to the first hour or there would be accusations of cheating. It appears the Senator from Arizona was on the road when the Obama discussion began and there is a chance (as reported famously by NBC) that McCain heard much of what Obama said on the radio. Obama's people have cried "foul" and have stated that it is the "only way" McCain could have performed so well. There are more reasons for that than cheating and here are just a few of them:

* Obama was incredibly stiff and nervous. Obama looked like a person who didn't feel like he belonged there and that was obvious to the audience both there and on TV.

* Obama spoke too much and said too little. When he didn't have a good answer, he would simply talk more. Usually Obama is a pleasure to listen to, that wasn't the case during this program.

* Philosophically, Obama was completely out of the water. He did a fairly good job of making positions on issues that Evangelicals typically do not share, palpable. But his answers required a lot more work than those of McCain. It was a hard sales job.

* McCain told powerful and poignant stories. When he talked about his experience as a POW in the Vietnam War and the sacrifices he made, you could hear a pin drop. Furthermore, there was an obvious level of sincerity in his story about the role of God in his life that you didn't see in Obama. I'm not saying that Obama lacked sincerity, I am saying that McCain was much better at conveying such.



* McCain has one of the strongest records in the US Senate on Pro-Life issues. As a result, he could tell the audience "like it is" without flinching. Furthermore, Rick Warren and many of his constituencies are big fans of the Global Warming rhetoric so pervasive today. I'm not buying it, but McCain does and Obama had little to nothing over McCain on that subject. McCain has been a spokes person on behalf of the environmentalism for quite some time.

* There is no question that Obama is a better public speaker in general. He is very articulate and persuasive when giving a speech. In many respects, McCain is equally capable in the off the cuff setting that was used in this forum. McCain loves to speak candidly (which made him a media darling until Obama came along) and he demonstrated it on this program.

The bottom line, McCain won this discussion because he is much more the person for that audience. It was simply a better place for him than Obama. There has been a huge concern whether Evangelicals could get excited about McCain. The Arizona Senator placated many of those concerns during this Saddleback event.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.



Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Are Magazines in Trouble?

We have known for quite some time that traditional media is in trouble. In today's headlines we learned that the largest newspaper company, Gannett, has just laid off 1,000 employees. Furthermore, newspapers have been in a constant state of decline for quite some time and this is reflected in reduced advertising revenues, shrinking classified ads, and in the market value of newspapers when they go up for sale (often half of what the current owner paid for them).

It seemed that magazines have been largely exempt from the drama facing newspapers. It is true, they have not seen the growth in revenue that the web has enjoyed, but they haven't suffered from the losses seen in traditional media. However, magazines are beginning to believe that the future is less than bright.

Portfolio.com reports that "Across the industry, newsstand sales were down a startling 6.3 percent, a loss that had to be replaced with expensive giveaway copies. And while there's some debate over how much of the shift is cyclical and how much secular, it's clear that at least some readers are turning away from magazines."

Magazines are rightly concerned that they will follow a path similar path to newspapers and that all the color photos and glossy paper in the world won't save them. They are taking action through the development of what they hope will be a well received approach to circulation problems. It is, if nothing else, innovative and imaginative.


Time, Inc has developed a new program called MagHound, that is scheduled to begin in September and is designed to let people have access to numerous magazines at one low price. Essentially, it is bringing Netflix to magazines. Netflix charges one small fee to rent a certain number of videos each month. This allows you to change your magazine subscription based on your interest at the time. Portfolio reports "You choose how many magazines you want to receive each month—three for $4.95, five for $7.95, seven for $9.95, and a dollar each above that. All issues published by those magazines will be sent to you that month." They will be billed this amount and are allowed to easily change their publication. Time has over 240 titles in numerous fields-- plenty to choose from.



There are several advantages to this system for the publishers. For one thing, each magazine being sent out will be treated the same as a magazine sold at the newsstand for circulation audit purposes. This, in spite of the fact, that readers will be spending a fraction of what they would spend at the bookstore. This increase in sales should look excellent in the eyes of actual advertisers and could raise magazine revenues. There are doubts, however, that this accounting will hold up over time, because of what is seen as an unfair advantage since readers will be paying so little per publication. We will have to wait and see.


I believe Netflix is an excellent idea, especially as they increasingly shift to movies you can download, but I am not so optimistic when it comes to the future of magazines. This is too bad, because I am a true lover of magazines, but I seriously have my doubts.


Magazine content is found in abundance on the web and at no cost. Magatopia includes the following online magazines at no cost -- Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, Maxim, Forbes, and many others. It actually gives you access to over 1,000 publications. True, they are not "real" magazines per se, but the vast majority of the sites offer the same information as their sister print publications and most at zero cost.


In the months to come there will also be the new BestoftheNews.com that will further make the print world miserable when it is released. Still, I admire the effort and innovation. Who knows, maybe Maghound will be the solution to declining magazine circulation.

Are you Looking Successful? Get the information on how to look and feel better by visiting LookingSuccessful.com often.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Huffington Post Expands to Chicago

My feelings towards the Huffington Post are more envy than awe. I am impressed by the professional images that they use and their "quick read" function that more blogs (and websites in general) should pursue, but I hate its liberal bias. The publication has an impressive reach and those behind it (principally Arriana Huffington) made an early commitment to make it successful, and by most measures they have achieved just that.

Now, the Huffington Post is expanding to Chicago and the biting commentary that is well known nationally will have a local appeal in the country's third largest city. The air in the windy city has just gotten a little hotter.

The Huffington Post is a liberal darling, getting articles from the Hollywood elite and major politicians. The questions is, what role will the Chicago version fill? Historically, major national newspapers have created their own place in the national media Real Estate. In Chicago, the Tribune and Sun Times are very will known for talking about national issues. Is the local Huffington Post going to defer to the national site or is it going to give a uniquely Chicago view on what is going on around the country and around the world?

Is the new Post only going to discuss new businesses in Chicago, local crime, and the people running for mayor? If so, it stands in serious danger of being very boring. The online version of a community newspaper -- unless you are actually in it, you are not going to be very interested. On the other hand, if it becomes the Chicago voice on national issues, I believe the national publication will become redundant in the eyes of most readers. Sure, the site will keep local features that readers can navigate to find out what is going in the city, but I think they will find the two front pages (national and Chicago) quite confusing due to their similarity.

I believe the logical thing for the Huffington Post to do for over coming this probable confusion, is to make the national site a New York, New York site. Like the New York Post, the New York Daily News, and (of course) The New York Times, the "new" New York Huffington Post would provide a local spin to national news. It is just a thought.

I am also curious about the economics of the new website. It is being described as a "franchise." Typically, that means someone pays a corporation a significant amount of money to be able to use the name and benefit from a marketing system created by the parent company. I don't know if that is literally the case here or if those involve do not have a better way to describe the relationship between the two sites, but it would be a very interesting model if they mean a traditional franchise.

The work to date on at the Huffington Post indicates that the model is working. It will be interesting to see if the changes going on with the site keeps it that way.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Does Evan Bayh Help or Hurt Obama?

All the political buzz on TV, radio, and online is the probable choice of Evan Bayh for Vice President by Barack Obama. He is noted for his experience, thoughtful intelligence, and maturity beyond his years. To many he is a logical choice for the number two spot. As in the case of virtually everyone, there are always pros and cons. Bayh brings experience, and baggage, to the Democratic ticket.

The New York Times recently described Bayh as one with a "moderate to conservative" voting record and tends to maintain such an image in his persona. He's not "flashy" or excessive and that demeanor has translated in the way people perceive him. The reality, however, is really quite different. Michael M. Bates at Newsbusters has done his homework on Bayh and has found the following about the Senator's voting record:

"Project Vote Smart collects ratings given by a wide variety of special-interest organizations. Evan Bayh's record shows that in 2007, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave him a grade of 100, as did the AFL-CIO and the Children's Defense Fund. The Americans for Democratic Action assigned him a 95 percent rating and the ACLU awarded him an 86. For 2005-2006, he earned a 100 percent rating from the National Education Association. In 2007, the National Taxpayers Union gave him a grade of D, the American Conservative Union rated him at 12 percent, and both the Gun Owners of America and U.S. English assigned him an F."

There appears to be very little gray area when it comes to his record. He is very strong in his positions and they lean heavily to the left. Barack Obama already has the most liberal record in the Senate. He need a true moderate brought to the table. Bayh doesn't bring that.

I will say that Bayh has a significant amount of experience for a relatively young man. At 53, he is six years older than Obama but has a far more impressive resume. The son of liberal icon Birch Bayh who served in the Senate for almost two decades, Evan was very familiar with politics. In 1987, and in his early 30s, he became Secretary of State of Indiana. In two years he began one of two terms as governor of that state and completed his eight years in that office at the young age of 42. Shortly after that, he became an US Senator and is now in his second term. On paper, Bayh looks like a great candidate.

However, Bayh's experience, might actually hurt Obama. When Bayh was Obama's age he had already served as a governor for eight years and was well in his first term in the US Senate. He reminds voters of how inexperienced Obama is and raises questions as to why Barack is on the top of the ticket instead of someone like Bayh. It is true that Obama needs experience on his ticket, but he needs experience that looks experienced, not the kind that actually hurts Obama's efforts.

Another often touted advantage to Bayh is his relationship to Hillary Clinton. He was one of her strongest supporters and one of the last to abandon her campaign. On the other hand, many in the Obama camp simply don't trust Clinton and Hillary's supporters don't appear able to be appeased by anyone but the New York Senator or, at the very least, another woman to join in making history.

In the end, I am not sure if any candidate will prove to be a solid compliment to Obama and fulfill the mandate of doing "no harm." However, I do believe that Obama needs to begin to look somewhere else for a VP.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

The Reasons Behind the Russian Invasion

Russia has struck Georgia hard militarily and its ultimate objectives are still unclear, but its impact could affect politics right here in the United States. Many are wondering why the Russians are doing this. We know that, since the fall of Communism, the Russians have operated under the old flag of Imperialism. Those days appear to be back.

The Russians are arguing that their motives are altruistic. They are simply trying to protect those Russians who live on the Georgia border with Russia. That was a few days ago, today Georgia is claiming that Russia has now cut the country in half and are adding the conquering of new cities daily. I have made several trips to the former Soviet Union conducting seminars on free market economics and I can tell you it has little interest in protecting civilian interests, but Russia's national ambitions. Russia largely maintains a utilitarian view of its people that is not the "greatest good for the greatest number" in the John Stuart Mill tradition, but in the greatest good for the government. Russia sees people as something to use, not protect.

Russia has complained about Georgia warming up to the West for quite some time. In fact, Georgia is one of the strongest allies of the US and has actively supported the war on terror. The United States actually flew Georgia troops home from Iraq to fight the Russian invasion. Georgia, like many countries that were victims of Soviet rule for decades, are among the most pro-democratic, pro-freedom, nations in the world. They recognize what the US has done to assure its freedom and have been extremely grateful for its efforts to favorably end the Cold War. However, the Russians have long expressed interest in and has now intervened on its border areas and that has escalated into the events of the last week. The timing of the attack, in my opinion, are likely due to three reasons.

There are the efforts on the part of Georgia to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In fact it has met the former Soviet Republic has met the criteria necessary to be guaranteed an invitation. Georgia would accept as soon as it was extended. Russia felt it needed to move fast in order to avoid attacking a country protected by the West.

Than there is the Summer Olympics. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the attacks began during the opening ceremony. The world has been largely occupied by the events in Beijing and not noticed the terror in Georgia. Russia seems to have called it well as much of the world has provided a collective yawn regarding the attacks.

The most important reason may in fact be the political environment in the United States, the only nation that really can do anything about this illegal action. George Bush is a lame duck President and largely a housekeeper until the new administration begins and the Russians know it. Furthermore, I believe the Russians are fairly confident that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States and they are eager to test his mettle. So far his response is certainly lackluster and I'm expecting a similar response from Bush. Sen. McCain has taken Russia to task and has stated that if he were President, he would call a meeting of the G 7. That is action that appears Presidential.

I personally would like to see NATO hurry up and offer the invitation retroactively and change the rules of the growing war quickly. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen, so one of our new and promising allies will find itself very alone. At the very least, NATO should extend membership to the Ukraine tomorrow to prevent the Russian imperialists from taking similar actions on another freedom seeking former Republic. The Cold War that we hoped was over almost two decades ago appears to be anything but over and anything but cold.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

The Green Case for Domestic Drilling

Recently Republicans in Congress have done an excellent job of making the economic efficiency and national security arguments for increased domestic drilling. Democrats attempts to blame the speculators, "make sure the tires are filled," and calls to drill where the energy industry already has leases is falling upon deaf ears. Voters seem to know that those acres have been so thoroughly exploited that the translated cost per gallon to explore them will be higher than current prices. The industry needs access to new locations and it is pounding that drum effectively.

The current Republicans in the House are occupying empty Chambers and are demanding Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call Congress back and to tackle the energy crisis. Pelosi is invulnerable in her reelection efforts and has told other Democrats to make her the "fall guy" for failing to take action on energy. Republicans, like Congressman Kevin Brady of the Woodlands (Texas) and Ted Poe (of Houston) and others are reminding their colleagues that there already was an up and down vote on whether the Congress should immediately pursue an energy policy instead of taking a vacation. That was their vote for adjournment. If you voted for adjournment (which passed by only one vote), you voted against Congress immediately dealing with energy. If you voted against adjournment, you voted for Congressional action. That message may be getting through to voters and Republicans are beginning to look like that brash group that took over the Congress back in 1994.

The economic case for increased domestic drilling is simple. It will quickly lower gas prices by increasing future supplies. What most Democrats fail to realize is that the threat of increased production can lower prices. A thorough debate on the subject in the last few weeks has already lowered the price per barrel to around $116 at this writing, from being around $150. This is without a vote and without new exploration. This is merely due to rhetoric. Imgaine the impact once we increased drilling. Our current prices are based on futures. With the Republicans winning the recent debate, the future looks brighter for oil supplies and we are seeing it at the gas pumps.

The national security argument is just a logical. Many Democrats are arguing for tapping into the Strategic Reserve in order to help lower prices. This has only served as a reminder to voters of how dependent we are on foreign oil. In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today it is nearly 70 percent and that number continues to grow. If foreign countries decided to stop supplying us, we would be in a true crisis. Security, as well as prosperity, are wrapped up in our energy future.

Republicans now need to make the moral case. Increased domestic drilling is the green thing to do. For years we have been told by environmentalists that this planet is little more than a "big blue marble." Simply put, environmental disasters on any part of the planet has an adverse impact on the entire planet. If that is the case, who better than the United States to increase drilling? Right now, Cuba and Venezuela are eyeing off shore drilling opportunities near the United States. Do we prefer their technology, safety standards, and labor over that of the US? Any time the United States can take the lead on drilling; people, animals, and prestine environments are better protected compared to the means of any other country.

I have suggested this to Members of Congress and others for quite some time and it seems the argument is beginning to have some traction. I visited with Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) about this last week and he has assured me that it will become an important argument Republicans will use as the GOP continues to take over the empty House Chamber. All I can say is it is about time. With the moral case joining the economic and national security arguments, the Democrats could find their hopes for the 2008 elections running out of gas.

As an Owner of Two Labs...

Like many Americans today, I have become some what disaffected by tragic news. Suicides, bombs, domestic violence, etc., etc. We see these things all the time. Most of them certainly touch at some level, but we become a little cold and disconnected from such news because we see such huge quantities of information. We have to protect ourselves from this and so we choose to ignore it.

However, for some reason, I was struck by the story of the Maryland mayor whose home was invaded by law enforcement and they killed the family's two Labrador Retrievers. This family's dogs, noted for barking at first, but licking you to death once they know you, were shot by a SWAT team in a drub bust that went very bad. Mayor Cheye Calvo of Berwyn Heights in Prince Georges County (just a few miles from where I lived when I worked in DC) was in his underwear and shaving when the door was knocked down and their dogs killed. It appears the mayor's wife was a victim of identity theft by drug dealers.

The plan was simple, drug dealers in one city mail the contraband to unsuspecting people in other cities (with explicit instructions to leave such on the porch at a specific time) and the carrier in the second city waits and runs out and gets it when it is dropped off without the stated recipient knowing a thing. This time, law enforcement was following the package so the carrier made himself scarce and in this case, the mayor's family casually brought the package in and their lives changed dramatically. Law enforcement was following the package from its origins and was ready to jump. In addition to killing the family's beloved pets, they terrorized the mayor and his wife with very frightening interrogative methods.

The agencies involved quickly discovered that this was a mistake and the ones they attacked were victims in their own right. Instead of immediately taking responsibility and clearing the family, they left doubt in the minds of many and claimed to have acted properly. "Heads will roll" because of this I am sure.

Now, back to my point. Dog owners love their pets and over the years I have own a few canines hear and there. None compare to my two Labs. They are my "little girls" whom I would almost have a bigger struggle doing without as I would my own children. Dog owners in general and Lab owners in particular, simply feel this way. I may by blowing the loss out of proportion when one looks at all the tragic news out there. On the other hand, if you don't own pets, don't be too quick to dismiss this very real tragedy. My sympathies go to this family and my hope is that law enforcement develops approaches to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

What Happened to Cavuto?

Neil Cavuto is one of my favorite broadcasters and he was missing on the Fox Business Channel and Fox News for a month and a half. He was instructed to "shut up." Doctors said he shouldn't talk and his body wasn't allowing him to say much any way. He was suffering from complications of MS. I was suffering from the string of substitutes that came through and who sat in his chair. They were all fine and some of them, excellent, but they were not Cavuto. Cavuto is the best mind -- and voice -- in business news today in my opinion.

Cavuto was back in the chair this week following surgery on his throat. He didn't quite look himself. He had clearly lost weight and he didn't have the full strength of his vocal cords. But he was sharp and was prepared to be rough and tumble with his guests. He was ready to discuss the economy, the government, or whatever issue was on the radar screen. Each guest sincerely welcomed him back to his chair and it was a great sight for sore eyes for the television audience.

Also this week, Cavuto joined a small parade of Fox News staff to appear on Good Morning America on ABC recently. Media Bistro reported "Continuing the trend of Fox Business Network anchors appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, Neil Cavuto joined Diane Sawyer this morning to discuss the stock market and the drop in crude oil prices."

You learn during this interview the true extent and seriousness of the surgery. Cavuto states about his "throat surgery: I had what's the equivalent to a paralysis of my larynx. My throat was paralyzing, if you will, a poor choice of words. And they had to do this surgery leaving me with a 'bionic throat,' to open it up. And for six weeks I just had to shut the heck up which was difficult for me. But I learned the value of just listening."

If you watch Cavuto closely, he is one of the few hosts without an agenda. Obvious or hidden. He makes everyone uncomfortable when they fail to be forthright and is quick to validate anyone who speaks the truth. He leans to the right, even if he might be uncomfortable with such an assessment, but he leans towards the truth with even greater passion. He is non-partisan about holding guests accountable.

I noticed Cavuto had been gone. For the first couple of weeks I assume it was a vacation. When it dragged on, I thought of the battle he once had (and overcame) with cancer or whether his MS was creating new problems. Sure enough it was the latter. His battle for his health may be the reason behind the thing I enjoy most about Cavuto. His sincerity and genuine interest in the important things in life. He treats everyone with respect and dignity and he is known for his generosity among those whom he works. I'm glad he is back in his chair.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Bernanke's Fateful Decision

The Stock Market is on an unusual rise, the dollar is on an up swing, and gas prices are in decline. Furthermore, we just recently learned that the economy grew in the last quarter, which means we are not in a recession (regardless of how it "feels"). All of these examples of good news should lead to better news today when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke discusses the future of interest rates.

Bernanke has, of course, three options. He could raise rates to further curtail concerns about inflation, lower them to make sure that there is enough stimulus to keep the economy growing, or keep them the same as a reasonable response of not pouring fuel on inflation or stalling an apparent economic turn around. Bernanke's decision is very important.

If Bernanke lowers the rates, expect a continued decline in the value of the dollar, serious concerns being raised about the economy's future health in the minds of those on Wall Street (because lowering rates would be seen as the Fed still being concerned about a recession), and the simple fact that interest rates will be getting too close to zero for its own good. After all, rates can't go below zero. If Bernanke raises rates, an idea being suggested by some as a way of saying the economy is now on the mend and to stop potential inflation, the short term impact would likely be devastating. It would be seen as the pouring of cold water on an economy that is only now beginning to warm up.

The best approach, according to most economists, is to simply do nothing. This sends a message that the economy has begun to rebound and it doesn't need further stimulus. The psychological boost on Wall Street to such an approach will be very powerful. It could be argued that there is too much money in the market today any way. Doing nothing would be an excellent way to let productivity catch up with the many dollars that are floating around in the economy today. Since too much money chasing too few goods creates inflation, restraint is helpful. It will be the first time in a very long time that the Fed has shown such restraint. The physicians motto of "do no harm" should be Dr. Bernanke's as well. Let's just hope he is a good physician.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

The Passing of a Voice for Freedom

As a teenager in the 1970s it was clear to me that the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union was a little too warm for comfort. From 1977 until 1980, 13 countries fell under Soviet influence while the United States suffered from embarrassing decline. We knew things were bad in those countries behind the Iron Curtain, but very few provided insights into the extent of the horror like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn died over the weekend.

The Economist Magazine pointed out in its obituary that "PROPHETS are without honor in their own country—at least until they die. For most of his adult life in the Soviet Union, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was persecuted. In exile in the West from 1974, his gloomy philippics and increasingly turgid prose aroused more bafflement than appreciation. After he returned to Russia in 1994, he was welcomed but then ignored."

Solzhenitsyn was twice decorated as a soldier because of his efforts in the great war against the Germans, but that did nothing to prevent him from facing eight years of prison with hard labor because of a casual criticism of Joseph Stalin in a letter he wrote to a friend. He wrote powerful critiques of the Soviet system of cruelty in both fiction (“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”) and nonfiction (“The Gulag Archipelago”). I got to spend some time with the latter book while in college which methodically examined the Soviet system, its sadistic torture, its rules, and psychology of fear pervasive through out the prisons.

In 1970, he won the Nobel Prize for literature, but couldn't leave Russia to accept it because of fear that he wouldn't be allowed back into the country. In spite of his best efforts to stay in a country he loved, by 1974, he was forced to leave by being stuck in a plane to West Germany and two decade exile. He eventually found himself in New England and often as critical of Western capitalism as he was of the poverty and oppression of Communism.

Still, no man provided better insights and explicit detail about the Soviet system than Solzhenitsyn. However, his warning isn't limited to Communism, but totalitarianism in general. He was finally able to return to his Russia in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism, but was soon largely ignored by the population as they faced a new form of autocratic rule from Vladimir Putin. With that, his message against tyranny and oppression remains quite useful today.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com. Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Republicans Look Like Young Turks of 1994

Remember the "Young Turk" Republicans of the early 1990s that eventually took over the Congress? Led by than Congressman (and future Speaker) Newt Gingrich, Republicans took on the Congress at every turn. It pointed out the corruption that was seen through out the Congress. Members wrote hot checks on their Congressional checking account without consequences and these Republicans reminded voters of such disgrace. The GOP changed the power and structure of committees, taking away the autocratic nature of chairmanships. Virtually every day members of the GOP went on to the House floor denouncing the Democrat's behavior, regardless if Congress was in session at the time.

This approach offered promise to a country that had grown tired of a corrupt and "do nothing" Congress that had ruled the country under one party for decades and resulted in the "Revolution of 1994." These vigorous members saw a net increase of 54 House seats in that election, and a pick up of 8 seats in the US Senate. But it didn't stop there, Republicans won 472 legislature seats around the country, the mayor's office of two big Democrat cities (New York and Los Angeles), and the GOP took control of 20 state Legislatures. The Republican Party became the majority party over night.

The issues against the Democrats in this Congress is even bigger than those in 1994, in my opinion. We have a credit crunch that is being solved by bailing out lending institutions and having the government going further into the banking industry. We have had the price of gas almost double since the Democrats took over just two years ago and they want to solve our energy problems by demanding to make sure we fill the air in our tires. We are successfully waging a war on terror in Iraq and the Democrats are demanding that we pull these troops out before our task is completed.

The energy issue alone is important enough that the Congress should have done what many Americans are choosing to do -- saying "no" to a vacation. Republicans took the House floor today without lights and with little hand held cameras and denounced their Democratic colleagues for failing to do their job. The Democrats went home to run for their political lives and will have a horrible record to try to defend. Yes, it is beginning to look like the good old days!

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com. Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.