Libertarians Choose to Help Democrats

The Libertarian race for President has been one of the most contentious that the party has seen in years. Maybe even decades. Eight candidates contended until this weekend, with a final ballot tonight going to former Congressman Bob Barr. The one time Republican Congressman from Georgia was a traditional Conservative for many years in most respects. Fiscal issues, the war in Iraq, and the Republican party's perceived tightening on personal freedoms (e.g., the Patriot Act) "forced" Barr to change parties.

Other contenders included an individual who had recently been pursuing the Democrat's nomination for President. Former US Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel was eliminated after four of six ballots. In many respects, Gravel was as traditional of a Democrat as Barr was a republican. The only areas Gravel and Barr have in common are the war and civil liberty issues.

It is assumed that a Barr candidacy would harm Republicans more and Gravel would have been a distraction to the Democrats. Maybe the Libertarians believe the Democrats have enough problems with Ralph Nader and wanted to give them a break. More likely it is that Republicans today are more ideologically similar to Libertarians.

Here is a quick break down of where Barr stands:

* The complete elimination of the Income Tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes it.

* In a twist away from traditional Libertarian policies, Barr strongly emphasizes the securing of the borders. His website doesn't detail how he would accomplish such, but Libertarians have traditionally said that you simply have to eliminate the Welfare State that attracts the wrong people to this country. Other wise, immigration is an economic positive. Barr implies a slightly more proactive position.

* Regarding national defense, Barr argues that the US military is used as "Soldiers of Fortune," charged to make sure oil continues to flow to meet our economic needs. He ascribes to a Jeffersonian view of "no entangling alliances."

Will Barr matter? It is too early to say, but I am sure Republicans are anxious about keeping every single potential vote in November.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to you.

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.

See How They Run: Why Are They Running So Early?

This is the earliest time in US history for candidates to declare they are running for President. The question many are asking, is why? I think this can be attributed to several reasons:

* Some candidates have never stopped running. John McCain (R-AZ) has been running since 2000 when he challenged George Bush. He has continuously raised money and organized and has been biting at the bit for years. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been running for President since 1992 and many argue that she served many of the years her husband was in office. In order to appease their supporters and to try to deter potential competitors (this obviously didn't work), these candidates had to jump in early. Them jumping in early forced others to do the exact same thing.

* Others on the lower end of the electability scale jumped in early to build support and even an identity. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (see photo, above), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Ron Paul (R-TX), are just a few of the candidates that fill that bill. This group has different objectives. I'm sure all would love to be President, but they are also interested in merely seeing their perspectives out there, to push their opponents in their ideological direction, or to even run for a high level post once the election is over. For example, many believe Joe Biden (D-DE) is actually running for Secretary of State in a new administration or even the US Supreme Court. Others honestly believe that the big name people will actually fall on their face, creating opportunities for these lessor known candidates.

* Some have major name ID, but lack national experience. This includes Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom are major players, neither of whom have been tested on the national scene. Many are arguing that Obama is actually running for 2012 and is building momentum and working through his mistakes now. If he is lucky, he will have the same success as Bill Clinton who many said he was doing the same thing in 1992.

* Speaking of working out mistakes, all of the candidates would like to have as much time as possible, in order to be judged in the most favorable way.

The question I have is, will all this early running help improve or hurt the electoral process? Will it excite more people or bore them to tears? My guess is that most Americans are going to be so sick of the elections, they will simply want them over with by November 2008. On the other hand, I believe candidates will increasingly early in elections to come. In fact, don't be surprised if someone announces for 2012 (keep your eye on YouTube) any day now.