See How They Run: Also, See How They Fly

The first debate for the 2008 Presidential election (photo) took place last night (can you believe it?) and the biggest story wasn't how different the candidates are from one another (there was little discussion on such), or even the difference between the Democrats and President Bush (a big part of the discussions), but about how the candidates got there.

All of these candidates have taken the nation to task because of the Global Warming issue that has become so prominent today. All of them discuss the need to conserve energy, develop better fuel alternatives, and car pool at every opportunity.

Of the 9 candidates that participated in the South Carolina debate sponsored by MSNBC, at least four of them (Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden) left from Washington, DC at about the same time (following the Iraq funding debate in the Senate) on four separate private planes (all of the Democratic candidates are using this mode of transportation). At a cost of around $9,000 a flight and at a huge fuel cost, you would think one of these champions for energy efficiency would have suggested jet pooling! It didn't happen, they just boarded their respective energy hogs, possibly shaking hands at the airport and wishing each other a good flight, and met each other again at the forum.

Most people are chuckling about this story, but it speaks to me about the hypocrisy that is pervasive in politics today. Candidates who pound the public over the head with their moral mandates while breaking their own rules every opportunity that get. Until a couple of elections ago, virtually every Presidential candidate traveled on the major airlines, saving their supporters dollars, helping the environment, and conserving energy. Ironically, there was little talk of Gloabl Warming in those old days. I, personally, find the hypocrisy sickening and will start reminding politicians to put their money and their actions where there mouths are.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

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.

See How They Run: The Debate After the Debate

Last night's South Carolina debate sponsored by Fox News for Republican candidates was very rough and tumble. It showcased the struggle the leading candidates are going to have because of how weak their conservative credentials. It demonstrated why the second tier candidates are called just that and I believe many of them will soon be gone. Here are a few of my observations:

* Ron Paul (photo) needs to get out as soon as possible. I've known Paul for years and he's highly intelligent and articulate, but he is far more libertarian than Republican. The Republican Party is not a party of appeasement, as Paul likes to argue, it is a party of Peace through Strength. Paul is now involved in the most extreme liberal blame game, claiming that September 11th is America's fault (because of our activities in regards to Iraq after the first Gulf War). That isn't going to fly in the Republican Party (and it isn't true). Republicans need to remind people like Paul that "the terrorists are over there, because we over there." Let's keep the terrorists over there.

* McCain and Romney are not going to make it. These guys spent the entire night letting out their frustrations on each other. Continuously accused of flip-flopping on the campaign trail, they had to do the exact same thing to each other. McCain doesn't understand tax cuts, Romney, was pro-abortion and converted too late to trust, etc., etc. These guys suffered the most, in my opinion.

* Giuliani was the big winner. He looked very Presidential and thoroughly slammed Ron Paul for blaming the US for September 11th. His remarks, calling Paul irresponsible and demanding a retraction, reminded me of Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" in the 1980 New Hampshire Primary debate that many called a turning point in that campaign. It may not be that significant, but it was an excellent moment.

The debate, above all things, demonstrates there is a long way to go. Ten candidates now and a few months there will likely be less and even different ones in the running. Fox News did a much better job than MSNBC in conducting the debate, but in the end, the current format remains weak. I'm eager to see how the pruning process eliminates candidates and allows us to get to know the eventual nominee better.

See How They Run: The Truth Behind Giuliani and McCain as Front Runners

The front runners for the GOP nomination for President are former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani (see photo) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Giuliani has the lead, which seems to be widening daily. The truth is, neither one of these gentlemen will likely be on the top of the ticket by November 2008 and if they are, Republicans will probably lose.

The GOP has always treated the conservative wing of its party as a loud and obnoxious group that tries to wield too much influence. The truth of the matter is, the conservatives are the tail that wag the dog. Every candidate that has successfully obtained the GOP nomination since Ronald Reagan has run as a strong conservative. Bob Dole was the only one the conservatives seriously doubted and he lost when it mattered in November of 1996. The only other Republican to lose since than was George H.W. Bush for reelection. He convinced Republicans that Reagan had converted him to a true believer by 1988 , but supported a tax increase that was philosophical anathema to conservatives and poison to the economy. Republicans can't get away with statements such as "read my lips, no new taxes" and pass a significant tax increase once in power, just ask the first Bush.

So how does one explain the surveys that have Giuliani and McCain winning by a huge margin among GOP voters? There are several reasons for this:

* Many people vote in the primary, but do nothing in the Fall. Only the conservatives activists, as a whole, get people to the polls for the GOP in November.

* It is really early in the race and both of these candidates carry messages and histories that resonate with conservative voters. McCain is, in spite of how much I disagree with him on many of his views, a war hero and he is largely right when it comes to Iraq. Meanwhile, Giuliani was amazing during 9/11 2001 and won every one's heart as the nation's mayor. But mayor and President are two different things and he doesn't hold positions on social or even economic issues that lines up with the party faithful. However, Americans as a whole are solidly behind winning the war in Iraq and both of these candidates have taken the most hard line positions on that issue.

In the end these candidates positions on social issues and taxes will likely come back to haunt them. I am just hoping that happens before Republicans nominate one of them.

See How They Run: Observations on the 08 Race

The 2008 election dominates the news, but some of the biggest stories in that race (in my opinion) are quite neglected. There are some developing themes that which could play a major role in the election results.

* Social activists will be motivated. The partial-birth abortion decision by the Supreme Court is the first decision in years that put any restrictions on the practice. This proved the importance to both sides that elections for President matter, because they lead to the appointment of Justices. I believe this will be a major theme through out the campaign.

* How a moderate could win the Republican nod. Frankly, I am no fan of John McCain and have written on such in this blog. The most important fiscal policy issue is, in my opinion, to understand the importance of tax cuts in keeping an economy rolling. Tax cuts and the changing of the debate on that issue has made the Republican Party a majority party for much of the last 25 years. McCain doesn't get it, he isn't pro-life either, his views on campaign finance undermine the First Amendment, but his stock is still going up as a candidate in my opinion. The trump card of all issues for many Conservatives is the war and McCain and Giuliani get it more than most of the other Republican candidates. I never believed I could ever be interested in a candidate like McCain, but the war is that important. Winning the nomination doesn't mean they win the general election, but I thought it was impossible for a moderate to win that just a few months ago.

* How Hillary Clinton could win the nomination and loose the election. Hillary is extremely polarizing as a candidate and I can't recall any in recent history who is both most beloved and entirely disliked. Furthermore, who old style of campaigning -- acting like a Southerner in the South, a Yankee in the north, and a what ever where ever she is at -- is only irritating voters, and it is captured on the news every day. She acts like we live in the old days where candidates could largely say and do what they want without fear of being caught. In the YouTube world we live in today, good luck. She is by far the most organized, has the best access to money (in spite recent fundraising reports), and is the most experienced at handling the pressure. Because of this she could win the nomination. But her personality and controversial stances will haunt her in November of 2008.

These are a few of my thoughts on the campaign, I will discuss some more growing themes as the race progresses.

Understanding Human Nature Matters in an Economy

There has been a war that has raged for centuries in the fields of politics, economics, and the social sciences in general. It is a debate between those who say that all public policy should be developed on how people actually behave versus those who argue that public policy should be developed with the end result or intention in mind. Members of the former group are generally called "positive" theorists when it comes to approaching issues because they make decisions based on the way things are. They strive to take an objective view of public policy. The latter group has a "normative" view of economics. These individuals have a subjective view of human behavior. They want a disconnect between the policy and the intended result, because that goal is the only thing that matters. Unfortunately for them, we silly people tend to undermine that goal.

The examples of this are too numerous to cite in a space this small, but I will give a few examples.

Minimum Wage


The minimum wage is an excellent example of normative economics at work and is proof that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions." "Well meaning" politicians want to raise the standard of living for those who are earning a low salary and they raise the minimum wage. Ironically, this policy is always followed with a spike in unemployment, particularly for low income workers, and leads to higher prices (thus devouring the increase in income). In July of both last year and this there were significant increases in unemployment that accompanied a jump in minimum wage. People are paid based on what value the job has to the employer. If minimum wage raises the cost of the job above its value, the job has to go.


Taxing Business

Another popular area to attack is businesses through increasing taxation. This is the ultimate opportunity, we are told to "soak the rich" and to pound those greedy corporations. Unfortunately, businesses don't pay taxes. Period. Taxes are a fixed cost of doing business, like employees, office supplies, office space, and any of the other over head necessary to stay in business. Just like these other items, higher taxes are simply a fixed cost. Businesses don't pay taxes they collect them. They collect them, that is, until they get too high and they lose their competitive advantage, which is how corporations and the jobs they created are exported. If the cost of business is too high, businesses move to where it is more affordable because when humans (or businesses run by humans) are attacked, they either fight or flight. If we want the US to be the greatest job creator in the world, we would have a truly honest government that doesn't tax business at all. A consumption tax, which every person feels in every transaction, is far more honest that waging a war on wealth creation, be it on businesses and individuals.

Why Bureaucracy is Bureaucratic

I keep hearing stories of how much could be saved if government cut this program or that expenditure and am amazed by people who are shocked that the reductions in spending never happen. The reason is simple, while business operates on a "profit motive," government operates on a "spending motive." While saving money and making the most of every dollar makes sense in business, it does not in government when power is measured by how much is spent, how many employees one has, and the size of budgets. Short of getting bonuses for cutting agency budgets, bureaucracies will only grow. That is human nature.

These are just a few of the areas where government defies the laws of human nature. If you see a public policy that does not "make sense," you are likely right. Government rarely recognizes human nature in decision making, which is among the reasons government is out of control.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

See How They Run: The Republican Quest for a Quality Candidate

My first vote in a general election was for Ronald Reagan in 1980 at the ripe young age of 18. Since then I have voted in virtually every primary and general election for which I have had the opportunity. This current Republican lot for President is the east impressive I have seen over the last 27 years and it is also the largest group. This crowd is a mess.

The sheer number of minor league candidates and the weaknesses of the heir apparent (who people would think would be John McCain) almost makes me wonder if the Republican party is in shambles or if they are letting Democrats win in '08 so they can thoroughly mess things up and restore Republican rule for years to come (a possibility in light of how disastrous the Democrat front runners are).

Democrat rule of Congress should empower Republicans and make them optimistic about our prospects. The Majority Leader (Harry Reid) is voting to fund the war and putting our troops at risk and at the same time declaring that we lost and it is over. The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) appears to be breaking the law by representing the US in meetings with tyrants that our State Department has requested she not have communications. The Democrats have failed to govern and has held our legislative process hostage through the pursuit of witch hunts rather than policy changes. Left to their own, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

But the Republicans must offer an alternative and I don't see it in this group. I, personally, am hoping that former Senator Fred Thompson (photo) jumps in this race. He is a solid conservative from the South (crucial in winning Presidential elections), he has wide spread name identification, he isn't "needy" when it comes to the job, and his Hollywood credentials makes it difficult for him to be painted as outside of the mainstream (because he is on the Right). He is spending virtually nothing and is pulling higher numbers than many of the major candidates in the race.

If not Thompson, someone in the current group needs to rise to the top and needs to reflect the best that the Republican Party can offer.

See How They Run: Observations on the First 08 Republican Debate

The first debate is over and the political season is only beginning. I found Thursday's debate interesting on a couple of levels and walked away with numerous opinions. Here are a few of them:

* The minor candidates really need more forums such as this. It allows them to project an image of equality and most of them are as well informed and articulate as the major contenders.

* Two of the major candidates -- Giuliani and McCain -- were harmed by this debate. They were surprisingly rough around the edges, not the person whom you want on a platform with world leaders representing our interests, and simply did not come across as presidential.

* One of the major candidates, Mitt Romney, definitely benefited. He was articulate, smooth, and poised. If anything he was "too much" of those things. But I believe most were impressed.

* I believe the concept of "who won" is largely contingent on who you wanted to win. I really didn't care. Although I know some of the candidates and am old friends with Duncan Hunter (R-CA), I wanted to see who would win. After the debate I notice I had an article open on one candidate on the Internet and another window on his web page. His answers were the only ones I remembered. That was former Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Governor, Tommy Thompson (photo). He was one of the only candidates who was extremely specific on the issues, offered innovative (even memorable) reforms, and seemed to be more interested in policy than politics.

Thompson reminded me of a candidate I supported in 1988, Pete du Pont (the former Republican Governor of Delaware), who offered "damn right solutions" to the problems America faced. I believe he was right then and if we had listened to him then, we would be in a much better situation today. Unfortunately, most people are interested in politics than policy. Personality more than leadership. I don't think Thompson will catch on any more than duPont, 20 years ago.

So who won Thursday's debate? I believe the answer to that is in the eyes of the beholder. I know who I liked, how about you? I would love your comments.

See How They Run: Reagan Impersonators?

The first debate of the Republican candidates for President will be on hallowed ground -- the Reagan Library (image) in California. Ronald Reagan is an icon that was larger than life when living and he casts a huge shadow in death. For 20 years, Republican candidates have tried desperately (and unsuccessfully) to fill those shoes. Tonight, they meet at the Reagan library to debate and I assure you his name will be mentioned early and often.

I have known many of the candidates for years and many are excellent at what they do, but few are even Presidential timber, let alone worthy of being spoken in the same breath as Reagan. The list of candidates include Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Gilmore (former Republican Governor of Virginia), and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. There are a few others that you may have never heard of before. Seriously though, it is a huge list of unheard of candidates and the "big three" (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) appear to be on a roller coaster ride and are having difficulty getting traction.

One of the most popular Republican candidate, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, hasn't even declared he is running and will not be participating in the debate tonight. Described as "Southern Fried Reagan," he has many of the characteristics necessary to win the election. A solid (but reasonable) conservative, Southern (a virtual prerequisite it seems), and high visual and name ID (because of his movie and TV career), many Republicans are waiting for him to jump in.

There is no Ronald Reagan in the lot, even with the entrance of a Fred Thompson. I'm not sure if we will ever see anyone of that stature again. But if the Republican Party is going to be taken seriously, someone like Thompson is going to have to get in this race.

See How They Run: The First in a Series on the 2008 Elections

There are few things that have a bigger impact on a business's bottom line than government. In fact, government is a huge shareholder in virtually every business that takes huge amounts of money without helping a company's performance and actually undermines their productivity through excessive regulations and licensure laws (ask me how I really feel). Therefore, being informed about who is running is crucial in order to make sure that the people that are chosen do as little damage as possible. So over the next two years (can you believe it) I intend to do several articles on some of the dynamics of the race, discuss who is running, and in a very bold move describe very closely the next president even before the first primaries are held. In fact, you should be able to guess who that candidate will be by my description (just wait, I think it will be impressive).

In the posts on this subject that come I will discuss:

* Why they are running so early.

* Do candidates getting started this early weaken sitting incumbants?

* What role race, gender, and religion will play in the election.

* Who each of the candidates are (in both parties) and what their chances of winning.

* The role the Internet will play in these elections (like TV, a largely new media in 1960 destroyed Richard Nixon; the Web is knocking off candidates with tongues that slip and other behaviors).

I'm sure over time that several other items will come up and I would love to hear from others on other issues I should cover. With the possibility of the election of a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Mormon, and who knows what else I am missing, 2008 promises to be a very interesting year indeed. And even if we elect another white guy again this election will be historic because we will not have had an incumbant President or Vice President on the ballot in any Primary. We haven't seen that since 1928.

See How They Run: How Important is Money in a Presidential Campaign?

Clearly money is important, but could it be over rated? Forbes.com seems to think so in a recent article at its website. The article, entitled "Money Doesn't Win Presidential Elections," is built on several assumptions:

1) A truly wide open field. With so many candidates starting this early, there is plenty of opportunity for other players to come onto the scene and change the landscape.

2) The role of the Internet changes everything. The web has become a great tool for raising money and its role should expand in the future. Many who become major fundraisers on the web will not attract people or money in the "real world," however, having an affect on the actual election.

3) Early primaries are forcing candidates to raise money at record levels, especially California's move to February 5th. This state will require big money in order to reach this large population.

4) Faltering front-runners. Candidates that are bringing in the cash and showing strong numbers today could be an after thought before 2007 comes to a close. As candidates start campaigning earlier, more money will come in quicker, having an impact on the previous records. Never have so many people been running for office so early, in the history of the Republic. This cannot help but impact the flow of dollars. The timing of the arrival of those dollars, in particular.

When I think of the power of money, I think of Phil Gramm's failed Presidential campaign of 1996 which brought in a great deal of money and early buzz, but found itself a mere after thought in the end. Money is important, just ask both the candidates with it and those who wish they had it. But money alone doesn't mean instant success in the turbulent world of politics.

Sarah Palin's Odd Move

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shocked the political world by deciding to resign from office by the end of July. The blogosphere is making assessments about her decision based on their opinions of her. If they like her, it is some how "brilliant." If they don't, she is a "complete moron." I want to take this a little deeper.

For disclosure sake, I'm a fan of Gov. Palin. She is the first major political candidate to fully embrace and epitomize Reagan's "3 legged stool" of limited government, pro family, and national security since the Gipper himself. Furthermore, she is the only candidate in years who seems to understand the morality of economics. In fact, in her resignation speech she mentioned that the stimulus package was "immoral" because of its redistributive nature and control it placed on the states. You simply don't hear that from politicians today, but that message is desperately needed.

Now, with that disclosure, I simply don't understand her decision at all. I read her speech several times and watched it as well, and the more I studied it, the less I "got it." With the information I have before us today, I have to come to one of the following conclusions:

• She couldn't stand the heat of constant scrutiny on the family and her and simply needed to get out. This may be noble, but it likely spells the end of a powerful political career. Furthermore, if they can't handle the governorship, they certainly can't handle the White House or even the Senate, where they would deal with the constant questions by the much larger and more hostile cadre of journalists in DC. Than again, she could take a decade off and have her kids much older and she would certainly be young enough to run. She could rightly hope they will forget her resignation, but they will also likely forget her.


• A much bigger scandal that will "stick" is about to come upon her. Palin has been plagued with scandals since August of 2008, about the time she received the GOP nod for VP. None of them have had any staying power and they all appear to be trumped up to discredit her. You get the sense with this announcement, that "the other shoe" is going to drop and it is going to be big.


• She wants a fresh start. Tired of getting exonerated of one scandal to make room for another, she might think this is the best way to create a new beginning. She will be free to travel the country and make large amounts of money as a speaker, accumulate the financial largess to run for higher office and build a name around the country. Barack Obama and George W. Bush were the only Presidential candidates since John F. Kennedy to have a full time job while running for President and get elected. Furthermore, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton were former governors when they ran, making it a great springboard for office. The difference between Palin and these others, were the circumstances of which she left.
  

My concern is that no woman or minority is going to have a prayer dealing with the mainstream media if they are Conservative. The left tries to place these groups on a plantation, stating they would have nothing without liberal policies. This is a very narrow view indeed, but those who break it will suffer.

The jury will be deliberating on this for quite some time. However, she is going to have a difficult time distancing herself from accusations of being unable to finish things, or being scandal plagued, or not tough enough, or several other things that will do nothing to help her case as a GOP front runner.

See Kevin Price's new video commentary on the subject here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Tea Party Members Need to Quickly Harness Their Energies

I was exhilarated by the opportunity to speak in Houston, Texas to thousands (estimated at around 8,000) who came out to defend their freedoms against a government that is spiraling out of control. I saw moms, dads, babies, and grandparents. They were all Americans who are worried about this nation's future and they were among hundreds of thousands who gathered at locations around the country to be heard.

When you address thousands, you don't see individual faces. In my case it was a sea of bodies and signs. I told that group that I was excited to see the "dozens" and maybe even "hundreds" that the media would report showed up to that event. The crowd roared at the humor, but I was not joking, and the Houston Chronicle reported that "hundreds showed up." The article included a video clearly showing thousands and you have to wonder how stupid the media is or how stupid they believe we are.

Although I was inspired, I was also concerned. The vast majority of the people involved in this movement tend to be quite new to the political process who have expectations and agendas that simply will not stand the test of reality. I have been involved in politics since the late 1970s and have never walked far from it in decades. There are others in the Tea Party movement with some experience, but they are few and far between. The vast majority not only lack an understanding of our political process or the most effective means of action, they are proud of their lack of experience and look at people with experience with suspicion (it also doesn't help to have the CNN label behind my name).

After I spoke I was greeted by a young man wearing camouflage and a name tag simply described as "Domestic Terrorist," making fun of Barack Obama's expanded use of the phrase to include anyone who questions the direction this country is going. The young man was fairly bright, full of energy, and has the desire that is needed to help his cause. But how will he tap into it?

I asked him what he was doing in 2010, since that will be an important year if the Party is going to have an impact (because of the need to focus on the Congress). This twenty-four year old agreed and told me he was going to run for Congress. It didn't seem like a great use of time, since there are so many other opportunities going on, but I went along with him. "Where?" I asked. "I live in Stafford, Texas, who ever the Congressman is there." That would be the very newly elected Pete Olson, who shares this young man's beliefs on most issues and is not an "old timer" who simply needs to be kicked out. This wasn't all, this young man wanted all members of Congress, regardless of affiliation or beliefs, to be collectively thrown out. That means that good members would be replaced by bad. I guess the logic is that since there are more "bad" than "good members," I guess they believed you would have the opposite if you simply "cleaned it out." It sounds simplistic, but things like these alone are not the only thing necessary to achieve change.

Many of the thousands of people at these events are like this young men -- well intended, but in a difficult position to help facilitate change. Many, simply don't know the best routes to facilitate a move towards restoring America's values. The most important time in US history may turn out to be 2010. The center of the political universe will be the US Congress and the US House of Representatives in particular. If the Tea Party wants to make a difference, it will have to be focusing on the Congress and it will have to be done in a concerted and organized way.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

See How They Run: Did Hillary Clinton Look Presidential to You?

During the Democratic debate I noticed that Hillary (photo) acted like she was the incumbent holding on to her seat. It was a scary vision of 2012.

Hillary's rise in the polls, her attitude of entitlement that she "earned it," and her vast experience in politics made her simply seem more Presidential in the others. But it was more than that. She acted like she had something to lose. "We are far more alike than we are different," she told the audience and her fellow contenders. She was already making the "vote for me on ability to get elected" case that typically comes much later in the game. I think this strategy may win some. It was really quite convincing, especially when you think of all the times we have seen her in "Presidential settings" over the years.

But for most, I believe it will be a policy that makes her fall on her face. There were 9 candidates on that stage and there was nothing she did in her presentation to make her stand out from the others. In fact, that was her exact strategy. This type of arrogance, "the pride before the fall," will come back to haunt her. A few more presentations like this -- being cool instead of passionate -- will haunt her in the end and I believe we will see it very soon in upcoming polls.

See How They Run: The Potential for Precedent

The 2008 election for President is full of potential firsts. There is the possibility of the first female President with Hillary Clinton, or first African American with Barack Obama, or the first Mormon with Mitt Romney (see photo, left). Clinton and Obama are considered the two Democratic front runners and Romney is considered (barely) in the top tier of Republican candidates.

What are their chances?

* Hillary Clinton isn't likely to win, in my opinion, and many rank and file Republicans hopes she gets her party's nomination in the belief that she will spell defeat for Democrats in November. She is considered one of the most polarizing politicians in the US today. She has the highest negatives (and, ironically, positives) of all the major candidates. Winning the campaign for President is predicated on candidates picking up voters as other candidates pull out of the race. I believe that those who will support her, are largely supporting her now. The defeat of other candidates will find their voters going elsewhere.

* Barack Obama's biggest problem is that he is simply too liberal to be President of the United States. He wants to dramatically increase taxes on wealth creation, he promotes socialized medicine, and he generally behaves as though the US is the single biggest problem on the world scene. Obama is even having problems among African American voters with many from that natural base going to Clinton (thanks largely to the popularity of her husband). I believe Americans are ready for a person of any race, but not this particular African American. This isn't due to skin color, but due to the content of his beliefs.

* Mitt Romney is the most likely of these three candidates to break precedence. The former governor of Massachusetts is getting some harassment because of his Mormon religion, but in the end I think he will over come those objections. Romney is charismatic, comes across as very Conservative (although his positions have evolved over time), and has an excellent family life (very important to the crucial Evangelical voters). There are things in the Mormon theology that should be of concern to the general Christian population. But most Americans, even Evangelical voters, don't study theology. If he looks, acts, and talks like a Christian -- which he certainly does -- he will be embraced by most of them. His beliefs are certainly more attractive to the Conservative base than those of Guiliani or McCain.

In the end, I have my doubts that any of the above are going to pull it off. I believe the next President will probably be a former or sitting Governor and from the West or South. I say this based on the population changes we have seen over the last several decades and the fact that virtually every candidate has fitted that bill since 1960. There are lots of months elections between now and 2008, it should be an interesting race.

2008 Presidential Campaign Update

For several months I have been doing a series of articles called "See How They Run." This is the first time I have mentioned such in this blog since September. I did write a post at RedState on the poor performance of the person whom I thought I supported for President, Fred Thompson. In it I observed:

It was kind of fun at first. Watching Fred Thompson on the sidelines and critically pointing out the weaknesses of others and providing a resounding "I could do better."

Now that he is in the race, it still feels like we are waiting for him to jump in. He did a recent ad that slam dunks Romney on abortion and raised serious concerns about Huckabee's fiscal policies as governor, but as a rule, has done little to ignite conservatives. In fact, he almost seems relegated to hurting conservatives who have been in this race far longer in his efforts to catch up in this competitive niche.

Thompson is going to have to make the case for Thompson and not merely be the critic. Otherwise he will be lucky to be more than a footnote in this race. Also, after watching the debate tonight, it would also help if he memorized his lines. So much for all those years of acting.

So, why the lack of interest on my part in the election? It feels as though it is a forgone conclusion that Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination and I get the impression that none of the Republicans will effectively challenge her. Unless something major happens, the 2008 election could become one of the least interesting in modern history.

Kevin Price Hosts the Houston Business Show Monday through Friday at 11 AM on CNN 650. Read the opinions of the Houston Business Show news team by subscribing to the weekly Houston Business Review newsletter.

WebProNews Internet Winners

WebProNews is weighing in on the 8 biggest Internet winners for 06, and I found the list most interesting and something others might wish to read. I like the list and will only add a few edits. I encourage everyone to go to WebProNews and sign up for their newsletter, it is one of my favorite sources. I tell you how they won me over, great headlines in the subject line works every time. Here's their list. What other winners and losers would you add?

1. Google. Every year for Google has been a breakout year for the eight-year-old company, but 2006 was a blockbuster. Besides adding user-generated video phenom YouTube to its roster for $1.65 billion in stock, Google remained a favorite of Wall Street, with stock catapulting over $500 per share. That spike was more than enough to cover the cost of purchasing YouTube. And then they moved in with NASA.

I couldn't agree more. Google has moved from a site, to a verb (in searches, thus googling), to a legend.

2. YouTube. If Google was a winner just for acquiring YouTube, then YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steven Chen, who created a site and flipped it for major moolah in just a year and a half, without even demonstrating how the site could turn a profit, are the biggest table scrap winners of the year. They still run their company and still got those stock certificates.

YouTube may be the first major television network for the 21st Century. What better place for it to be than online?

3. Broadband. Dialup Internet access has become akin to having outdoor plumbing. In the US, broadband access hit nearly 80 percent of the population. Because people no longer had to begin downloading a large file and then go to dinner while it finished, they spent more time actually enjoying video and audio content on the Web.

Broadband may be number 1, because YouTube and many interactive websites needed this technology to increase the Web's relevance. Without broadband, their would be very little market for dynamic content, in my opinion.

4. Lawyers. Happy days are here again for the corporate attorney. As Internet companies become Web giants, the window for lawsuit, valid or not, frivolous or not, gets a lot bigger. Google settles with advertisers angry over click fraud for $90 million - that's $60 million in advertising credit for the advertiser and $30 million cash for the attorneys who won that case. Yahoo's lawyers are so good, all they had to say was 'sorry about that' and write a check for $5 million to the complainant's attorneys.

Since I'm not a big fan of lawyers, I'll refrain from commenting much, but they have clearly been huge beneficiaries of the legal struggles related to the Web.

5. Social Media. For the end user it's been all about friends' lists, blogs, wikis, amateur videos, vlogging, podcasting, and instant messaging. From the consumer end, it's been a communication bonanza and the official creation of the citizen media. Ideally, the elite and powerful only provide the means by which the people communicate, not control the communication itself, and the people are eating up. And for the professional media, if we hear the words "MySpace" or "YouTube" one more time...

This is obviously huge and as important as the "social" part, is the participatory part, in my estimation. It is being able to influence media that has made such sites so huge.

6. Podcasting. The word "podcast" may have been Oxford's word of the year in 2005, but nobody really knew anything about it until 2006. Now organizations of all types - newspapers, corporations, educational institutions, radio stations, kids - have started their own virtual radio stations. Though Apple made threats to those audacious enough to use the term "podcast," a trademark infringement Apple said, all it took was a tongue-in-cheek one-dollar check to Apple head Steve Jobs to get official approval to podcast at will.

This, too, may be a little low on the list. Podcasting is creating a revolution that is striking fear in the heart of traditional media. People are looking for real, uncensored, and candid media; that typically cannot be done in a government regulated world of media. Traditional media, beware.

7. The Man. In all his incarnations, in government, media, or corporate America,The Man came out far ahead of the rest, even if he were scratched and bruised on the way. The G-Man, and his DOJ minions, strong-armed all the major search engines for their search data and got it, even from Google. Phones were tapped, records were seized, and online gambling, except that which is preferred by The Man, was banned. In China, The Man again forced Google to alter its search results to match the imposed cultural hegemony.

The government certainly was a big winner when it comes to the Internet in 2006, but in the top 8? I doubt it. I personally would put Rupert Murdoch in this spot for his ability to understand the power of the Internet and to transform his massive media empire into a responsive and dynamic media machine. This is being done through his very strategic Internet purchases.

8. The Proletariat. However, The Man hasn't always won this year. Though the telecommunications industry (one of The Man's most powerful front organizations) had Congress wrapped around its green finger, there were enough grass roots to forestall any legislation without meaningful Net Neutrality protections. With a massive Republican defeat in Washington, Net Neutrality has a fighting chance. When AOL tried to impose the equivalent of an email tax, the people revolted and AOL was forced to reconsider. When Britain proposed a blogger code of conduct, again the proletariat told The Man where to shove it. When TV wasn't as entertaining, when news wasn't as neutral or biased as it needed to be, when radio was too censored, and movies were far too polished, the people took the media into their own hands, which makes The Man very, very nervous.

I agree and so does Time Magazine which has called the Web contributor the "Person of the Year." That would be you and me! The world of the media is changing daily (maybe even hourly). Some, like Murdoch, are adapting and over time his traditional media will become a giant support to his Web media (just watch and see). Others are simply dead in the water, like the canal boat industry (no pun intended) that underestimated the power of trains, many in traditional media are still trying to charge for online content or are refusing to make dynamic media available (e.g., videos). Watch many traditional media go on the auction block and sell for cheap in the next few years.

This is a great list, but I would love your comments on this year's winners and losers. I would also like to know which companies or individuals you think will win big in '07.

The Plight of the Protesters

The Tea Party and its many allies are leaving their mark on the political landscape. Approximately two million subdued the nation's Capitol on the weekend of September 11th and tens of thousands have attended events nationwide. Their list of grievances are long, ranging from excessive spending, pork barrel programs, high and counterproductive taxes, bureaucracy, abandonment of common sense when it comes to the environment, and more. Underneath all of these issues, there is the fundamental belief that it is time for the government to do what it is suppose to do. Nothing more or less.

I believe that this group, however, is more sophisticated than those activists of 1994 that led to the US House and Senate being ruled by Republicans for the first time in decades. Millions of Americans were mad at a liberal President (Bill Clinton) and an irresponsible Congress, and found the answer in electing a large number of Republicans. Many of those Republicans went back to work on a slower road to serfdom than their colleagues across the aisle. One in which there was more "thought" in the process, a frequency of detours, but definitely on course towards a command economy.

In 2009 it appears that voters have truly had "enough" and their anger transcends parties. After years of being abused by Democrats and neglected by Republicans, those who consider themselves friends of liberty have grown tired of the "lesser of two evils" and have concluded they are merely the "evil of two lessers." This leads to a serious problem in 2010 because of the temptation to do nothing, since there seems to be very few candidates who are serious about their Constitutional mandate or equally impotent to vote for pure principle candidates outside of the poor choices provided by the "Republicrats." The argument is simple: voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats is an investment into a new, viable, third option. Maybe, but our entire political system makes it very difficult for viable third parties. Furthermore, how much time do we have to spare in light of the current regime and members of Congress? The options for those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, a strong defense, and traditional values are fairly limited:

• Not participate and attempt to blame the left for the direction this country is going. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" quote by Edmund Burke rings true here. Criticism alone is not an option.


• Vote for the most conservative among the two main parties. Again, this tends to feel futile since the vast majorities of these "lesser of two evils" fail to fulfill their constitutional obligations. There has to be a better way.


• I think we should aggressively support the best (AKA constitutionally sound) candidates in primaries and if they fail to get the nomination than support candidates outside of our district monetarily and/or voluntarily if they are close enough geographically.

This approach would have a profound impact on the best candidates, would attract better candidates to run, would provide desperately needed discipline to the GOP, and would have more immediate gain then the approaches above. Unfortunately, in the short run, we may be a political minority, but we will be a minority that matters and one much more politically pure. Instead of trying to make a third party that hasn't work, constitutionally minded people could profoundly impact the GOP and make it relevant again to the majority of voters by simply forcing candidates to obey the constitution they swear to defend. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2010, but those who are concerned about our future do not have the luxury of doing anything that amounts to nothing.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.