The Bob Barr presidential campaign has stated "serious legal consequences" will occur should Senators Barack Obama and John McCain be allowed on the Texas general election ballot after they knowingly missed the state's deadline to file.

According to documents obtained by the Barr campaign, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama complied with Texas Election Code § 192.031, which requires that filings must be submitted “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential Election Day," listing the "names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president."

"The Election Code of the State of Texas imposes requirements on a political party, which must be met if its candidates for president and vice-presidents are to appear on the general election ballot," Russell Verney, Bob Barr's campaign manager stated in a letter sent to the Texas Secretary of State's office. "The Democratic Party and Mr. Obama, and the Republican Party and Mr. McCain, blatantly ignored the Texas statutory deadline."

The deadline, which was set at 5 p.m. on August 26, passed before Sen. Obama was nominated and before Sen. McCain had even selected his running mate.

"The law is clear, and it was clearly not followed," says Verney. "The Texas Supreme Court was emphatic when it stated that the law 'does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines . . .' Senators Obama and McCain did not file by the deadline; therefore, Texas should abide by the laws it created. No political party or candidate is above the law."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Should Libertarians be happy with Sarah Palin, the current Alaskan governor and now Sen. John McCain's running mate in his presidential bid? The gut reaction is yes, Libertarians should be excited about Palin. Palin has a reputation for fighting government corruption, wears fur, shoots guns, eats moose and has earned the respect of our state affiliate in Alaska.

Palin's reputation as a reformer—standing up to politicians in one of the most corrupt states in the nation—appeals strongly to the anti-establishment tendencies of Libertarians. Additionally, she was one of the leading figures in stopping the infamous Sen. Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere."

On the surface, Palin looks like she could be the future of the GOP, especially where McCain fails to live up to the image Republicans hoped to recreate following an embarrassing self-defeat in the 2006 election. Her appeal to the religious right for her strong pro-life stance, and her appeal to fiscal conservatives for taking down the Alaska-regime brighten McCain's prospects in winning the hearts of the GOP base.

But like the permafrost that lies a few inches beneath Alaska's soil, is there a troubling layer to Palin that has yet to be exposed?

McCain's pick of Palin will be the defining moment in the 2008 presidential contest. Like going for two instead of sending the game into overtime, McCain's risky choice will be a make or break decision. While other no-name VP picks have helped, or at least not hurt the presidential tickets, Palin's unknown background may end up turning John McCain into a 2008 version of the McGovern/Eagleton ticket from the '72 election.

Aside from a very calculated attempt to attract a number of different groups McCain has struggled to woo (libertarians, Christian-right, young voters), a Palin pick will seriously stunt McCain's most effective attack on Obama: Lack of experience. Some will say that Palin has more experience than Obama—and admittedly, it's a close call, but even in Obama's limited experience in the Senate he will have gained more practical knowledge of the Executive than Palin would have in her brief time as a city councilwoman, mayor and first-term Governor.

After all, Palin will be spending most of her time presiding over the Senate (someone should tell her this).

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said State Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla.

A Tax Cut Is a Pay Raise *

by Michael Cloud

Which excites you more: a tax cut or a pay raise?

If you're like most people, it's the pay raise.

Why?

Every year, politicians promise you tax cuts. Every year, they promise targeted tax cuts for families like yours. Every year, they promise you relief from high taxes. And every year, your taxes are the same as last year -- or higher.

Which do you dread more: a tax hike or a pay cut?

For most of us, it's the pay cut.

Why?

Tax increases happen all the time. Sometimes they're big. Usually they're small. Sometimes they happen right away. Usually they happen slowly. Sometimes they hit you hard. Usually they hit you, but it's not as bad as you expected.

"Tax cuts" and "tax hikes" don't push most people's buttons the way they used to. They don't light us up or shut us down. The emotional charge is gone.

But "pay raises" and "pay cuts" get their pulses pounding, and their passions surging. People love pay raises. And hate pay cuts.

To bring back the love for tax cuts and the loathing for tax hikes, we need to re-phrase and re-frame the issue. We need to link them and marry them to pay raises and pay cuts.

While every pay raise is not a tax cut, every tax cut IS a pay raise.

While every pay cut is not a tax hike, every tax hike IS a pay cut.

So our job is simple. Tell people the truth. As simple as a bumper sticker.

A tax cut is a pay raise.

A tax hike is a pay cut.

You can make it more specific.

Here's how we are using this concept with our Ballot Question 1 to END the Income Tax in Massachusetts.

"A $3,700 Income Tax Cut is a $3,700 Pay Raise for 3,400,000 Massachusetts
Workers and Taxpayers." ($3,700 is the estimated savings Massachusetts workers and taxpayers when the state income tax is eliminated.)

Or: "This tax cut is a pay raise for your family."

Or: "Tax Cuts = Pay Raises."

You can say it many ways. But keep it simple.

Try it. Test it. And look at your results.

It's not just what you say -- it's how you say it.

It's not just what you propose -- it's how you propose it.

That's why it pays to say:

A tax cut is a pay raise.

A tax hike is a pay cut.