Boring. Saw him in a debate and Ron Paul looked more presidential.

And too anti-military for President.

Would like him on the Supreme Court, or running the Justice Department though.

If you wish to know who the press fears might be a real challenge to Obama just look at who they either savage (Bachman) or ignore (Johnson). The press wants another McCain or Dole, someone who will lose graciously. This is why they are so easy on Romney and Huntsman. They both fit the mold of the gracious loser.

We can't let them pick our candidate like they did in 2008. Four more years of Obama would make the damage irreparable.

We can always write him in...

to the person who wrote he is anti military and boring

that was his first national debate ever and was asked dumb questions like what his reality show would be called when all the other candidates were asked real questions, that was clearly done to make him look bad

he is most certainly not anti military, he is however anti nation building... do some research on him and you will see that

he has the best record of all candidates running it would do this country some good if people would do their own research and stop letting the media decide who should be worthy of listening too

I like him. Not sure he is electable. He is not a manly type man. You can survive that as a democratic candidate, but not not likely as a republican one.

I could be SO wrong on that, but it was my impression after seeing the debate with him a few months back.

I thought Cain was more electable.

Also, for a conservative, he comes from one of the most regulated states in the nation - with the least amount of individual and economic freedoms.

That does not mean that he holds the same propensities, I would just be really interested in seeing if he had been able to do everything he wanted to do as NM gov., what would it have looked like?

Legal use of pot? Okay, but what else? That is a pretty dark blue you have there, govenah...what's that all about?

http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011

(I mean, I was surprised to see Alaska has these same restrictions too...but I am thinking these are more environmental and Oil land lease stuff, but that is an assumption.)

Bottom line, what does "freedom" look like to a governor coming out of California, Hawaii, New Mexico..... and is that enough?

feebie, you cannot compare new mexico and california. California is a lost cause and will be insolvent within 4 years. Most of new mexico's restricitions are based upon trying to maintain santa fe and surrounding areas tourism.

I have never heard of this guy, but will follow him more closely now, as he definitely doesn't fit either party's mold, which to me is a huge plus.

I realize California is a difficult one to compare (as I noted above with Alaska and its restrictions) to other states - but if you look at the map, all I am saying is that if there is someone running for president who managed as gov one of those states...I want to know WHY it is still so damn, blue.

Good to know about the tourism. I didn't say I didnt like the man, or that I wouldn't vote for him...just that not sure he is electable.

Feeble, good point, but who would have that the moron in the white house now was electible? This guy has a message the middle class wants to hear

I agree with the comment above:

Let's not have the media pick our candidate for us.

Guys, it's August... 2011!

Guys, it's August... 2011!

Keep in mind that McCain became the frontrunner after New Hampshire and sealed the nomination after Florida, whose primary next year may take place the first week of March. As unpleasant as it is to think about these things so far in advance of the general election, this nomination may be decided before winter ends.

If so, it's your fault, Stephen.

Of course, New Mexico is a state up to its eyeballs in federal lard. They get back $2 for every $1 they send to DC.

Yea, yeah, let's cut federal spending.

I don't see why we're discussing this.
Rick Perry is going to be the next president.
Well... at least he's good looking.

Of course, New Mexico is a state up to its eyeballs in federal lard. They get back $2 for every $1 they send to DC.

BOTU, The federal government owns 42% of New Mexico. So, a big chunk of the money you're quoting goes to land management expenses and any operations being conducted on that land.

And your statistic only counts income tax. It doesn't count mineral rights monies and other revenue from federal lands. Nor does it make any allowances for percent of the state that is federally owned or the cost/extent of federal operations on that land.

Your constant quoting of misleading statistics is getting tiresome. As are you.

Oh, sunnnnnnnn-napp!

While I generally agree with his positions, I find that "He understands that an adventurist foreign policy, as well as being expensive, diminishes domestic liberty" is a lot more like an un-established belief than something one "understands".

Adventurist (itself a term of abuse, by the way) foreign policy need not diminish domestic liberty - and indeed, it's not all clear how it has, at all, possibly ever.

It might be expensive (indeed, it is). It might be a bad idea. It might (though it's not remotely certain depending on your strain) violate fundamental Libertarian principles*.

But it's just not so that it "diminishes domestic liberty" in and of itself, except in the trivial sense of increasing taxation.

Trivial, not because that doesn't matter, but because it then becomes not "active foreign policy makes us un-free because of something about active foreign policy", but "all state spending makes us less free".

Which is true, at least in the margins - but not super-important, especially since we have to consider cost:benefit analysis.

(I'm a lot less "free" in that sense under my ideal than under a Rothbardian pseudo-anarchy. And I wouldn't even trade what we have NOW for a Rothbardite "paradise"...)

(If he has some idea as to how an active foreign policy specifically and specially makes us less free... I don't see it. Simply contrasting "republic" with "empire" is mere cute language games.

Frankly, if he thinks intervening in Iraq is making the US an "empire" he's abusing the language. Empires establish puppets and take tribute, which is damn near the opposite of what the US has done and does.)

Also, I see I forgot my footnote above, so here it is.

(* Libertarian philosophy, in general, says nothing at all about what foreign policy should be.

Some assume it must be non-interventionist, typically (in my experience) because they handwave the non-interference principle into something that applies to States rather than individuals.

My version is, as one might have guessed, rather more open to the introduction of the use of force against States that deserve it.

[One of the few things I'll nod to Rand about is the idea that a despotic state is inherently illegitimate and deserves no respect at all, and indeed it's a mitzvah to liberate its populace - as well as good housekeeping, since despotic states tend to cause chaos.]

YMMV, of course, but I like to remind people that the core principles of libertarian philosophy are basically silent on foreign policy and the relations between States.)

Holy crap. This guy actually looks good. I'm sending a donation.

Conan-
I find the federal rural lard train tiresome.
Please check stats at Tax Foundation, a very conservative outfit.

Rural districts and states are pinko lard-snufflers. Our rural citizens are the most molly-coddled, subsidized, knock-kneed economic weaklings on the planet.

They should walk around in pink panties with douche-bag hats.

"They should walk around in pink panties with douche-bag hats."

So we can send them your way when they ask, right?

Yeah, Johnson is boring and he sounds like he's stoned to the bejesus belt half the time -- but why do we want an "exciting" president anywho? I don't know if I'd vote for him, but what's the harm in having him try to debate the other freakazoids?

Illegal drugs treated as health issues rather than criminal issues sounds interesting, which I think that's where Johnson stands on the matter. Sounds like he did a decent enough job as governor. Hell if I know.

On the other hand, folks from New Mexico shouldn't be allowed anywhere near America's capital city.

Please check stats at Tax Foundation, a very conservative outfit.

I did. Perhaps you should check them.

The spending in question includes "...salaries, grants, military pay, government contracts and Social Security payments."

But no adjustments for federal ownership or operations by state. If the federal government wants to own 87% of Nevada, 68% of Alaska, and so on, it's gonna have to pay for it.

By the way, BOTU, Kentucky's pretty high on that list. According to Free Republic, the Bluegrass State gets $1.51 in federal "lard" for every $1.00 it pays. But I'm sure you've paid your share of that "lard" back.

Our rural citizens are the most molly-coddled, subsidized, knock-kneed economic weaklings on the planet.

Does that include the bodily-function-obsessed, molly-coddled rural citizens in Kentucky whining about how molly-coddled our rural citizens are?

You're buzzed on opium, every last one of you little mothers.

(Does anyone remember, without looking, which was the first month of 1992 in which Bill Clinton, having humiliated himself in the 1988 convention, first exposed his proud new erection?)

Aha!!!!

Aha. Gotcha.

> Kentucky's pretty high on that list

Suh-HUH-nuh-AAAAAPPPPP.

(I'm pretty sure he spends time in Thailand for the reasons you think he does as you read these words.)

'Saw him in a debate and Ron Paul looked more presidential.'

Well, we already know what electing on 'looks' and 'charisma' gets for us...Clinton, Obama....

I'm glad you called him to our attention. I had no idea who he was before now, and he seems to have his shit together. Unfortunately we tend to gravitate toward the characters (or should I say caricatures?). I'd love to see this guy in the running.

Thanks, JonnyT...and let's spread the word about him.

I like Gary Johnson. I don't think he has a chance.

And Crid is right about things now not mattering (though I suspect it will matter some when Rick Perry declares shortly).

Just sayin', we shouldn't be so eager to hate the next President that we fail to hate this one with due vehemence.

It's Tuesday now... But if you remember one thing about your President's behavior yesterday (during the Dow's sixth-deepest plunge in history), remember this. And this may cauterize the memory.

"This is not an issue of credit rating, the United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So, there is zero probability of default" ~Greenspan

This is true, but the problem is that devalues the dollar at a time when it is already weak.

Now I do believe Germany tried to do something similar to pay off its war indemnity after WWI ended, print alot of devalued marks to pay off the debt, debtors love weak currency because they can pay off their debts with it much more easily. Look what happened with that.

The problem though is that weak currency discourages investment and internal savings as well as reduces product demand because people with money can now buy much less with the same amount than they previously could.

We won't default, we'll just make our currency into toilet paper. Great job Mr. President.

during the Dow's sixth-deepest plunge in history

What seems utterly bizarre is that treasuries were up yesterday, when one might expect big institutional investors to be fleeing them. I've read some speculation that part of yesterday's big sell off was due to some big hedge funds getting hit with margin calls (many were long financial stocks, which got creamed yesterday. MA fell off a cliff at the end of the day).

Good piece by Felix Salmon, with some useful advice:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/08/buy-stocks-sell-bonds/

Faced with all this, what’s an individual investor to do? The first best answer in all such situations is always the same: nothing. Times of high volatility and market panic are a great time to go off to the beach and try to forget about your retirement portfolio — you want a clear head and a long-term horizon, rather than an obsession about what markets did today.

That said, however, one strategy might make sense, given what’s happened to stock and bond markets of late: a simple portfolio rebalancing. What’s your ratio of stocks to bonds? If you had it where you wanted it a few months ago, then right now, with stocks down and bonds up since then, you’re likely overweight bonds. So sell some bonds (they’re very expensive, thanks to all this panic), and buy stocks with the proceeds, until you’re back to your optimal asset allocation.

> treasuries were up yesterday

That lunacy had been anticipated.

Nonetheless, stocks are still up a third from the day Barry took office.

If Johnson's a libertarian on social issues, his chances in the Republican Party are quite limited, because so many Republican voters these days are socially conservative. That point was driven home to me last week while vacationing in the South.