A viable independent candidate with a rational economic policy would be nice, but what we really need are candidates for the House and the Senate with rational economic policies.

But I'm not holding my breath.

What needs to happen is that the governments at all levels need to get out of most markets.

Why is the government imposing a tax on any arrows in the first place?

Ant then every time someone proposes new legislation -- ask "Where is it in the Constitution?"

"The best is the enemy of good enough". We're not going to get Barry Goldwater any time soon, and right now the choice is between the O and Romney. Bad as he is, I don't see Mitt being worse than what we've got right now.

As for his failure to distinguish amongst the 47%, he was at a fund raiser, not engaging in a philosophical discussion. I don't think we can conclude too much about his thinking from what amounts to an elongated sound-bite. At least I hope not:-/.

Jason makes sense. While we don't have a Regan clone to vote for, Romney is a far superior candidate to replace Obama. Remember, with Obama we may have elected the North American version of Salvador Allende. Giving this thug a second term is out of the question.

"While we don't have a Regan clone to vote for, Romney is a far superior candidate to replace Obama."

Not that it will make any difference. Here's my prognostication: The President will be re-elected, and fairly comfortably, too.

At this point I look at it as 12 or 18 months before the collapse.

If it is Obama we have 12. If it is Romney it is 18.

Gary Johnson is a successful entrepreneur (built a small handyman business into a large enterprise), and as a GOP governor of New Mexico, left the state with a budget surplus. His VP, Jim Gray, is a combat veteran, ex-prosecutor, and judge who's written the excellent book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed". Both of them support responsible spending and bringing the troops home.

This is about as viable as a third-party ticket gets - it's not like these are some fringe candidates with no relevant experience. http://www.change.org/petitions/american-voters-allow-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-to-be-part-of-the-presidential-debates

"Think about Romney's perverse logic here: He disparaged people as "dependent" for not owing income taxes. Many of these people are retired and living off the life savings they earned. "

What's perverse about it? If a retiree is living off of an IRA or a 401K, they certainly are paying taxes; they have to pay taxes on the fund earnings as they withdraw it. Otherwise, if they aren't paying any income taxes, they are probably also claiming the earned income tax credit. At the very least, the proverbial family of four is claiming tax exemptions and deductions on the children. If that's not a subsidy, then the mortgate interest deduction isn't a subsidy either. A reasonable argument can be made that the income tax system should subsidize the raising of children to an extent, but let's not pretend that it's something other than what it is.

The point is that no one should enjoy the benefits of citizenship without any skin in the game, as they say. Even if it's just a nominal amount, everyone who earns money should have to pay some income tax, to remind them that nothing the government provides is free. Back when I was working nights and weekends in a restaurant for $2.65 an hour, and my monthly pay was barely enough to stay ahead of the rent, I still had to pay income tax. So I'm lacking in sympathy.

Unfortunately, I'm convinced we will see a "viable independent candidate with a rational economic policy " about the same time my unicorn ranch opens. Voting for President, at least for most of my voting life, has been choosing which of the candidates is less awful.

Unicorn ranch?

Get to work.

We're running out.

Jim P writes ""At this point I look at it as 12 or 18 months before the collapse.

If it is Obama we have 12. If it is Romney it is 18.""

Then the best option is to vote for 18 months.

Mitt Romney is a bad candidate. However, I'm not sure that means he'd be a bad president.

Obama was a great candidate. And look where that got us.

We don't treat the presidential campaign as the job interview that it really is.

Romney has practical experience successfully running several organizations. He balanced the budget and left Massachusetts better than he found it (the legislature overrode his six line-item vetoes on RomneyCare's expanded entitlements).

He may be one of those people who's lousy at public speaking, schmoozing, and campaigning - but once in the captain's chair, quite capable of running the ship.

I've known a few executives like that; they're lousy a small talk or at relating to groups of people - but sharp, quick on the uptake, and quite capable of quickly and smartly analyzing a deluge of information and making decisions.

We're not hiring a spokesmodel or a national daddy. We're hiring a president. It's time we remembered that.

Gary Johnson is hands down the sharpest and best candidate the Libertarians have ever run and I wish this election were one in which he could do well; but a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

=========================

The Libertarians need to concentrate on running some local candidates. Get some serious people in the state legislatures who can eventually run for a higher profile office. Let them then run for a House seat and maybe even a Senate seat; or a governor's seat. Build some credibility with some sharp, experienced people in Congress and the governors' offices.

Let people ask why that Libertarian is not running for president, rather than why he is.

Why does your vote for Gary Johnson depend upon Obama solidly taking California?

Then the best option is to vote for 18 months. -- TW at September 21, 2012 1:48 PM

Trust me -- I'm voting for Romney. I'd love to vote for Johnson but I'm in one of the swing states.

• QEIII is starting.
• Obamacare takes off next year.
• The Bush tax rates go away Jan 1.
• Alpha Natural Resources, which possesses the world’s third-largest supply of coal, will cut 1,200 workers and close 8 mines.
• China is rioting.
• Greece is broke and the austerity measures are not working.
• The EU is running out of money.
• The U.S. government is borrowing money to run the alphabet soup. The tax revenue is barely covering the interest on the debt, the entitlement spending and the military.
• U.S. Manufacturing is at its lowest point ever.
• The middle east is burning.
• There is no technological bubble that can really bail us out like the dot com increase. Short of someone coming up with a cheap power source like cold fusion, etc. or hitting a trillion gallons of petroleum source there is no technology that will really help.
• There is no one that can bail the U.S. out.

What Conan and Jim P just said.

Not a fan of Romney, but with OBama's relationship with Jarrett (connected to the Muslim Brotherhood), and his drone kill list (and ham fisted proclivities for executive orders when he cannot get what he wants done in congress) I'll go for the competent businessman.

Romney had Obamacare. Ryan voted for TARP. Make no mistake, these guys are Keyensians but no where near as overzealous as that Bed-wetter-sorry-excuse-for-a-human we got there now.

Patrick, I guess what she's saying is that if Obama looks like he will win California easily (which currently appears to be the case), she will vote for Johnson as a protest vote. In the unlikely event that California could swing, I assume she'll vote for Romney.