This is still a politician I can like.

Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, continues to impress me. Not only does he seem to be a nice guy but, for a politician, he seems to have his head screwed on right. I met him several months back and while I didn't agree 100% with him, I was in basic agreement much of the time—something that doesn't happen often. He seems far more libertarian than Ron Paul, and certainly much more libertarian than the seed of Ron's loins, Randall Paul.

I later heard Johnson speak to a tea party group and lecture them on why, if they are interested in freedom, they have to oppose the war on drugs. It was a pleasure to watch these Right-wing bigots squirming in their seats. A handful of libertarians in the audience applauded enthusiastically but most the tea baggers sat on their hands, looking glum and waiting for the next speaker to bash Mexicans so their hearts would start beating excitedly again. Given the general age of the audience Mexicans may be more effective than a pacemaker at keeping them alive. I do suspect that absent the "brown menace" these people would find the "gay threat," or "the Jew conspiracy," or the "Illuminati" to rile them up. Imaginary threats are so much nicer than real ones.


Now Gov. Johnson has come out on the immigration issue. He's not as hard core on the matter as I am, but for one given to having to deal with political compromises, he supports a fairly decent position, and one that moves in the right direction. He also has some unkind words for the Nativists on the Right who are in frothing at the mouth over Mexicans. (I should note that Right-wing racism alone would be insufficient to whip hysteria about immigrants and that the matter is also pushed by left-wing labor unions who are ignorant about job creation and believe immigrants "steal our jobs.")

In a recent newspaper interview Johnson chided his fellow Republicans who say they want to cut government spending yet are hyped up over the war on terror and the war on Mexican gardeners.

"But when you listen to the rhetoric they all seem to want to stay engaged on the war on terror at an unlimited cost and they're all now talking about securing the borders when they don't seem to have any idea how much that would actually cost," he said. "Although the rhetoric sounds good, the reality of what they're saying really isn't going to reduce spending."

The Santa Fe New Mexican wrote:

In his travels he's learned that immigration is the "hot-button issue d'jour" across the country, he said. "Secure our borders?" Johnson asked rhetorically. "What's the cost? What's the benefit? ... I just don't think it's practical to put the National Guard arm-in-arm across 1,600 miles of border."

As for the idea of deporting illegal immigrants — as advocated by many of his fellow conservatives — Johnson said that in practice mass deportations "is just going to add to the insanity of spending and it's not gong to have any positive impact."

Johnson said there were more illegal immigrants in the U.S. back when he was governor. "When I was governor, I asked for a cost-benefits analysis. Are we paying out more than we're getting in, given the fact that (immigrants) do pay taxes — income tax, Social Security, Medicare. Immigrants who have used false documents to get work don't collect tax refunds, Johnson said. His administration determined that the state got more tax revenue from illegal immigrants than the state was paying out in benefits.

Johnson said he doesn't like the harsh tone he's heard in the immigration debate. "At an event the other night and some guy says, 'What we need are A-10s flying low across the border ... guns blazing.' " Johnson said. "I said, 'Really? You want to kill the immigrants? ... We are on different pages here. We really have a serious disagreement about this.' " But a couple of minutes later, Johnson said, the man apologized and said he didn't mean what he said. He said such emotional reactions to the problem "have to do with the notion that (immigrants) are taking away jobs from U.S. citizens."

Pretty good stuff, though I did find myself shaking my head at the dumbth of the reporter for referring to Johnson as a conservative. When will these morons learn? The paper also noted that Johnson says that if you want to weaken drug cartels operating out of Mexico then you should legalize marijuana—which is a good beginning, but just the beginning.

If the Republican Party ran more candidates like Gov. Johnson it would have long term viability. Right now the GOP relies on a dwindling group of rabid fundamentalists as their base. This means they have given up minorities of all kinds: gays, Hispanics, and the young most prominently. It also means they have to rely on people hating the Democrats more. The largest group of voters are independents and they don't find themselves drawn to the Republicans as much as they are disgusted by the Democrats. Barack Obama is campaigning for the GOP full time. Both parties merely give voters reasons to vote for the other party. So Johnson is a nice change of pace, he is someone who gives you reasons to vote for someone, and not just against them.

I find I can even like a Republican—sometimes.

There are two species that I have not been overly fond of: politicians and Republicans. So it is not highly likely that I would have some positive things to say about a Republican politician who is NOT "officially" running for President, which, in political newspeak, means he is running for President. But I do have some good things to say about one of them. That one is Gary Johnson the former governor of New Mexico.

Recently I was invited to a small get-together of people with Johnson. I listened with interest. And while Johnson isn't exactly where I'm at politically, he seemed to consistently be "almost there" on most issues. I am happy to attribute the "not quite" there views as necessary concessions in the political marketplace. Johnson is almost libertarian across the board. In that sense I think he is far superior to Ron Paul, who was clearly unlibertarian in several ways.

Johnson, for instance, says on immigration: "Fences don't work and won't work." Ron voted for the wall on the border. Johnson wouldn't go as far as I would on immigration but his view isn't bad. He wants to make it easier to "document workers" coming to the US, make it easier to come and doesn't like throwing out people who have lived here and established a life for themselves as productive individuals. I'd go farther but this is a damn good start.

In 1988 Ron Paul was "personally" against abortion but didn't campaign for state control, something he changed views on when he last ran for office (as he changed his positions on immigration as well). Johnson says he is personally opposed but "the decision is best left to the individuals involved." I can live with that as well.

Republicans go bonkers on war. Johnson says he is against the war in Iraq and opposed it as governor. He says that the "should resort to military action only as provided for in the Constitution." Again, I can live with that—and so could billions of other people.

I told Johnson that there are three issues that divide libertarians from conservatives in the current political debate: drugs, immigration and equality of rights for gay people. So I put him on the spot about the one he had not addressed that evening. He immediately said he would support civil unions for gay couples. Again, that is about 80% there. But compared to other candidates, a consistent 80% there on issues is pretty damn good.

I asked him about the Defense of Marriage Act and his first inclination was to oppose repeal. I mentioned the law denies equal rights in ways that libertarians ought to be concerned. The father of our host for the evening asked me to clarify. So I pointed out the obvious case that a heterosexual American can marry a non-citizen and bring their spouse to America to live with them but that gay Americans are denied that right by law. Johnson didn't seem to realize that was the case and that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented a policy of equality. But he was a governor not a federal legislator so I can excuse that lack of awareness. Johnson immediately said he may have spoken too soon and said what I mentioned, "just doesn't seem fair." Hey, that's a better answer than you can get out of Ron Paul or Bob Barr.

But his immediate rethink tells me he is someone who has basic principles down and if new information is provided is open to reconsidering his views.

Interestingly Johnson gets a point I've made in this blog several times. Recently I argued the election of Brown in Massachusetts was not an endorsement of Republican views, anymore than the election of Obama was an endorsement of nationalized health care or Obama's views. Only a few days ago Johnson told the Union Leader in New Hampshire that it would be a "a mistrake for Republicans" to view the Brown victory "as some sort of mandate." He said all voters were doing was showing "a real disgust with those in office. It isn't a shift to Republicans. It's just, 'Get whoever's in there out." That is barely different than what I said.

As governor Johnson vetoed 750 different pieces of legislation that crossed his desk. Compare that to Dubya who never met legislation that he didn't like. As governor of New Mexico Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined. That reminds me of the joke about what do you call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea: a good beginning. I don't know how many laws Johnson didn't veto but 750 is a good beginning.

While I was unimpressed with the Ron Paul of 2008, and only moderately happy with the Ron Paul of 1988, I feel a bit more comfortable with Johnson. I'm not comfortable enough to give an unqualified endorsement—I doubt I ever would be. But I am comfortable enough to say he deserves some attention by individuals who, like myself, believe in less politicial interference in markets as well as in the social sphere. If you are sick and tired of the Ayatollahs from evangelicalism running, and ruining, the Republican Party then Gary Johnson may be the man for you, especially if you still want someone who understands the need for free markets and low taxes.

I am 90% confident, based on the conversation with Johnson, that he will be running for president. He can't declare his candidacy now because of the way the government regulates his group, Our America. But it appears, like most other issues, that when it comes to official declaring his presidential ambitions he's 80% of the way there. And that's also good enough for me. Give him some thought.

Photo: Yes, that is Johnson. The snow gear was necessary since this is him recently climbing Mt. Everest. When he wants to do something, he does it. And he does want to run for president.