[Competent adult’s name here] for president!

Whether we’re ready or not, the presidential race is now in full swing.

President Obama has launched his re-election bid, and Republican contenders have begun forming their exploratory committees, which will lead to official announcements in the weeks to come.

Now that we’re about to see the Republican field duke it out for the nomination, it’s time to consider what kind of candidate we’re hoping to see emerge as the main challenger to the president.

So far, I’ve been unimpressed with most of the likely candidates.

Hopefuls such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and billionaire celebrity Donald Trump have pandered to the birther crowd instead of focusing on legitimate reasons for challenging the president.

Numerous others have kept up the pro-war drumbeat that dominated the party in recent decades instead of returning to the non-interventionism championed by the GOP of the early and middle 20th century.

None of the major candidates have indicated a willingness to stop the crusade for discrimination against gays, and no major candidates have yet shown any willingness to consider ending our wasteful, destructive war on drugs.

Nevertheless, there are a few glimmers of hope, supplied mostly by second and third tier candidates who will need some big breaks if they want to have a chance against the party establishment.

The most electable of this bunch is probably still-unsure-about-running Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has proposed that Republicans call a truce on social issues until we have dealt with our immediate and pressing economic problems.

His obvious and sincere focus on the issues that really matter, along with his solid economic and fiscal record as governor, make him the kind of Republican who could not only win broad support from voters but also gain the cooperation of congressional Democrats on some major initiatives.

A likely candidate who may be poised for a breakout year is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose non-interventionist stance on foreign policy could change the direction of GOP politics and gain massive support from war-weary voters who have found Obama’s continuation of Bush-era foreign policy disappointing.

Although many will write him off because he never broke into the top tier in the 2008 race, it should be noted that positions which Paul was practically laughed off the stage for last time — from ending (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve to opposing renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act— are now widespread among GOP senators and congressmen.

Finally, a nearly unknown but probable candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, has caught my attention for having what appears to be an even more consistently pro-liberty set of positions than Rep. Paul, the GOP’s best-known libertarian. Unlike Paul, Johnson, who governed his predominantly Democratic state for two terms from 1995 to 2003, supports abortion rights and opposes new restrictions on immigration.

Given the current sorry state of the front-runners in this nomination fight, I hope one of the above leaders will soon make some gains. I’d like to see this president challenged by someone who would focus on what’s important while also protecting our liberties.

­— jarlower@indiana.edu