Libertarian Librarian

Please note how I say "Our." I'll grant that the whole idea of running a third candidate with little or no funding, little or no organization, and without the knowledge or consent of said candidate is pretty nutsy. But, if it's going to be anything at all, even just an interesting thought experiment, we need to settle on one person with as many folks on the bandwagon initially as possible. Which is why I keep ixnaying tc's candidacy-- well, on top of possibly messing up his wa. I'd feel really guilty about that.

So, to date my favorite is Tagliabue, but I'm not married to that choice (which is good, since that'd be illegal in a goodly chunk of the country). On Thursday, the discussion roamed over the possibility of choosing a Supreme Court Justice. An interesting thought. They all come with some name recognition (though, can you name all 9 without looking? I only got 6. I missed Stevens, Souter and Breyer), and they have connections with, yet are still separate from, the Washington power structure. O'Connor was suggested, but I don't know that she'll work-- she'll be 78 in '08. Scalia would be okay with me, but I suspect he might not sit well with liberals (even moderate ones), and he's only 6 years younger than O'Connor. Thomas is a non-starter, I don't think I could vote for Ginsburg, Rehnquist is obviously off the table, and Stevens is already in his 80s. Which leaves Kennedy, Souter or Breyer. Kennedy is the same age as Scalia (70 next year), but otherwise works for me (though I'll admit I don't know that much about him), Souter is okay, though I suspect too liberal for many conservatives, and he's only 67 (though nearly 70 in '08), and Breyer is even more liberal than Souter (and a year older). So maybe none of these guys work, but its an interesting alternative.

Any feedback, folks?

Labels: Politics