I've mentioned the Texas Libertarian several times, because he says a couple of things that interest me, and I love that he's not a cookie-cutter candidate. He says what he thinks, period.

This is, of course, what I've been militating for, and my chief justification against Clinton, that she wouldn't speak her mind even if she were being water-boarded.

But this blog entry, from Mike Garafalo at Green Options, spells out, for me, why candidate candor, if a very high priority for me, can't be the only criterion. Just as I feel that being a feminist requires me not to support a woman if my only or chief justification is that she's a woman, I don't feel bound to support someone with anathemic ideas, just because at least he's telling me the truth.

Pro-coal, pro nuclear, pro-drilling in Alaska, anti-carbon tax — all in the name of liberty. God bless him, but keep him outa the White House! I dunno what I'd do if it was him against Clinton.

BTW, the only good thing on the bullet list is that he opposes subsidies to corn producers in support of ethanol. At least there's that.