At the pub with a very nearly Libertarian friend of mine

[LittleClarkie]

who is not down with Bush Co. He's closer to Libertarian now than Repub. We talked just after the election when he told me he didn't even make a decision until he was in the booth. He's former millitary, so switching leaders midstream was bothering him.

He said he ended up voting Bush because he was afraid we'd lose soldiers during the transition and if he could save even one life, it would be a good thing. But tonight he said he hated himself for that decision. I told him I respected and honored his decision though I disagreed with it, because I know he'd put his heart into it, voted his gut and was trying to save lives in the field. I tried to console him by saying that it was a 6/half dozen situation: damned if you do, damned if you don't. But he still feels bad about voting for Bush.

The neat thing he said though toward the end was that he'd noticed that Bush and Company were starting to do the things that Kerry suggested. And he said "Good!" because ultimately he thought that Kerry probably would have done a better job.

The thing that struck me about the exchange was that it was exactly what Kerry's been saying in the last couple of days as far as why people voted for Bush, and also that Bush and Company was starting to take his advice, (though they'd never admit it.)

Let it be known that my Conservative veteran friend agrees with him.

[ginnyinWI]

1. some who I talked to during the last part of the campaign

were saying the same: you can't change horses midstream. People who weren't paying attention really didn't know what a disaster Bush had made of the war. They heard the Bush and Rummy soundbite lies and were satisfied with that. It will take a long time for the real truth to percolate down to them, I'm afraid.

Libertarians are conservatives who want less governmental interference in their lives. It seems hard to see how they can be on the same side with the neocons, whose goal is to have more and more power to promote their agenda of world domination. I suppose it's because that agenda is kept hidden from the average repub.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Thing is this guy is not really on their side

and he WAS paying attention. Even so, the transition scared him to death. He was afraid we'd lose soldiers in the transition, and he didn't want to feel responsible for that. If he could save one soldier's life, he said, he'd feel like he did the right thing.

But he's still upset. He hated that vote for Bush. He hated Ashcroft, and is glad he's gone. He voted in a direction he is not happy about, but as former military he felt he had to. He said he couldn't decide what the hell to do until he was staring at the ballot. Sounds like he agonized that vote. Sorta like Kerry and the IWR. So I can respect the vote even if I disagree.

[ginnyinWI]

3. yeah, the ones I most resent are the one who

voted out of habit for repubs, or for some other knee-jerk reaction reason, like the abortion issue. To me that is immoral irresponsibility--to just vote for the first reason that comes to mind. That's why I'm not for the idea of requiring everyone to vote--far from it! People won't inform themselves--they will just vote thoughtlessly. I wish people would only vote if they know what they are voting for!