McCain: "I am a proud conservative liberal Republican." (VIDEO)

ABC News ^

[PA-RIVER]

McCain may win, as he is leading in the polls again.

It may not be a bad thing. He may “snuff” the last two members in the axis of evil before they nail us. p>

[Defiant]

I don't know about you, but I was against Perot from the beginning. He was more a populist than a conservative, and I have always been a conservative. After a while, it became clear he was a loon, too.

What we need is a conservative with Perot's money.

[PA-RIVER]

The next big moment will be McCain giving his speech at the convention. Plenty of mops on hand to clean up the vomit.

[Blogger]

I don’t think he can beat Barry. Hillary, yes. Not Barry. The euphoria surrounding that campaign defies logic. As such, logic won’t appeal to the masses wrapped up in Obamamania.

[garylmoore]

John, hate to tell you but conservative and liberal mix like water and oil.

[Secret Agent Man]

See, no matter how hard you try to repress the truth, it finds a way to come out.

The only other thing I’d point out is that notice how incredibly ridiculous someone sounds when they try to be ALL things to ALL people (proud conservative liberal republican). Appealing to the gays, the libs, the conservatives, and the rest of the republicans at the same time. Big mouthful there.

[SAJ]

''And I am the ve-ry mo-del of a mo-dern Ma-jor Ge-ne-ral''.

Two-year campaigns for President are designed to have MORE, not less, influence from the slime-bag and/or drive-by media.

I'll probably vote for McQueeg (gasp!). At least he's not an outright Marxist as are both Hitlery and Osamabama.

[JoJo Gunn]

Vote for McCain the RINO. At least you'll fool yourself into having a clear concience.

 

[IIntense]

I'll vote for McCain, but I'm not liking it.

I'll probably do the same though he doesn't represent me. This can't be the only time in American presidential elections that citizens don't want any of the candidates. Or is it? I'm not a history buff.

There have to be many basically conservative people in this country who would highly qualify as it's leader. Yet, witnessing the scrutinization and publication of every mistake someone has made in their life may be enough for them to decide: "Who needs it. I don't."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

He's the republican nominee, that doesn't have anything to do with conservatives.

BUMPED for The Truth!!!

[Republican Wildcat]

If that’s true then why did he get out before Florida?

[Republican Wildcat]

Yup, vote Whig, don’t throw your votes away on those upstart anti-slavery fanatics.

Quite an invalid argument. The GOP was never a third party. It was a major political party from its beginning - there were no more national Whig candidates. It had a very strong electoral showing in its first Presidential contest in 1856 and won in 1860, and continued to win the next several.

[Man50D]

Great idea, third party candidates always win elections.

You're assuming there are two parties. The GOP has moved so far to the left that it has aligned it's political ideology with the Socialist Democrats to the point where they have become one party. Another party would be a second party.

[Man50D]

That would be incredibly stupid. If such a party ever got off the ground, all it would do is hand the entire government over to the Democrats — permanently.

It would be incredibly naive not to realize the GOP started that process a long time ago as evident by the Socialist Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006 because the GOP has been intent for several years to expand the voter base by including those who are not Conservative.

Think about it this way. Conservatives could not even prevail in the Republican Party (this time around), so how in the world are they going to prevail against both the Democrats *and* Republicans?

Trust me I have thought about it for a long time. Conservatives would prevail because they would be separating themselves from the increasingly Socialist GOP.

Now, if only we could get the radical Leftists to splinter from the Democrats and form their own party! Unfortunately, even *they* are not *that* stupid.


You don't realize the socialist Democrat party is the radical left and instead of the GOP standing up to them they continually try to reach out to Socialists all in the name of "compromise", "bipartisanship" and "compassionate conservatism". This loser strategy has only helped the Socialists gain more power since the GOP never demands the Socialists relinquish their believes while demanding Conservatives cede their principles.

[Theodore R.]

Wasn’t it in 2002 that the CA electorate was said not to want any of the candidate, and they ended up temporarily with the dull Gray Davis? People surely aren’t very bright when it comes to politics.

[Theodore R.]

What you say would be true if McPain gets discouraged in September and drops out and endorses Oprah’s Obama.

[MamaTexan]

"I am a proud conservative liberal Republican."

I always knew McCain was a moron, I just didn't realize he was an oxymoron.

-----

'conservative liberal'.....(snort)

That's like unscented cologne.

[Defiant]

In 1860, Republicans were one of 4 parties. Lincoln got 39 percent of the vote, winning all the northern states. The Whigs had disintegrated prior to 1856 due to the slavery issue. There were those who wanted to compromise with slavery, come up with a solution like the "Compromise of 1820" and find a way to keep everyone happy. That would have required extension of slavery into the territories and allowing it to continue to exist indefinitely. Then, there wer those who did not want it to be extended, they wanted to find a way to phase it out over time. Then, there were the "radicals" who wanted to end it immediately.

The Republican party is in a similar situation right now. As the Whigs disintegrated over slavery, so the Republicans need to decide, are they going to compromise with socialism, and allow it to continue to march into total control of our nation, our economy, our beliefs, our culture and our lives, or are they going to work to get rid of it, like the cancer that it is. Conservatism is for roll-back, in stages, because socialism and cultural marxism were imposed in stages. What McCain represents is the determination by Republicans to maintain socialism for Democrats. His only distinction is that he would defend us (supposedly) from Islamic fanatics better than the Democrat socialists. But protect us to what end? So that the country will end up like Britain in 10 years, like China in 30, an authoritarian, controlled, socialistic (but probably corrupt) society? What's the point, so we are controlled by the Clintons of the world instead of the Bin Ladens? I don't want commissars or mullahs.

Too bad the GOP didn't disintegrate over socialism this year the way the Whigs did over slavery. People in the 1850s had more principle and better understanding of the stakes. They knew that there was no more time to wait to decide the slavery issue. If it got extended to the territories, the south would retain its political power and slavery would never die. We'd still have it today. If it didn't get extended, the south would be drowned out by the voters in the new states. The time to choose had been thrust upon them.

Right now is the time to choose between authoritarian rule and freedom. We did not want to have to decide, but the decision has been thrust upon us by the advance of marxism in America. A combination of technology and decades of encroachment have caused us to approach the point of no return. McCain doesn't care. He does not want to rollback anything, he just wants to be the defender of socialism, like Stalin. McCain will destroy conservatism, the last hope of restoring Constitutional government. He is therefore more dangerous than an Obama, because he brings a lot of good conservatives into the socialist fold. Behold, he has done so with you.

[Theodore R.]

All of that is of course true, but that’s what the Republican primary voters decided — those who bothered to show up in the primary elections. Maybe our people aren’t much brighter than their Democrat cousins.

[trisham]

Freudian slip.