The Liberal's Go To Guy, John McCain

[saturneptune]

No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is:laugh:

Conservatives do not consider McCain conservative.

So tell us, which candidate meets your high standards?

 

[777]

No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is:laugh:

Conservatives do not consider McCain conservative.

He's not one, it is strange to see them try to tell me that this is a left/right presidential election year, a Clinton v. McCain showdown. It's a liberal v. liberal matchup, so fine. The RNC wants McCain, go Hillary.

She'll win, too, that's what happens when you put up Bob <edited LE> Dole up AGAIN. Why carry some RINOs water when I can carry hers? Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby.:wavey:

 

[poncho]

Trust me, I'm a liberal. I listen to AirAmerica. If you stream their audio, you will hear that most liberals DO NOT want to run against him. Listen to Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes - you will hear for yourself.
Let's go back to the subject of this thread, and the comment to which I directed my remarks:


I made two points:
1. John McCain is NOT a liberal. While he is certainly left of center on social issues, he is NOT a liberal. He is, and always has been a Neocon.
2. The "liberal establishment" [the subject offered by Terrence Jeffrey] does NOT want to run against McCain. You have hit the nail on the head with what you wrote in that there is a perception that he is a liberal. Again, he is NOT a liberal. Since there is an inaccurate perception, they do not want to run against him. They would prefer to run against someone who is perceived to be a conservative like Romney (who is nothing more than one who panders to those who he believes will get him elected - i.e. a flip flopper), or someone like Huckabee who is perceived to be some sort of religious zealot. The last thing they want is someone who could be called a liberal or a maverick Republican.

After all, in politics, all too often perception is reality.......

Regards,
BiR

That only goes to show that the liberal commentators your listening to are lying to liberals too BIR. The best thing that could happen to Hillary is facing McCain in the election rather than Ron Paul. McCain is nothing more than the power elites sacrificial goat. Paul would be the only conservative that would have a chance to beat her in an honest to goodness fair democratic election which this isn't.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is:laugh:

Conservatives do not consider McCain conservative.

That is precisely the point I am making, and thank you for essentially confirming what I said. The perception is that he is liberal. He is a Neocon. The perception that Conservatives may have doesn't change the fact that he is not a liberal.

Regards,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

That only goes to show that the liberal commentators your listening to are lying to liberals too BIR. The best thing that could happen to Hillary is facing McCain in the election rather than Ron Paul. McCain is nothing more than the power elites sacrificial goat. Paul would be the only conservative that would have a chance to beat her in an honest to goodness fair democratic election which this isn't.

Poncho, I am very fond of you, and love to read your comments, but you are wrong. The "liberal establishment" does not want to run against McCain. That is a fact, and it really makes sense if you think about it. Look at the comments we have seen here where people continually claim that he is a liberal when he IS NOT a liberal. Saying it in perpetuity does not change that fact. He was a Neocon the first time he ran in 2000, and as I recall he had the initial backing of people in the Neocon stable (Kristol comes to mind - I seem to recall that he supported him early on).

Now, if the conservatives cannot seem to discern the truth about McCain, just think about having to run against someone who is being called a liberal by the shills on talk radio (Rush just loves to attack McCain, despite his claim of neutrality in the primaries). The "liberal establishment" wants to run against Romney or Huckabee. That way, they can mobilize everyone against a conservative (or at least in Romney's case, a perceived conservative).

If you think about it, it makes sense.

Regards, hope you and yours are well,
BiR (who listed to 9.985 MHz the other day! :laugh: )

 

[777]

Better President Hillary implements amnesty rather than Juan McCain, at least it'll make sense when she does it. They'll turn on him the second he's nominated.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html

Yes, the Stupid Party there. Burn that tent.:1_grouphug:

 

[poncho]

Poncho, I am very fond of you, and love to read your comments, but you are wrong. The "liberal establishment" does not want to run against McCain. That is a fact, and it really makes sense if you think about it. Look at the comments we have seen here where people continually claim that he is a liberal when he IS NOT a liberal. Saying it in perpetuity does not change that fact. He was a Neocon the first time he ran in 2000, and as I recall he had the initial backing of people in the Neocon stable (Kristol comes to mind - I seem to recall that he supported him early on).

Now, if the conservatives cannot seem to discern the truth about McCain, just think about having to run against someone who is being called a liberal by the shills on talk radio (Rush just loves to attack McCain, despite his claim of neutrality in the primaries). The "liberal establishment" wants to run against Romney or Huckabee. That way, they can mobilize everyone against a conservative (or at least in Romney's case, a perceived conservative).

If you think about it, it makes sense.

Regards, hope you and yours are well,
BiR (who listed to 9.985 MHz the other day! :laugh: )

BIR you don't have to remind me that McCain is a neocon. He wants to be "warrior in chief" there's no doubt in miy mind he's a neocon. Now think back a bit how did (I think it was Kristol himself) neocons describe themselves?

"A neocon is liberal that has been mugged by reality" remember that?

Neocons are liberals that love consolidating and weilding power even military power if they think it will benefit their benefactors like the energy/military/mass media industrial complex. Neocons are indeed fascistic (which is mostly mistaken for "conservatism" these days) but they are still liberals.

Clinton and Obama are both neocons.

Maybe that's why conservatives are so confused these days eh BIR? They can't tell the difference between a Machiavellian fascist a Malthusian international socialist and a real live walking talking conservative.

 

[carpro]

That is precisely the point I am making, and thank you for essentially confirming what I said. The perception is that he is liberal. He is a Neocon.

Regards,
BiR

A Neocon? What is that exactly?

Aren't you a Neolib? At least you have claimed to be in the past.

So use a little of your neo expertise and let us know what you think a Neocon is.

 

[poncho]

A Neocon? What is that exactly?

Aren't you a Neolib? At least you have claimed to be in the past.

So use a little of your neo expertise and let us know what you think a Neocon is.

Hurry up BIR I really want to asnwer this question after you do!

 

[Revmitchell]

That is precisely the point I am making, and thank you for essentially confirming what I said. The perception is that he is liberal. He is a Neocon. The perception that Conservatives may have doesn't change the fact that he is not a liberal.

Regards,
BiR

What you find as evidence to prove your points is rather humerous. Good luck with that.

 

[tinytim]

If McCain wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for him...
But it will only be because I will not vote for Hilary, or Obama.

It will be like me voting for Bush 1.. who I considered too liberal for me in 1988

 

[saturneptune]

If McCain wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for him...
But it will only be because I will not vote for Hilary, or Obama.

It will be like me voting for Bush 1.. who I considered too liberal for me in 1988

I would vote for McCain, but not with any expectations. Romney and Giuliani were the only two Republicans I had decided to exclude.

I do agree with you about the 1988 (and 1992) elections. Bush 1 seemed extremely liberal after Reagan. This seems to be a replay. The waters get very muddy when a moderate liberal Republican is pitted against a liberal Democrat. Do you want tax and spend, or tax cuts, spend and massive deificits? Regardless, Obama and Clinton are out of the question for a vote.

 

[carpro]

I would vote for McCain, but not with any expectations. Romney and Giuliani were the only two Republicans I had decided to exclude.

I do agree with you about the 1988 (and 1992) elections. Bush 1 seemed extremely liberal after Reagan. This seems to be a replay. The waters get very muddy when a moderate liberal Republican is pitted against a liberal Democrat. Do you want tax and spend, or tax cuts, spend and massive deificits? Regardless, Obama and Clinton are out of the question for a vote.

Agreed.

At least McCain will continue efforts to defend America against terrorist attack.

I believe Al Qaeda or some other group will test the resolve of the new President immediately. Right here at home.:BangHead: Both democrats would fail the test. I believe McCain would answer the bell.

 

[saturneptune]

Agreed.

At least McCain will continue efforts to defend America against terrorist attack.

I believe Al Qaeda or some other group will test the resolve of the new President immediately. Right here at home.:BangHead: Both democrats would fail the test. I believe McCain would answer the bell.

That is a good post. McCain's strong points are his defending this nation. He is pro life. He has done things I do not like, but is certainly not in the same catagory as Romney, Giuliani, and the Democrats.

 

[KenH]

At least McCain will continue efforts to defend America against terrorist attack.

So will Obama and Clinton. Anyone who says otherwise is either simply being ridiculously partisan and/or disingenuous.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

What you find as evidence to prove your points is rather humerous. Good luck with that.

Revmitchell, exactly what proof do you need? Or are you simply going to deny the fact that he is a Neocon? Look at his record - he is a Neocon. It's not as if I am making some unfounded allegation.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

He's not one, it is strange to see them try to tell me that this is a left/right presidential election year, a Clinton v. McCain showdown. It's a liberal v. liberal matchup, so fine. The RNC wants McCain, go Hillary.

She'll win, too, that's what happens when you put up Bob <edited LE> Dole up AGAIN. Why carry some RINOs water when I can carry hers? Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby.:wavey:

What in the world does Bob Dole have to do with this discussion?

 

[tinytim]

So will Obama and Clinton. Anyone who says otherwise is either simply being ridiculously partisan and/or disingenuous.

Someone said earlier that perception means alot...

I have a hard time seeing Hillary Clinton controlling a wartime military. And I do believe the same as a previous poster that Al Queda will test the newbie... I can't see her coming out against them as strongly as McCain (which seems to be the one who will get the nod) She is a business lawyer, not a warrior... (Honestly, I can see a cartoon with her chasing Bin Laden with her high heels!!! lol)

As for Obama... I can see him standing up to Al Queda... but I can't support him on the other issues...

I am going to have to research McCain's pro life record..
I, apparently, have thought he was moderate pro life, but I am worried that he will be afraid to appoint pro life judges... as a compromise with Pelosi and her types...

 

[Danny Hurley]

Mr. McCain may not be as conserative as some would like, but he seems to be the choice for the conseratives, i guess his 92 year old mother said it best "hold your nose and vote for John"

 

[JamieinNH]

No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is:laugh:

Conservatives do not consider McCain conservative.

So tell us, which candidate meets your high standards?

Don't hold your breathe for an answer. There will be some kind of spin for this one.

Jamie