"Conservative" friend = moderate to slight liberal.

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

I'm guessing that Tom Brokaw's "most conservative" friend is still barely within shouting distance of the "center"...from the left side, that is....

I guess when all your friends are liberal, you would refer to your moderate friend as conservative.

ROTFLMAO

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

These liberal pundits live in a closed world.   They go to the same liberal cocktail parties, hear the same views, and believe, therefore, that they are "centrists." 

Indeed, Brokaw's friend probably does (as you suggest) inhabit the "rightward fringe" of his acquaintances.

Okay, the thing that makes this laughable is not the obviously skewed interpretation of "conservative" by a left wingnut. No, the part that tickles me is where they all refer to "competent", "principled people of character" and so forth and then mention Hillary in the same breath without pausing and busting out laughing...

When all your friends are liberals, the his "Most conservative still a liberal".  You can quote me!

Brokaw: ...I think this election is the end of dogma.

The end of dogma? The candidates especially on the Democrat side spout nothing but dogma.
They continue to believe in redistribution of wealth (Can anyone say global warming?), universal health care coverage (Can anyone say nationalized HC?), open borders, mischaracterization of the homeless "problem" as an economic one when the facts are that it is an issue of substance abuse/addiction, etc., all the while being unable to point to any history of success for any of these initiatives.
Give us a break, Tom. Elections today are nothing but advertising campaigns only instead of trying to sell a product or service, they are selling a person.

Just my $0.02

This just shows how little Brokaw and Scarborough understand government. The problems that rise to the level of national debate are always cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The problems always come with significant baggage. You can satisfy some of it, but only with deep cuts elsewhere. Think of the energy problems. Sure, we can drill in ANWR, but the environmentalists scream. Homeland security is the most recent example. To acquire the necessary human intelligence, we tried to do data mining on phone records, but the civil libertarians went ballistic. Social security is the most dangerous example. You can cut benefits or raise taxes dramatically, and few of the affected groups are willing to sacrifice a penny.

• The idea that we can “solve” national problems is juvenile. It isn’t a case of being clever. If you think that we should just put clever people in a room, free from partisanship or from the corruption of special interests, and they’ll magically concoct a brilliant “solution,” then you’re just an idiot. It doesn’t, and can’t, work that way.
• Instead, government is all about haggling. We haggle with each other to come up with the fairest possible split on who pays what. That’s why we have interest groups - these lobbyists are trying to prevent their interests from paying more than they should. Do the lobbyists lose the forest for the trees? Sure they do, but congressmen need to know how to listen to special concerns without being corrupted by them.
• The theory behind conservatism recognizes that this is the real world. Government is about haggling, not cleverness. That’s why we want government to be strongest at the level closest to individuals. That isn’t “dogma.” It’s the smartest and most practical way to work in the real world.

Brokaw and Scarborough think it will take “competence,” by which they mean cleverness. While Brokaw and Scarborough are looking to the sky so that an angel will drop down from heaven and sprinkle “competent” pixie dust, the rest of us have to look each other square in the eye and make tough decisions.

 "you're going to find this hard to believe. I just want somebody who's competent. And if I think she can run the country, I will vote for her."

Not only " hard to believe" but darn near impossible.

So let me see if I get this straight. We have Tom and his liberal buddies pushing McCain down conservatives throat,  and at the same time Tom's born-and-bred, gold-plated Republican "friends" are planning to vote for Hilary? Why wouldn't these gold-platers vote for McCain?  Must be the competence thing, right Tom?

Brokaw has conservative friends? Who knew.

Have you noticed the trend?

Here's what I am seeing: when these overpaid "news anchors" retire, they drop their guard and begin revealing how deceptive and isolated they have been all along. In some of them, the craziness begins to show up (Dan Rather), in others, their disloyalty to the US shows up (Walter Cronkite), in others, how detached they are from the day to day reality we all have to deal with (Tommy Brokaw). Wait until Couric and Brian Williams leave their jobs!

I think what happens is that when there is no one to write material for these characters, they begin to have to reveal the world view that's been banging around in their head all this time.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

"My most conservative friend", that is code for my moderate Democrat friend. There isn't a true conservative worth their salt that would vote for any Democrat. What would be the point?