Maverick John McCain? Not.

The term "maverick" has been thrown around a lot lately, mostly because John McCain is currently seen as the Republican front-runner in the Presidential nomination race, and because the label is mistakenly slapped on him often.

Well, I know what a maverick is. I know what it is to be a maverick. And John McCain is no maverick.

A maverick may be a dissenter, a lone voice, one who declines to adhere to the dictates of a group, but in spirit, a maverick is somebody who differs from the pack on principle, and not to gain the hollow acclaim of a different pack while undermining his own pack of origin.

A maverick is somebody who is who he is because he is wired differently, simply marching to the beat of a different drum. A maverick may wander from the beaten path, but not to spite his fellow travelers. He's simply drawn from the path by the possibilities or the vision of a different path to the same destination.

Who are true conservative mavericks? They are people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who say what nobody else has the guts to, who see what other people miss, who make bold predictions outside of the box and turn out to be right. One of the reasons people like Rush, Ann, and yes, yours truly are so irritated by McCain's claim to be a maverick is that true mavericks are offended by wanna-be ones. A maverick is an honorable thing to be. When somebody is called a maverick on the basis of dishonorable behaviour simply because it's "different," it is a gross insult to real mavericks everywhere.

George W. Bush has been a maverick at various points in his presidency. He stood his ground, eschewed the notion of compromising for the sake of popularity and the preservation of his legacy, in favour of his principles and the good of the country.

Mavericks are true-blue beneath their sore-thumb exterior. A maverick may shuck traditions that are more ritual than substance, because they have not the time or energy to waste on micromanaging the small stuff, but they are often more traditional at their core than their conformist cohorts.

A maverick does not fail to conform for the purpose of scorning his own. He simply is what he is, and if what that is does not fit the mold, he simply accepts that, and hopes more than anything that his own will see his value and accept it too. It is shallow protocol that a maverick flouts, conventional wisdom that is no more than commonly held misconceptions that he contradicts. He doesn't lightly toss away or turn up his nose at the dearly held, deeply rooted values instilled within him that are timeless and priceless.

John McCain is no more a maverick than is a teenager who dons odd clothing and undergoes body piercings to be "different" rather than standing out by virtue of his character and outstanding inner qualities and achievements. John McCain has gone off the beaten path of his party, but not to accomplish great things that proved him a visionary. He has collaborated with people whose ideology given power and left unchecked would cause incalculable damage to this nation, simply because it got him kudos from a razor-thin sliver of the population who happen to have TV cameras in their faces or by-lines in national newspapers.

A maverick is a maverick when it is difficult to be nonconforming. When it would simply be easier to be "normal" and do what everyone else is doing. When somebody like John McCain does what he does that gets him labelled a maverick, he does it because it's easier and gets him praise from the media. There's nothing of the maverick in that.

A maverick may be a leader, but he's not a follower. He may not follow a hard straight line, but he's not inconsistent.

Above all, a maverick does not pretend to be what he's not. John McCain does. Now that he needs to be a conservative to win his party's nomination, he's billing himself as a conservative. When he wanted to be seen as All-Round Nice Guy, he jettisoned major conservative principles like he was throwing Whopper wrappers out the window of a moving car. Some of those he is scrambling to fetch and flatten out again. Other bad decisions he refuses to repudiate, showing a lingering disregard for the principles of those whose votes he wishes to win.

If a maverick does not conform to his own people entirely because he simply can't, then he sure as heck doesn't try to conform to please those who seek the downfall of his people.

I am sure that there was a point when the British press lauded Benedict Arnold as the eighteenth-century synonym for "maverick" (the word wasn't coined until the 1880's). The comparison of Senator McCain to Benedict Arnold may be a trifle strong, but not without merit. After all, Arnold was a spectacular war hero who accomplished great military feats for his country before he switched loyalties to gain money and a prestigious job.

And - word to the wise - once he gained that job, he never did have a grasp on the respect and approval that should have come with it.

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose - and he is no maverick who gives up what must not be lost to gain what he can't keep - the approval of the media and spineless "moderates."

McCain may cling to claim of the maverick label on the basis of his support for the War on Terror and in Iraq and that certainly does deserve credit. But when he hasn't supported action that would keep terrorists from coming in unchecked through the back door from Mexico, and when he has let his own experience cloud his judgment regarding interrogation of enemies, which is absolutely essential to stopping attacks and winning the war, then I have to wonder how deep his committment is. He's loudly reminding us all that he supported the surge - a bold,risky move now that the New York Times and John Murtha have reported its success.

Like I said, John McCain is no maverick.

As of now, he's the mean little boy nobody really likes but they think they have to elect him club president because his daddy is going to buy the land the clubhouse sits on. He's saying, "You have to nominate me, because now I have something you want." (the perceived ability to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.)

Well, I would rather take my chances. It doesn't really follow that the only way to defeat Hillary Clinton is to run "Hillary Lite" in the body of an old man, rather than to present a real alternative. The real conservative pickin's may have grown slim by now, but of those still in the race, Mitt Romney is our last best chance to salvage this election.

I deeply resent the attempt to strong-arm conservatives into betraying their principles to present a candidate who is little more than a lesser evil. I have already had my chance to place my vote, and now my future is in the hands of those in later voting states, and I have deeply resented that, too, when South Carolina and Florida caved and pulled what was manifestly the wrong lever. And I will resent it again if not enough Republicans have the courage to stride into the voting booth to mark their ballots for the best candidate rather than slink in to darken the bubble beside McCain's name because we have let the media and the political talking heads resign us to the "fact" that he is our best chance to beat Hillary or Obama.

If that happens, we will have lost before November even gets here.

I beg of my conservative compatriots in key states to have the courage I just mentioned. To vote YOUR voice and ignore those coming out of your TV or radio speakers. To place your faith in the ability of the American people to choose wisely (they have done it before).

To do the right thing. Because if we can't do the right thing at this stage, what does that say for the future?