WOW! That is one of Mr. Bozell's best columns ever!

Unlike this, from Mark Helperin (emphasis added):

"Rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party," he wrote, "each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man."

Mr. Bozell puts the onus squarely where it belongs...on the self-righteous Sen. McCain, to unite the party by proving himself worthy of their loyalty, for reasons other than the "R" after his name.

Edit at 10:45

Clarification: the "compulsive talkers" Halperin was referring to were Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al, who criticize McCain.

Brent's analysis of McCain is right on the money! I know he is a shoo-in now as the Republican nominee but I am still not completely sold on him. 

Over the years I have followed his political career I have often wondered what party he was affiliated with because of his wishy-washy approach to issues. Unfortunately, the national RP has bought into this just like many democrats are buying into the empty promises and lies of Osama Bama and Shmillary.

As a conservative, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on McCain.  He had better prove himself in the coming months as not only sympathetic to the conservative causes, but will be in there fighting for us with solid views. 

The saying goes: "Tell a lie long enough and people will eventually believe it".  The democrats are doing this and whipping their cult following into a baseless political frenzy. Unless McCain begins to demonstrate a firm foundation on issues that will get us back on track, we might as well be voting for the democratic lies. It will be the same effect!

"Yeah! That's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan

trying to "make" John McRino into what he clearly is not (a conservative), will not work. Why on earth would he reverse course to working with conservatives, when he really NEVER has in the past?

You can put an "I'm a conservative" sign on a pig, but it is still just a pig, as much as you may wish for it to be something else.

Hold your nose and vote for the "less horrible" candidate? great. what a world what a world...

This isn't a Republican Election, we have opponents in the form of Democrats, we have independents, and we have a National Presidential Election. 

How does one UNITE a diverse group of People across America ?

Well, Obama is showing us one method.  He is Uniting on lack of substance, and Hope for Change, and he promises to make whatever bugs you now, will go away.  To Quote him "I will stop this War".   But he never tells us how.  Is it by Retreat or Winning ?    

A Republican with History and Baggage from 20 yrs in the Senate has a lot of particulars that one can talk about, and since there are lots of planks in McCains 20 yr. platform history, you can't get 10 Republicans in a Room that will agree with McCain on ALL issues.

Whereas.... Obama has no History, and gets his 10 people in the Room to agree on Hope and Change, without defining anything in Detail. 

The President Vetoes, he does NOT Legislate.  Republicans need to WIN the Presidential Election, BECAUSE we are in deep do do with a Democratic Majority Congress, and a Democratic President.  It's about McCains platform, it's about Conservative principles, and as far as Betrayals go........How many Betrayed Conservative principles will fall under Obama Clinton, Compared to McCain ? ?    

A stay at home and don't vote pouting conservative republican becomes equal to a 20 yr. old High School dropout too busy watching MTV to vote. . . . . and each impacts the presidential Election equally.    

Mark F. posted on this back in February...

David Frum, on Tucker Carlson's show hit the nail on the head regarding McCain's problem with his party...when asked why Republicans don't seem to love McCain, Frum said (Carlson's replies and breaks omitted):

People tend not to love those who don't love them back.

John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He'll put up with it. He'll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue...

McCain doesn't just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.

He's not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Bozell is making it clear that Sen. McCain has to make some moves; not the rest of the party.

McCain can't make up for lost conservatives with moderates and swing-voters (they will more likely go Democrat in the general election). So he needs to decide if he wants to be a "maverick" or be President.

What does it mean, to throw away your vote rather than vote for John McCain?  Note please that I do not consider those who vote for Obama or Hillary out of conviction as throwing away their vote. They are misguided, but not at all in the same category as someone who doesn't vote, votes for a third party candidate, or votes for the democrat candidate out of spite. Why would someone want to do that? Let's look at the reasons given by posters here.

 1.   Never again will I vote for a RINO, beacuse I will just keep getting RINOs to vote for. This can otherwise be stated as I'll only vote for someone with whom I'm 100% in agreement.
 2.   After four years of socialistic democrat rule, the country will be ready for another republican revolution. The alternate expression of this one is let's teach the nation a lesson.

Both reasons demonstrate a skewed version of the dynamics of our presidential election politics, and a total ignorance or disregard of how the American voters are distributed.

In the first case, where you will only vote for someone who agrees with you 100%, you're waiting for the next Ronald Reagan. Look at Edward Cropper's list above. It appears he never met a president he liked, other than Uncle Ronnie, and a lot of posters here state the same. Why would you want another massive world-wide standoff, a repeat of the cold war? Why would you want to couple that with another Carter type presidency, that must end with hundreds or thousands of your fellow citizens held captive, tortured, and/or killed randomly for an extended period, in excess of a year?

That's what you're asking for, when you demand the election of a Ronald Reagan conservative, along with one more qualification - he must have personality plus, be affable, likeable, and a father figure with whom most of the country can identify. Given all three of those qualifications, and another polar conservative candidate can be elected. Given only two of them, and it becomes unlikely; given only one, it is virtually impossible. The reasons are simple, but you need to look at the American electorate as a whole to understand. So let's do that, in a one dimensional left versus right manner, starting with just the liberal/conservative line.

The line to which I refer is simple, the 100% liberal position is at the left end, and the 100% conservative position is at the right end. While the population will be spread more or less evenly along the line, there will come a point, moving from left to right, that ends hard core liberalism and starts moderation; likewise, there will come a point where the moderates end and hard core conservatism starts. These points are at 20 and 67 for self-admission. Simply speaking, 20% of the electorate consider themselves liberal, and 33% consider themselves conservative.

Wow! It should be a slam dunk for a 100% conservative candidate. All we need to do is nominate one, and bang! He gets elected and all is right in the world. Let the chips fall where they may, because even if the moderate slice goes 60%:40% for the liberal, the conservative guy still wins, 52% to 48%.

But then reality rears its ugly head. As has been noted on this site numerous times, liberals even lie to themselves! It turns out that despite what they really are, that is, liberal, 47% will claim to be moderate. (In fairness, some conservatives do the same, but only 5% of conservatives misrepresent themselves as moderate.) The true breaks come at 37 and 61, meaning 37% of the electorate is really liberal, and 39% are really conservative, with a moderate faction of a mere 24%. Whoa! The battle for supremacy is clearly now within the moderate faction, where to give anything away is almost a deathblow to one extreme or the other. A 50% split among the moderates now provides a slim victory for the conservatives, but requires 100 % of the base to be behind the candidate.

A reasonable assumption must now be made in order to continue the analysis. Let's assume that if all outside forces are equal, and the candidates are perfectly equal except for ideology, then each will gather exactly 50% of the vote cast, centered on their own personal position on the electorate belief line. Let's now place two candidates, A and B, on the line, mark off 25 points to either side, and see where this assumption takes us.

Let's be clear about what the band signifies. Someone inside the band of an individual candidate will vote for the candidate. If a voter is within the bands of multiple candidates, then his vote is either a tossup, or predicated on other influences. If the voter falls outside the band towards an end, then the vote could go to the candidate anyway, be withheld, or go to a third party candidate. Where the vote actually goes is immaterial, because the battle for supremacy is being waged over the group between the two candidates, not in the outer fringes. There is a caveat to this, in that the votes from the outer fringes can increase the margin of win for the other candidate, if the nearest ideological candidate has sufficient negatives.

That all important band between the two major party candidates is a tossup. It is virtually impossible to guarantee which way they will vote, because they are so volatile, but even so, they are in play only if they are within the band of both candidates! With that in mind, let's apply these principles to the conservative dream candidate wanted by those who complain most vociferously about RINOs.

The Ronald Reagan candidate finds himself backed up on the right end of the spectrum. For him, that 50% band of guaranteed votes is only 25%, because the right 25% of the idealogical base is off the line! In general, he can push that 25% on his left side towards the center somewhat. He has, after all, 39% that consider themselves conservatives, and so can push his vote total out towards that point, understanding that the closer the voter is to that breakpoint, the less likely it is he will vote for our dream candidate.

So, with only ideology working, our dream candidate will gather about 40% of the vote, and the libs will have a landslide, as long as their candiate isn't also sitting on that left end. And in this race, this year, depending on whom you believe, the Democrat candiates are left, yes, but not that left! They sit between 8/9 to 15/27. Even against Hillary or Obama the conservative dream candidate loses, because there are no outside forces driving the election one way or the other.

Four years from now, eight years from now, even 12 or 16, the only way the candidate desired herein will be elected is for there to be major outside influences pushing the election. The elections will always revolve around the centrist candidates, fighting over those moderate votes. You want those outside influences, you say. You want your fellow citizens to die, so you can say "I stood on my principles! You got what you deserved!" Because that's what it will take for you to get your way.

And remember, the ones who die so needlessly, will not all be those who voted for the opposition. A lot of those deaths will be people who believe in the many same things you do. Be prepared to face those spirits on your death bed, to look them in the eye and say, "I'm sorry you had to die, but it was more important that people see things my way."

I really don't think they'll understand your point of view.

V/R
Clyde 

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC