Some questions to ponder:

Why does the American Revolution remain such an enduring, endearing, timeless story to everyone?

Why are Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln generally regarded as the two best Presidents of the 19th century?

Now moving up the timeline to the early 20th century: Why are the Roosevelts -Teddy and Franklin- held in such high esteem?

Next follows Harry S.Truman; then John F. Kennedy- and finally Reagan; why are all three regarded - depending on one's perspective - as being the best presidents of the 20th century?

But in every case the answer is almost self-explanatory. The very word "American" stands for courage; tenacity; intrepidness...being bold - the willingness to take on one's enemy.

Throughout our history, can anyone think of a POPULAR president who was NOT a strong and decisive leader - one who refused to back down? One who would meet head-on with a challenge- even if it meant paying a steep political price?

Of course not! 

Now let's examine the "lilies of the field"- Presidents who refused to take action, and will forever remain besmirched within the pages of our history:

In 1853, the highly-vilified Millard Fillmore refused to address the simmering issue of slavery- and it would later flare up into a catastrophic civil war.

After Lincoln's April,1865 assassination, a venomous mob, unforgiving of Fillmore's sympathy for the South, surrounded his house - draped it in black cloth- then vandalized it by splashing ink everywhere; a testimony to Fillmore's despicable partisanship. 

In 1894; "second-time" president Grover Cleveland refused to address the economic downturn caused by "The Panic of 1893". Soon after his election, the country went into a severe depression; but despite the suffering of the unemployed, Cleveland stayed true to his "hands off" government policy and would not intervene.

Three-quarters of a century later, in 1968- the tepid response of Lyndon B. Johnson will never be forgotten when the USS Pueblo was seized by the North Koreans 10 miles beyond their coast.

North Korean naval vessels had surrounded the ship, captured the crew, and charged them with spying- and violating North Korean territorial waters.

Johnson's mysterious failure to act caused Pueblo's crew to suffer a long, tortured, miserable captivity for a year, and it served to humiliate America beneath the heel of a far less powerful country.

Not surprisingly, history bears witness that the two least popular presidents of the 20th century were Lyndon Johnson & Jimmy Carter- both liberals; and both were politicians- rather than patriots - at heart.

On Nov 4, 1979, a crowd of Iranian "students" (terrorists) seized the U.S. embassy and took 52 American diplomats hostage. At once, the worm-spined Carter sprung into action - immediately deciding that the most feasible tactic was negotiation.

Iran refused to negotiate.

Carter severed diplomatic relations, and then "brutally" imposed economic sanctions.

Iran countered by marching our blindfolded hostages before TV cameras - mortifying America before the eyes of the world.

Carter then appealed to the UN Security Council, and the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini responded by stating that Iran's parliament would be the one to decide the fate of the embassy hostages.

President Carter (and his entire administration) were bullied by a country we could have EASILY intimidated. But Carter will forever be known as the president who "engineered" America's most humiliating period (444 days) during the ENTIRE 20th century.

CONCLUSION? American history does not shine favorably on the weak or indecisive- or any politician refusing to take on the opposition.

For simplicity, let's call it the politics of poultry-- the chicken syndrome.

Probably the most egregious current example of poultry politics is Arlen Specter.

When Vermont Senator James Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001, Mr. Specter railed against any senator who would callously change parties in mid-session.

Specter even went so far as to assure Pennsylvania voters that he would, "never  do such a thing"...declaring: "I am a Republican; I am going to run on the Republican ticket in the Republican primary."

Obviously, Specter is no profile in courage, and will forever be relegated to Benedict Arnold status hereafter, when he recently defected to become a democrat.

Next example: the odious Barney Frank:

For the last decade, Americans (particularly conservatives) wonder, "Why would the people of Massachusetts support such a dishonest, slimy liar as Barney Frank, and continually re-elect him to Congress?

But despite Mr. Frank's perfidy; he NEVER plays poultry politics.

Frank commands a perverse kind of respect from his constituents- the one vital trait that continues to enamor them-- he is a fighter.

Which leads us to the Republicans, and why--despite the brazen lies of the democrats- the GOP may lose the 2010 midterms, and even the general election in 2012.

But how you say? Haven't the lousy liberals (and Obama) already have blown it? Does it really seem plausible that the Republicans won't win?

Careful conservatives; there's one structural flaw -top to bottom- in the party; and its a fatal flaw at that.

Pitifully, the Republicans seem committed to be being the party of  the "fraidy cats"-- afraid to take a stand, and take the enemy head-on.

Ever since the presidential campaign of 2008, the Republicans have chosen to play poultry politics:

The Republicans were afraid of losing the moderate vote.

The Republicans were afraid of losing the black vote.

The Republicans were afraid of losing the women's vote.

The Republicans were even afraid of losing the Hispanic vote.

And they were campaigning in fear of losing the youth vote.

And surprise-surprise; in the last election- they lost them all - winning the only category expected ...the white vote.

The irony seems excruciating: 

When Obama was exposed as a disciple of Jeremiah Wright, the Republicans refused to exploit it...afraid of being called racists.

When Obama accused McCain of being "another George Bush" the Republicans had no response. They were afraid of reminding the moderate voters about the incredible unpopularity of their lame-duck President.

When Obama was being pilloried for supporting infanticide as an IIlinois Senator, the Republicans again refused to exploit a hot issue; this time, being afraid of losing the women's "right to choose" vote.

But as the old saying goes..."if you play not to lose, you’ll never win" (another definition of poultry politics).

Ironically, the Democrats - not the Republicans themselves- are the ones taking notice.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently affirmed this when he said, (quote) "If Republicans oppose Sonya Sotomayor (for the Supreme Court), they are doing so at their own peril."

Predictably, the Republicans WOULD become putty in Schumer's slithery hands, deciding to play nice during Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. 

Thus, on the Senate Judiciary Commitee, Republicans tossed one softball after another to the radical activist Sotomayor, who - once assuming the bench- will undoubtedly go on to become the most leftist jurist since Earl Warren. 

Schumer (perceptively) added, "I think the confirmation process will be more of a test of the Republican Party, than it is of Judge Sotomayor."

So what does Schumer seem to know, that Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele (and the other so-called party leaders) don't even realize themselves?

Simple; the Republicans have become caught up in the liberal trick of the self -fulfilling prophecy.

And why?

Because it's what Schumer, Obama, Frank. and all the liberals seem to know, but the Republicans have yet to recognize: as long as the GOP keeps running as "being afraid to lose votes" (poultry politics) they'll NEVER win; ergo, the chicken syndrome.

The Republicans keep saying..."We need to be the party of Reagan"..."Act more conservative"…"Have a bigger tent"...etc.

Sorry boys; you need to stop talking about Reagan, and start ACTING like Reagan- a man of COURAGE, who would stand up to the opposition, fearless of what others thought about him; and choosing only what he thought was good for the country - not himself. 

And no matter what liberals say about the old Gipper, they'll never admit it, but they probably hold Reagan in even higher esteem than conservatives, because the Gipper was fearless; a trait that few -if any- liberal presidents can claim. 

So who amongst the current GOP leadership could be described as brave? Who could be considered truly meritorious of the title of party leader?

Gingrich? Ron Paul? Mitt Romney? Michael Steele? Huckabee? Who? Anyone? 

Try as they may to look for a theme, the Republicans - although diametrically opposed in political philosophy- trail the democrats in the one inherent necessity to win an election: the courage to fight to the end, no matter the worthiness of the cause.

Examine why the undecideds in the last election went so heavily for democrats- both Congress and the Whitehouse.

Practically all of America knew Obama was not truthful; voters realized they would be electing someone who had not served in the military, and had come from a "less than typical" American backround.

But compared to McCain -despite the fact he was a Vietnam war hero -they chose Obama instead.

Again why? Because many Americans perceived Obama as the one willing to stand up for what he believed- as flawed a philosophy as it was.

Nowadays, its not patriotism, not truthfulness, and not righteous causes that win elections -despite surface appearances.

Underneath it all, today's elections are won by displaying courage; showing voters the zeal to win.