Courage, said the Romans, is not the only virtue, but it is the single virtue without which all the other virtues are meaningless. - Netanyahu

Bravery is the most important trait a person can have. It makes good people better, and bad people even more evil. Bin Laden and Zarqawi would not be half as dangerous as they are if they were cowards.

And people understand this, even if they can't always put it into words. It's why Americans wanted a strong leader. It's why the blogosphere gives byes to Reid, and bashes Pelosi. It's why McCain has very strong favourable ratings amongst Democrats.

People respect bravery, because they know that without it they will get sold down the river. It doesn't matter what you believe in if you aren't willing to fight for it when the chips are down.

The problem is that the appearance of bravery is often mistaken for the virtue itself. George Bush appeared brave to those who weren't paying attention. He was resolute; he was Churchillian; he had a big codpiece.

Always, always, the language, the backdrops and the symbology coming out of the White House was calculated to show bravery - a man standing firm for what he believed. Because of that Bush was seen as someone regular people could trust.

Of course it was all image and no substance, and those who investigated the man and his endless record of fecklessness and cowardice knew it.

But most people get their news from a few minutes every night, or from talk radio. And for them the soundbites, the images and the way the media talked about him all made him look strong, resolute - and brave. So they voted for him.

The same pattern is repeating itself with John McCain. Publicly John McCain is one of the few people to have stood up to George Bush. Both on his early campaign finance bill and on torture, he took it to George and made George back down. (Oh yes, I know it's BS, but for those who just read the front page stories, or get their news from the networks, that's John McCain.)

And those issues are John McCain's signature issues. The key thing, as a politician, is to have a few touchstone postions which everyone "knows" are areas of unimpeachable integrity and conviction for you. It doesn't, really, matter what they are - so long as they exist, and you can exercise them. For Byrd, for example, constitutional issues and Senate perogatives would be the issues - and he is respected for it even by liberals who don't like his views on a lot of other things.

In the 2004 election, in the second debate, Kerry went after Bush hard in the first half on foreign affairs. And Bush became agitated and worked up. Because those were Bush's strong points. No one believes Bush "feels" anyone's pain. People do believe (or did believe) that he is strong on terrorism and is "pro freedom". If Kerry could have cracked those points, Bush would have lost.

In the same way Kerry was attacked mainly on his courage - courage he had exhibited under fire. Break his reputation for courage, and everything else he stood for was meaningless.

Courage - Reid is well respected because he visibly faced down Frist. Nancy Pelosi is not respected because she has not visibly made an alpha male eat crow.

McCain is respected because he is seen as a brave man of integrity who was the only person to ever succesfully face down George Bush.

And if that remains his image, barring health problems, he will be the next President of the United States.