I haven't posted in awhile, and for that I apologize. Know that it's finals week(s), and I've been busy with these assignments. I've been following politics and the like closely, however I haven't been able to find the time to post.

That said, I thought I'd start off again with a bang - my thoughts on the 2nd Republican Presidential debate, which took place last night on Fox News Channel. Let me first say that I thought the format of this debate was far superior to the format of the MSNBC debate - it actually gave the candidates time to answer, and was run by professional journalists and political analysts, not partisan, loudmouthed, liberal boobs. Even without that unfortunate side-effect, the Fox debate was still much better. I really liked Brit's scenario at the end, which describes an all-too-plausible depiction of a terrorist attack.

I'll begin by quoting what I think are the 3 best quotes of the entire night. The first, was Mike Huckabee's crack about John Edwards at a beauty shop. The second, was Tom Tancredo claiming that he would be looking for Jack Bauer (I LOVE 24!!), and the third was Rudy Giuliani demanding Ron Paul take back his comments about 9/11 and why we were attacked (I'll get to this more in a minute). Though I'd say these 3 are the best, the night was filled with wise cracks, memorable jokes, good quotes, and a great discussion of the issues that are facing this country.

I felt Giuliani did much better in this debate than the last one. In the first debate, he seemed as though he was trying to run for Mayor of New York again - not for the highest and most powerful position in the free world. I felt that something was lacking from him in the first debate - but in the second, he really picked things up, and was outright impressive when he began talking about the national security issues.

The social issues may bog him down somewhat (though I'm not exactly sure why - to me it would seem that we have more pressing issues - namely, radical islam - that take immediate precedent over the social issues which will mean nothing if we are all annihilated), but I felt that at least on the national security front, Giuliani was far more promising in this debate then he was in the last.

Mitt Romney also did a good job. Part of that is his personal charm and charisma, but he also handled himself well, discussed the issues well, and fended off the attacks against him pretty well. I don't it was as much a slam dunk for Romney as the first debate was, but I think he handled himself well and did a good job. Particularly well done was his response to Brit's scenario, in which he reminded all of us that the goal of the President should be to prevent those kinds of scenarios from coming to fruition.

McCain on the other hand, looked kind of... old. He has to live down McCain-Feingold, as well as McCain-Kennedy (which Huckabee daftly pointed out). I like McCain, and I will respect him for his service to this country - as any self-respecting American should - but he's too weak on the economic issues (though plenty hard hitting on the security ones). I've made my stance on social issues - that we have bigger problems at the moment - widely known, so McCain's stance isn't really that important to me at the moment.

Of the lesser candidates, Duncan Hunter was at least to me, the most promising. He displayed swiftness with his answers, and had some very hard-hitting positions on the national security issues, which are extremely important in a president. He was also right there on the economy, complaining about GOP big-spending (which has become so much a problem these last few years), and calling for changes in taxes. Huckabee and Tancredo also had some promising things to say.

Ron Paul's comments about the war, show what I believe is the one major flaw of modern libertarianism. Though the libertarian part of me (and that's a big part - I actually would generally describe myself as a libertarian-conservative) is completely with him on Economic issues, Constitutional issues, as well as some of the social issues, the kind of non-interventionism (isolationism) he advocates is based on the notion that our enemies are always a nation-state. If our enemies were nation states, it would perhaps be a viable philosophy (though difficult in the increasingly globalized world). Yet since our enemies at the moment are not members of a nation (the exception being Iran itself), but in fact are stateless radical muslims, just sitting around is futile. And the notion that the United States somehow invited the attacks against us is patently absurd.

Though I'm very much against government spending in most areas (I too would get rid of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc), the one area that I do and always will believe it is necessary to continue spending, is on defense, because our country at the moment cannot afford to let our guard down. So touting the spending figures that we put on our military - though immense - I believe are worth it, and easily affordable if we cut government down to size in all other areas - then funding the military won't be a problem at all.

What I do find interesting about Paul, is that all the liberal bloggers wanted people to text in with support for Ron Paul. He'll never be elected, but even though he would create our defeat in Iraq, his domestic policies would make liberals cringe - just a kind of subtle irony to this kind of action.

Overall I think the debate went well. Candidates aren't quite so stiff any more, and are willing to open up a bit and let their positions be known. I think that, above everything else, is a benefit to our country, a benefit to Conservatives, and a benefit to the Republican party.

We have forgotten - or rather, our politicians have - our small-government, personal-responsibility roots that were so important in Reagan's time. Because they have forgotten, the government has fallen back into the hands of the big-government liberals (because, at the very least, they are honest about being big-government liberals, whereas the RINO'S hide behind the facade of being small-government conservatives, then govern like big-government liberals).

The 2008 presidential election is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the protection of this country from radical muslims both at home and abroad, and the protection of American citizens in a world in which some places are growing increasingly hostile to our way of life (namely, Iran and the middle east). Yet one reason some people seem to be overlooking, is it is our next (and perhaps last) chance to re-establish the principles of conservatism - small government, personal responsibility, and the free marketplace - firmly in the hands of the Republican party. Let us not forget that.