It used to be much easier being a registered Republican; more so, it used to be more unmistakably defined.

Before Bush tried passing the Immigration Reform Bill, before Giuliani announced he was an advocate of gun control and a woman’s right to choose, and before McCain cleverly dodged questions regarding the war in Iraq, the black and white lines between the diverse partisanships were rarely blurred. Liberals fought for the underprivileged and took a humanitarian stance on their arguments. Conservatives reasoned in favor of the hardworking upper-class, taking a more down-home, “old-fashioned” position based on traditional family values.

Nowadays, however, I find myself in utter perplexity, not to mention embarrassment, at the positions, or lack thereof, that my party has taken.

My recent questioning of the validity of what the Republican party stands for was further perpetuated early last week when I plopped down eagerly in front of CNN to watch the Republican debate, hoping for the GOP to cause its usual uproar of right-winged controversy in an otherwise left-leaning, media-based society. I was gravely disappointed.

Already ashamed at the spectacle my current president has caused by being his wishy-washy, unconservative conservative self, I was driven further towards disapproval after witnessing the party I have backed for so long shying away from the opportunity to rant and bellow and rage and take a stand; opting instead to shrink to the size of Giuliani behind the comforts of their podiums.

The 2008 candidates that I witnessed on stage that evening were not the usual proud, unapologetic, strict conservative figures with which I am so proud to be associated, but conservatives with inferiority complexes who have crookedly adopted the “Republican” label. The candidates who did do most of the talking onstage Tuesday night could just as easily have posed as liberals and crashed the Democratic debate that occurred the week prior that not even Obama would have blinked a leery eye.

Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor made the “no-duh” remark of the century when he said, “There is a giant danger of the Middle East becoming an unstable place.”

Where has he been?

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, needed only his Warren Beatty-esque charm and Clinton-like suave to get his slightly more liberal viewpoints across.

And McCain, faced with the penetratingly uncomfortable question about his views on the war in Iraq, had to be asked more than once to clarify what exactly his position was. I’m still confused about that one.

Unfortunately, the few true conservative contenders present at the debate, namely Tancredo and Huckabee, weren’t given half the coverage as their more liberal counterparts. But given that the media is controlled by the left, that didn’t surprise me.

John Harris, the co-moderator seemed to take more action in the brusque addressing of current issues than any of the men in the fancy suits on stage did.

Once the debate had come to an end, my reflection on the matters discussed should have been profound and thought-provoking, but the only thing I took from it was the reinstated reality that today’s conservatives have yielded to the pop-culture popularity of the liberal medium.

What happened to the strong, moral ideals of yesteryear? What happened to the Michael Savages, Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the conservative network? These are the kinds of people who could make a difference in our country’s future – not the cowardice of pushovers and passive-aggressive people pleasers.

It takes gall to run a nation, not popularity.