Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Well, I guess I'll start at the bottom of Kevin's post:

I believe conservatism is holding on to the past instead of embracing the future

And to quote of one of the great Republican Presidents:

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"
-Abraham Lincoln

Exactly Abe... Exactly

Um, Kevin, that quote of Lincoln's isn't pejorative - we hold onto what has worked before, rather than just trying other things for the sake of their newness. Lincoln was a conservative, he believed in conservatism. You can compare that expression of conservatism with another famous, great Viscount Falklands quote from the 80s:

""When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change,"

A commitment to only changing when necessary allows governments to make the correct choices, gives them the moral fiber necessary to do things like eliminating slavery when they can. Remember, the Democratic Libertarianism you're spouting is what justified the continuance of slavery at that time - Lincoln's commitment to conservative moral values is what allowed him to work to eliminate slavery. (I know I'm simplifying horribly, but, hey, it was the most turbulent period in American history and I don't have all day).

The Republican party platform is against abortion, and I don't entirely agree with that. It's hard to make a definite choice on the issue at all, given how difficult it is to determine when a life becomes a life worth protecting. I don't support the death penalty because I think the price we pay when we execute an unguilty man is far higher than the moral reward given to the state when the correct form of justice is given to murderers. Along those same lines, then, given that we don't know when life begins, shouldn't we all err on the side of caution - how can we justify legal abortion when the potential babies might actually be human beings? Really, I don't know. However, I can understand both sides, and because of that, I feel comfortable in supporting a party whose platform includes the abolition of abortion, although if anything I'd just support stronger limits on when abortion can be performed. I'm for stem cell research - being against it seems strangely overcautious to me.

Well, first off, the Christian Coalition doesn't exist anymore. The group was trumped up into a buzzword to scare young people into becoming liberal back in the 90s, but over the past 4 or 5 years they haven't been involved with any substantial political matter. Also, as far as pornography goes, both parties are far more concerned with the sort that involves the abuse of young children. "The Republicans" aren't out to keep people from looking at Playboy - that's absurd. No one, even Ashcroft, is connecting abortion to porn, so I don't know where you got that. When pornography ties into criminal or abusive acts, then the government should act, and that's about it...most Republicans would agree. Hell, most of what you're talking about involves the sort of government action identified with Democrats, not the theoretically anti-government Republicans.

The War on Drugs is bipartisan policy that is hardly Republican-driven. For every stupid pro-weed hippie in the Democratic party, there's another Republican libertarian with the same pro-legalization beliefs.

Beyond defense preparation, if you're including that, Bush hasn't been increasing the size of the federal government.

This misconception about North Korea and Iraq really, really bothers me, because it shows, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy that creates a lot of confusion.

Look at it this way. North Korea is stage 5 dangerous. Iraq is stage 3 dangerous (not as bad). Why is North Korea stage 5 dangerous, why are you "MUCH more worried about North Korea"? Because we didn't do anything about North Korea when they were at stage 3! North Korea is a far more difficult situation because they have nukes, because we kept waiting for that wonderful "smoking gun" - and now we can't deal with them in any effective, expedient manner. We need to nip Iraq in the bud now, before they become a North Korea. Once we get the somewhat smaller, manageable threat of Iraq out of the way, then maybe we can engage the larger, more explosive danger of a nation like North Korea.

Basically, you're a libertarian - most of your compatriots find more to like in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. I think libertarianism is generally pretty silly, and I don't like it any more than authoritarianism.