Not to get political, as an outsider, the problem I see with the republican party is they don't really seem to be about small government. They seem to try to throw defence spending provisions into all kinds of legislation, obviously want to legislate about abortions and marriage which seems to me to be antithetical to small government (and yet dont want to regulate the finance sector, one of those areas that desparately needs regulations - money corrupting and all) and the history of spending of recent republican governments has been less than fantastic...

But I'm just a dumb aussie

Allow me to shed a bit of light on the subject.

There are many ideologies that fall under the term Republican. There are the Libertarians, who want the government to do almost nothing at all, the Conservatives, who want the power of government to be diffused as was intended by the US Constitution, and the Statists, who feel the government should be able to get involved in anything when there is a need for it. Currently the GOP leaders are the Statists, think along the lines of John McCain, Chris Christie, and George W Bush. These people represent the face of the Republican party but are often called RINOs (Republican In Name Only) by many Republicans. The reason for this is found in the three basic right wing ideologies, a Statist believes in the power of the government and therefore want's to govern as a leader. The core beliefs of Libertairianism and Conservatisim revolve around the inherent dangers of giving too much power to select person or small group, anyone who truly believes in this message will not try to claim or act as a leader for their group as a whole. Even though these three main factions have stark differences they do coalesce around certain issues, for example the need for a military. Having one large highly trained and cohesive military structure for the physical defense of the country is more efficient than multiple small groups of militia or private security forces. These small groups are perfect for defending specific areas but not the country as a whole. This is why the party doesn't have an issue with government control of things like military, police and fire departments. The idea of Small Government does not mean they want No Government.

When looking at the abortion issue you need to know a bit of history about the Republican party. They started as a third party by people who were unhappy with the Whig party, and their main platform was that slaves were people and therefore have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. The Republicans fought to end slavery, later they would criminalize the KKK, fight Jim Crow laws and wrote several Civil Rights laws before finally getting just enough bipartisan support to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They did all this for their belief in the sanctity of rights for the individual, and today they consider the unborn as people who should have the same inalienable rights as everyone else. This is why they fight against abortion, because they believe that it's a human rights issue in favor of unborn children.

On the issue of marriage it again depends on how you see things. Is it simply a legal status or binding contract between two people? Or is it a deeply revered religious sacrament, the joining of a man and woman in the holy bonds of matrimony before the eyes of God? I don't know too many who are opposed to two people getting a judge and lawyer to fill out the paper work that legally binds them and their assets together. But I know a lot who believe that it is a gross violation of the First Amendment for the government to pass laws dictating what a priest can or cannot do within a church.

I work in the financial sector, and have for many years. Speaking from my own personal experience there are lots and lots and lots of regulations that I have to follow. I have run across a few greedy and corrupt people, they simply ignore the rules and do what they want anyway so adding more regulations will not stop that behavior. Adding new regs will, however, shift the behavior of the 99% of us who are honest. For example we had a potential customer who, just a few years ago, we would have normally held up as an example of a perfect customer. However new regulations we are not allowed to do business with him. Add to this the thought that most of the people writing laws in the Congress and Senate have never worked in or around the financial sector and most of their knowledge of how it works comes from political theorists who also never worked in or around actual finances. There are many regulations that don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes a new one contradicts one or more of older ones. So personally speaking I value smart regulation over simply more regulation.

My favourite libertarian was Charles Marx.

Mine was Mrs. Wilcox. She was a sweet old lady and always knew exactly where the book you were looking for was. Of course she could be a real bitch about late fees but hey, that was her job.

Oh wait, I thought you said favorite "librarian".

My favorite librarian is my mom :)
Really :)

If you were 37 years old and lived and worked with your mother that would not be your answer, trust me.

Oh good, I've derailed another! Party!

I'm 27 and don't live with my family since I was 19 :)

I've heard Eisenhower was a really good cook, so I'll pick him.

Oh no, lots of Republican party members have the same opinion. That's why the various libertarian candidates have actually been mentioned in the news for the past few elections (typically they get laughed at, recently they've been taken seriously in at least some places), and where the Tea Party / Just Balance the Dumb Budget movement is coming from.

The Republican party right now is a *very* uneasy alliance between social and fiscal conservatives, and since Bush the 2nd social conservatives have had the upper hand. That's either going to change or we're going to see a third party, because social and fiscal conservatives have diametrically opposed views on several key issues.

This forum never ceases to be americacentric I see.

I was disappointed that it didn't stand for "Whorehopper".

Transmetropolitan would make so much more sense then.

Yes, I stand corrected.

Theodore Roosevelt. In addition to agreeing with most of his policies, he is simply one of the most badass leaders in modern history.
He read more books every day than I have in the last 5 years, spoke several languages, explored all sorts of shit. He was one of the most athletic US presidents.
He resigned as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to form a cavalry regiment, which he lead on foot in a charge up the San Juan heights.

Was shot in the chest right before giving a campaign speech, refused medical attention, and gave the 90 minute speech anyway. Badass.

(edit - spelling)

Ronald Raygun, due to the cool name.