I thought this excerpt from Wikipedia provided a nice bit of clarity about this question of what constitutes "republicanism." In particular, the bit about "western conservatives" as compared to "southern conservatives."

"The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarians.

The Republican Party is the more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties. The party generally supports lower taxes and limited government in most economic areas allowing for more economic freedom. In the 1980s, the Republican Party was more strongly conservative than before. In his 1981 inaugural address, Republican President Ronald Reagan summed up his belief in limited government when he said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."[3] Since 1980, the GOP has contained what George Will calls "unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern." The Western brand, wrote Will, "is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish." The Southern variety, however, reflects a religiosity based in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that is less concerned with economics and more with moralistic issues, such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting the waning influence of libertarian philosophy on contemporary Republican ideology, Will describes the current Republican Party as "increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right."[4]"

Bill Maher (yes, M-a-h-e-r) frequently speaks about why he likes Republicans: "Because they're what I want in power . . . a bunch of grumpy old men to watch over my money." (Not an exact quote--also at least eight years old.) But he is talking about Republicans from bygone decades, not the bunch in power now. Republicans used to at least SAY they wanted less government, and wanted the government restrained from prying into the lives of private citizens. Now . . . not so much.

I think it safe to say that the current batch of Repugnicans in power are drawing from a very Religious Right power base, although they are not at all above saying whatever the hell it takes to muster votes. How interesting that the Religious Right would be brought to believe so hardily in such a brutal bunch of thugs. They talk a good line, but unfortunately, pretty words do not equal pretty deeds.

Romney and McCain are not all that different to me. However, one thing that McCain said during a debate last Fall did stick with me (as nothing about Romney has thus far except for his zombie eyes and Herman Munster hairdo): McCain was talking about the illegal immigrant problem, and he said, "I think we need to remember, first of all, that these are children of God."

Whatever your religious beliefs, that statement has to be taken differently from the statements of the rest of the field. Certainly this is a different sentiment than what you will get from people who insist on referring to other human beings using racist slurs such as "wetback."

So I like McCain, at least a little.

On the other hand, I am for a humble foreign policy (which Bush campaigned on in 2000 but utterly failed to deliver); a sound dollar (which too many of the Republican Party seem to scoff at as though it were not important); and getting the government back on its proper leash--a VERY short one. These are all Republican planks, but someone seems to have torn out the deck on this ship of fools.

I don't see McCain, Romney, Edwards, Billary, Obama, or even A Pirate as being particularly concerned with those things, so I continue my interest in Ron Paul.

Herring405