I don't have much time to go into this too much so I will just mention a few things. I disagree that welfare, or at least a minimum level of welfare should be divorced from the government. Its because of the failure of private and church institutions in the past that we rely on the government to provide this essential service.

Another area where I think there should be more freedom is in artisitic expression. For most painted art forms the artist is not appreciated until they have died which makes it understandable that the copying of that work should be prohibited. However with books, movies and music these should enter the public domain within a generation. The current copyright laws only really serve to benifit the big content publishers who can milk the works for years after the artist has moved on or died.

Churches are made up of people.  Sweden a guy went to jail for speaking against anal-sex.  In America a photographer had to pay thousands to a same-sex couple because she did not believe in their behavior.  Peoples personal religous beliefs are being litigated away.

Opposite Sex relationships fill a vital need in society.  Society could go on forever without allowing same-se relationships.  Government should not be involved in things that do not serve  a vital interest

Religion is protected in America.  Sexual Behavior is not protected.  Anal Sex has many health issues.  Just ask a proctologist.

I don't update my sig for these types of things very often but I definitely consider myself much less of a conservative and much more of a libertarian so I'll give it a go.

As Greg Gutfeld recently said during an interview:

"I became a conservative by being around liberals, and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives."

Positions

School Choice: Completely support school vouchers.  If a private school can do a better job than the public school for half the cost (as they were in DC before funding was cut due to idealogical and political BS) then the government needs to step aside and let these children have the best future they can.
 
Pension Plans: Fully support privatized social security and in general increased self-reliance for the individual at all ages.

Health Care:  I think we need to address the numerous inefficiencies in the system first and foremost and then address what kind of health care people should have second.  The problem is you need to know the cost before you can leap.  I think a lot of people are trying their hardest to make the same mistake on this issue that they harp on Bush for making with Iraq (rightly so)...namely leaping forward without a truly feasible plan.  Reduce costs by simplifying regulations and addressing litagation abuse, insurance abuse, etc...then re-evaluate.  Then I would want to see a plan that offers private companies a chance to compete yearly (in a public forum, not congress) to be on a list of 3 options for consumers without insurance while allowing anyone and everyone to go off on their own and get a seperate policy. 

Vices. Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Prostitution:  Agree fully.  People must learn to navigate the vices of the world on their own, adding additional arbitrary punishments and scorn on top of their existing downsides is costing us preposterous amounts of money and goes against the principles of a free society.

Taxation:  Fair Tax. Flat Tax. Whatever.  Just get rid of the immensely corrupted IRS at the bare minimum, along with the income tax.

Welfare and Giving: Privatize it. Incentivize it.  It is not, and should not be, the government's place to be the CFO of America's charitable funds.  We are already the single most charitible nation in the world both internally and externally speaking.

Military: Maintaining fitness for large scale war can be done at a much smaller cost than it is now and it is a requirement that we are prepared for that worst case scenario (unlikely as it is).  More importantly we need to adapt our standing forces to a counterinsurgent and counterguerrilla style of training.  In general I think we could benefit greatly from a review of Sun Tzu, particularly focusing on concepts such as -A skilled warrior leads his foe to battle and is not lead there, -Evaluating wars before we engage to make sure we are fighting for something worth our expenses financial and otherwise. -The general must be free to pursue victory free from the politics of the state, if this is not possible then you have failed to evaluate the price of the war correctly -Some wars cannot be won on the field of battle, some wars cannot be won through political cunning, and some wars cannot be avoided. -Following a course of impassive behavior of any kind makes you predictable and opens you wide to a crushing defeat.

In short, politicians should work with general's and SecDef to decide if war is the right course by getting their assessment of the situation, potential costs, potential losses, regional politics, regional stability, etc... and then once they decide move forward they need to back up and let the general do his job with the full support of the nation (if not in political agreement to the cause then at least in financial and morale support). 

Civil Rights: Vehemently against the racist policy of affirmative action.  Don't support government recognized marriage of any kind.  Support Civil Unions for all couples.

Wait so do you guys believe in a Stand Alone Complex? Where everyone looks out for themselves, but yet ends up working almost like a united group?

this sounds very interesting, so count me in
also Ron Paul is as far as I know not a famous dead guy - He's been pretty alive lately

Yea, because it's not the failure of the guy who doesn't provide for himself.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Normally I don't quibble over polls but your number is so completely off I have to make an exception:

Courtesy of a Politico article:

"The survey showed Cheney’s favorability rating spiking 8 percentage points since he left office in January, increasing from 29 percent to 37 percent."

Which is doubly relevant since his spike is at least in small part due to his more vocal approach to making the case on this very issue since January (note the poll was before his recent speach so it might have changed up or down).  Regardless his recent speach was not his only public comments on this and he has risen 2 more points than Bush has in the same period, this means people are finding him more favorable, at least in part, because of his position on this issue, which contradicts the point you were making.

Additionally polling indicates that republicans hold the most popular position on 5 of the 9 issues you listed and aren't far behind on 2 others (3 depending on how you measure).  Especially the issue of less taxes and less government they are overwhelmingly winning in the polls.  Although it is fair to note that this has been their rhetoric and not their actual policy which is one of the main reasons they have lost party ID.

My take is that while the Republicans are certainly in an organizational and leadership crisis right now you're taking the opportunity to set a narrative that is more representative of what you want to be true than what is actually true by extending it to a policy problems.  They don't need to change their positions (even though I do disagree with them on a couple of those you listed), they need to actually adhere to them while in office.

Nancy Pelosi approval rating is 39%. She is at Dick Cheney levels. Funny.

Again, to reiterate what I have said before many times. The best thing that can come out of Obama and the Democrats being on office, is people disillusioned with the Republicans for so long, will start to realize the problem is not with the party, but with giving people to much power.

The only answer, is small government. It's not the people, it's the power you give them, and the people of the US give them a little more power each day.

^Indeed,

Dick Cheney is certainly not super popular by any stretch, but he is far from the 19% claimed (nearly double it in fact).

Let me take this from a Christian standpoint...

The Christian and the Christian church IS failing at meeting the needs of the poor. For a long time, the church was the primary institution (as well as it's members) for welfare needs across America (that's not to say it was the only, mind you). Unfortunately, the church got greedy and stupid, and began to give up their place in Welfare, which is why the government has so rapidly taken over.

Christians are to give 10% of their income to the church, which in turn uses all of (or the majority) of that money to help the poor. Unfortunately, many greedy, unChristian pastors and laity have instead used that money to build bigger churches, and give smaller amounts to the poor and needy.

That's not to say that the individual has no responsibility. Again, as a Christian, we are nearly-demanded to give to the poor and help them. That isn't to say that everyone shouldn't give (every single human should absolutely give of their time and money to help those less fortunate), but with Chrisitanity, it's been codified and part of our moral fabric. Unfortunately, with a lot of people (Christian and non-Christian alike), morality is relative, and there's no urgency to help the poor - We'd rather outsource it to someone else, like Uncle Sam.

At some point in the future, I am going to start a church where 90% of all tithes and offerings taken go to support the needy, homeless, and starving, with the remaining 10% to be used for upkeep. It sickens me when I see church budgets that have 90% of the money going toward salary, and mortgages, with the remaining 10% being used for anything else.