On the one hand, you have conservatives (fiscal and/or social), and on the other, you have libertarians, hard or soft. With the exception of the SoCons, none of these people necessarily think of the Republican party as their default political party, and in fact most of the soft libertarians would take violent exception to any suggestion that that was the case, mainly due to the presence of the SoCons.
I suspect a lot of the confusion over the recent antics of Charles Johnson, who is seen by many folks in the dextrosphere to be calling in friendly fire on his former comrades, is caused by the inability to differentiate between defense hawks (a species of social conservative, though not necessarily religious) and hard libertarians, most of whom weren't really interested in defense issues or Islamofascism until 9/11. I haven't been following LGF or any of the other blogs involved in the dust up that closely, but it sure seems to me that people are making assumptions about where other folks are coming from, and this has led them into making serious mistakes. Johnson may be right about some of the European conservative parties, which have about as much in common with our (nominally) conservative Republican party as they do with Canada's CPC*, but the way he went about discouraging his nominal allies in the anti-jihadi alliance online was just plain dumb.
I don't have a dog in the fight, myself; as a Falangist, I belong to a party that really doesn't exist and doesn't have more than superficial ties to the Generalissimo's old ruling party, and I vote for Republican candidates only insofar as they satisfy my desire for pro-military, pro-life, libertarian politicians. It does seem a shame that people who nominally share the same views on Islamic fascism can't agree to disagree on some things and move ahead on the things they still have in common, but that's people for you, I guess.
*Not much, aside from defense issues.