See post #72 to find out how off-base your post is.
Well I just looked at post #72 and it looks like you're pretty far off-base because you claim that 2010 "managed to give us the greatest sweep of the House and Senate in living memory". This is certainly news to most of us on FR. Last time I checked, the Democrats still control the Senate and Harry Reid is still in power.
The Republicans didn't "sweep" the Senate at all in 2010 and many of the Tea Party backed candidates in Senate races fared poorly. The Tea Party backed candidates in the House did much better, but it certainly wasn't "the greatest sweep of the House in living memory". We reversed the Democrat tital waves of 2006 and 2008 to restore the House to GOP control, but it was nothing like the 1994 landslide (where plenty of those evil "So Cons" like Santorum were elected) that was a huge GOP sweep and not a single Republican incumbent was defeated.
Those of us in states like Illinois and California would certainly dispute that your "fiscal conservatives" had a "sweep" that year. Many of "fiscal conservatives" shoved down our throats as the "electable" choice, like Carly Fiorina in California and Linda McMahon in CT, got crushed when Republicans elsewhere where winning handily. On the flip side, many of the "unelectable social conservatives" that we were warned would doooooooooooom the party and "CANNOT WIN", like Pat Toomey in Santorum's home state of Pennsyvania, won handily.
Many of the TEA party backed Senate candidates elsewhere also were defeated in races they should have won in 2010, such as John Raese in WV, Christine O'Donnell in DE, Sharron Angle in NV, and Ken Buck in CO. Especially with the latter two, I could make a good case that the equally conservative candidates in the primary that the Tea Party opposed would have won the general election.
Many of the candidates we're told are soooooooooooo great on fiscal issues and touted as Presidential material turn out to be anything but. Witness John Thune and the strange love affair some freepers have him with on here solely because he "beat Tom Daschle" 8 years ago and has been a medoicre Senator ever since. Ditto Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, who as recently as 2008 was being defended by some freepers as a good "fiscal conservative" despite her pro-abortion views.
The fact is, any candidate who really is a "FISCAL CONSERVATIVE" doesn't need to beat their chest about it and sneer about how awful unapologetic social conservatives are. If they really have great "FISCAL" credentials, they don't need to advertise it and use liberal rhetoric to mock others for being successful at capitalism or resort to liberal sounding rhetoric about how social conservatives want to regulate what goes on "in the bedroom" and "want to turn America into a theocracy", and every single other talking point that they borrowed from the DailyKos crowd.
Actions speak louder than words. I've looked at where all the candidates stood on TARP, wall street bailouts, Fannie-Freddie bailouts, the failed "stimulus", handouts to illegals, health care mandate, reforming social security, tax cuts, and their scores from the Club for Growth and National Taxpayer's Union. The ones who loudly advertise themselves as having the best "FISCAL conservative" credentials show anything but. History repeats itself.