I don't think anyone is suggesting that Republicans jettison conservative principles to increase the numbers. What I'm suggesting is that I'd prefer to have someone in office I agreed with 55% of the time than someone I disagreed with 95% of the time. If a pure conservative has a viable candidacy, then by all means fight to the death for that person. But in a state where a pure conservative would mean sure defeat, it's prudent to settle for less, considering the alternative. (And I'll readily admit that considering the nature of the recall election in California, there is the likelihood that a conservative could win -- Arnold isn't the only one who can win this for Republicans.)
And to those who would never consider voting for a Republican who isn't 100% conservative, I urge them to read Ann Coulter's book, TREASON, and discover who the real enemy is.
That's a start. In the primary anyway. That's what we are doing here in PA with Arlen Specter. We have a challenger (Cong. Pat Toomey) in the spring that is viable. Arlen has money, but I truly believe that he lacks deep grass roots support that he will need to win. I believe the key is to run as an unabashed conservative and then be one when you get into office. There must be a clear distinction to get people to the polls and all too often, there just isn't that much of a difference that will stir people to vote.