I think #2 is more important than #1. By far. However, if we can have both #1 and #2, I'm all for it. But if we're going to get only one, I choose #2.
My point is, having only 1 OR 2 is not enough. So it's not a matter of one being more of less important than the other. A Republican minority that is wonderfully conservative and rails against a Democratic Socialist majority wont save our country. Neither will a RINO slow-slide to socialism. Without both, we are nowhere.
We gave them the House. They said we need the Senate. We gave them the Senate. Then they said we needed the White House. We gave them the White House. Ah, but who is "we" and who is "them". "They" are Republicans. We have a Republican majority, not a conservative majority. And "we" are the voters - not just the conservative base, but the moderates and swing voters who make the majority coalition. We, the conservatives, have to be electing one of OURS. For example, we need to get Pat Toomey to defeat Arlen Specter. about 80-90% of the Republicans in Congress are pretty good conservatives. If we get enough margins in the Senate and House, we can simply ignore the RINOs.
Better minority party status than ... to utterly abandon our conservative and constitutional principles. I cant agree that 'minority party status' is a desirable situation when I know the alternative is power to Kennedy, Daschle, Hillery, Liberals like Boxer, Kerry, Pelosi, etc.
And this budget has broken the camel's back. Bush's new budget has a .5% discretionary domestic increase and proposed spending limits. He's turning the ship of state a bit to the right on this issue, about time.