And to all you Republicans out there who insist that we're better off 'playing not to lose', instead of standing up for conservatism, this is the very kind of result that makes a mockery of your convoluted 'logic'.
Conservative - true conservative - issues, and candidates, can and will win. But there can be not a trace of ambiguity when presenting the case. Stand tall and speak loud and clear that this great nation, founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity, can only prosper and be truly free when it's citizens are motivated to rise against the moral and economic depravity of our opponent's agenda, indeed their benighted, socialistic passion.
The 'R' gubernatorial candidate lost in my state of Virginia tonight. A good man, and probably a good conservative at heart, but his failure to present himself as an unabashed conservative, resolutely and unambiguously stating his advocacy of true conservative positions, cost him this election.
This is not to say that your point re VA is not valid for VA or Texas. But, VA and Texas are not, say NJ. An unabashed conservative cannot win in a place like NJ. (Granted, an unabashed fiscal D probably can't win, either. Corzine worked hard at concealing his taxing ways.) But, as we saw last night, NJ will elect an unabashedly crooked, corrupt social liberal.
Another point: Certain conservative principles have broad appeal beyond the politically conservative voter. It does not follow from this that an unabashedly conservative candidate would have similar broad appeal.