>>Too many die-hard conservatives are completely unwilling to compromise at all and cause such deep divisions over comparatively small things that the moderates win out.<<
Make this same comment next week and then look in the mirror if there is a President-elect named Obama.
It isn’t the conservatives CAUSING ANYTHING. It’s OUR party, damnit! Republicans don’t win landslides with moderate candidates; they win landslides with conservative candidates and conservative principles. In other words, we don’t need moderates.
>>the strength of unity sometimes must outweigh the purity of idealism.<<
So you really think the party is unified behind McCain?
I disagree.
Party moderates were able to unite around McCain during the primaries, at the same time the more conservative among us were still quite divided by ideological purity tests.
Those who can unite on a compromise usually end up getting more of what they want. Divided purists, holding out for all of what they want, end up with less or none.
Conservative purists divide themselves into small minorities with absolute candidate litmus tests of one kind or another and virtually guarantee loss. The larger group of moderates who aren't as dead set on "the nominee must say/do/believe/support X" get more of what they want in the end by being willing to give up some of what they want.
The ones who insist on getting all or nothing are probably going to end up with nothing.
If you want to call that a party problem, then that's fine. Start your own party and work on winning some elections. Then you can't blame the party for nominating the wrong people.