How about a new 'big tent'?
Under it we can put all the one-issue voters who will NOT vote for a candidate who:
Supports abortion
or
Supports gun control
or
Supports gay marriage
or
supports cap and trade
or
supports drilling bans
or
supports the degradation of private property rights
or
supports open borders
or
supports amnesty for illegal aliens
or
Supports mollycoddling terrorists
or
supports gutting our intelligence community's ability to monitor foreign terrorists/organizations
or
supports permitting Iran to develop nuclear weapons
or
supports economic stimulus packages which mortgage our children's future
or
who supports raising taxes
or
supports continuing the Federal Government's scope well beyond what is Constitutionally authorized
or
supports degrading our military...
The list goes on, but we do support the empowerment of the individual by getting government off the individual's back, out of their wallet, and keeping the power to secure and defend their own in their hands.
I think there is lots of room for people under the tent, when they see what a host of one-issue voters, not to mention those who might vote with us on numerous or all issues given the chance. Why should we compromise our values to merely hold ground on one or two issues at best against a liberal alternative, let's go for the full spectrum and let the 'moderates' come to us over the full spectrum of liberal positions which the other side will incorporate into one candidate. It worked for the Left in 2008, with the uber-liberal, it can work for conservatives with an uber-conservative candidate to offer a real contrast to the Socialists.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this last statement is a contradiction on every 'one issue' that you list. When you say "but _we_ support..." you can't be talking about those one issue voters as part of the 'we support', because each of those issues _put_ the gov't on the back of individuals and into their wallets as well as violating their rights.
But if you mean to include them as well, do you mean only if they are at odds with just one issue? or two? or three? Where would you draw the line?
Another aspect of the 'all but one' position is that, imo, it shows a faulty logic - although it might be an emotional stance too - but faulty nontheless (with regard to individual rights). And we've seen people who were say 80 percenters become 60% - Frum, eg., Noonan... etc. and some becoming Democrats, I think there's the 'slippery slope' concept to consider. And eg. if their 'one issue' that we 'allow' is 'global warming' - that one issue takes down all the others even if they are at 99% 'we'.
Only because the fact that he WAS an uber-liberal was covered up my the mass media and only the minority of us who really CARE about something other than PERSONALITY were aware of it!