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'.
Nope. not if we go back up my post to the part in bold, where I say about the new big tent: "Under it we can put all the one-issue voters who will NOT vote for a candidate who:"
and follow with a list of single-issue positions which Conservative voters feel strongly enough about that a liberal position by a candidate will stop them from voting for them.
The list shows the critical flaws in each of the DemocratMSM picked "Republican front-runners" in the last POTUS primary. You can find at least one issue there on which each of those candidates embraced a liberal stance, which would prevent a number of Conservatives from voting for them, regardless of their stance on the other issues.
"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."is in contrast to the positions I listed, which are unacceptable to Conservatives, either singly or in aggregate.
The more unacceptable positions, the more unacceptable the candidate, and by no means is the list complete. I just tried to hit the high points, but these are most of the issues where a liberal/socialist stance costs votes.
(Note I put in 'cap and trade' as opposed to global warming. The Congress may be able to vote on energy and taxation policy, but they can no more vote to warm or cool the planet than they can repeal the Law of Gravity.)
Each position on that issue is one which people so strongly oppose that they will often NOT vote for a candidate on that stance alone.
Each of those unacceptable positions is anti-Constitutional at some point.
Let's look at the last election, for instance. where were the stoppers?
Rudy: Gays and guns, for starters, enough right there.
McCain: Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and McCain/Feingold (not protecting our borders, anti-free speech). (He would not have done nearly so well if not for Palin on the ticket.)
Mitt: Marriage issues, guns.
Ron Paul: being portrayed as against The War on Terror and the US being a World Policeman in general. Associating him with fringe elements (Stormfront, 9/11 truthers) guaranteed he would not get the nod nor strong support despite positions on many of the issues which were in alignment with statements by the founders. (YMMV)
Which leaves Thompson who waited interminably to decide to run, and then fizzled, and Huckabee and Hunter who were shoved off the podium as much as possible by both the MSM and the anointed "front runners", despite Hunter having a delegate in Wyoming and North Dakota early on.
Hunter imho, was the best candidate on the issues out there.
The whole time we heard braying about "electability" which meant the media darlings, the Democrat/MSM-selected flawed candidates, were given prominence, and the die was cast.
Now, we have the losers, the too-liberal crowd trying to assert (in line with the MSM) that they were not liberal enough, and that the GOP needs to be even more like the Socialists.
It is my opinion that we need to go to the Right, not the Left on the issues, that there needs to be a definite contrast to Socialist policies.
That the individual is never empowered by government, at best their rights are protected thereby, and empowerment comes from being free to conduct themselves as they see fit. That includes fiscal matters, includes private property, personal defense and the responsibilities which accompany that freedom, and it includes the freedom to speak your mind.
The Constitution was written with the aim to delineate clear and concise duties of the Federal Government, a small government which would not intrude into the affairs of the individual lightly, and to protect the rights of citizens against that government by securing them from infringement. So long as it was followed, that is.
The idea to keep most government local, to provide for the redress of grievances against those local and State (and even Federal) governmental authorities, was the foundation of an enduring Republic, designed to secure liberty.
No where was the implication that that freedom was the freedom from responsibility, nor the freedom to do evil, nor the freedom to take a life without just cause, no matter how little that life may have developed, so long as it was developing.
The list of issue positions are antithetical to the very concept of our Republic, and that is why people believe so strongly that they will vote or not vote for a candidate based on a candidate's stance on that issue alone.
Will people vote for someone who is more Conservative than their stance on an issue? I firmly believe they will, given the choice between what they regard as an excessively Conservative stance on some issues versus excessively liberal stances on all the issues.
One third of the electorate will always vote liberal/Socialist. One third will vote for the most Conservative (Constitutionally and/or morally) available option. The other third is in the middle. It is the middle third that needs some choice other than a popularity contest, that needs a reason to back a candidate more substantial than the sound of his/her voice, cheap slogans, or hopeychangs.
The GOP needs to give that choice to the voters, and failing that, needs to go the way of the Whigs so another party can.