Seems to me your position is self marginalizing, but at least you have the consolation of never having to compromise your lofty ideals by facing up to realpolitik.
Adherence to "realpolitik" (i.e., "practical politics," or politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations) at the expense of standing firm on those "certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell [a party's, or a faction's] numbers" is what has brought the United States to the pitiful state she finds herself in today.
Actually, come to think of it, being "pragmatic" in the way that you two would prefer--or as Chunga puts it on his FR home page, "Conservatives don't let Democrats win elections. They vote Republican."--isn't pragmatic at all, since it requires the adherence to the principle that it is always acceptable to vote for a candidate that is Republican and always unacceptable to vote for a candidate that is not Republican.Now, we have already discussed the financial status of the Federal government over the bulk of Chunga's lifetime, and straight by the numbers, taken directly from U.S. government Web sites, it is indisputable that the size of the Federal government has NEVER decreased since the 1930s, irrespective of which party is in power. Furthermore, it is indisputable that Bush, who faced a Republican-controlled Congress for the bulk of his two terms in office as POTUS, created nearly $5 Trillion in on-balance-sheet Federal debt on top of the increase in revenues supposedly created by his 2003 tax cuts which was of course spent. (That's not counting the unfunded liabilities associated with his infamous Medicare Part D program.)
So, to be honest, it seems that the "pragmatic" (or rather, not-so-"pragmatic") strategy of simply voting Republican as a general rule or without question is not working.
Oh, and by the way, if it's Bob Conley vs. Lindsey Graham, I'll pick Bob Conley. No hesitation. No qualms. No regrets.