If by the first, you mean that I will brook no compromise with the sanctity of human life and protection of the defenseless, then you are correct. For these are two of the very few legitimate roles of government. Let's try to get the basics right before we go fixing up everything else.
As for the second, that is a good question. I don't know. I think I would have been a great deal more vocal about what it means to be a conservative, and perhaps that is all my contribution could have been. Perhaps I would have found a way to press the candidate on the protection of basic rights protected by our founding documents such as the right to life.
I don't think I could have, in good conscience, compromised. Lots of other people could (and did) and apparently have no such misgivings. But that doesn't change the realities that I have pointed out on this thread -- that, indeed, anyone paying attention has seen.
If moral compromise is a legitimate strategy in politics, I'm certainly not fit for it. But I'm even less fit to ignore it. If you adopt that strategy, that's your business. Don't kid yourself about what you're doing. Keep it real. Accept facts. The man who was elected is no conservative, if the definition means anything.