[redangus]

You just made his point. The chances of a small government, lower taxes conservative being pro abortion, anti gun or pro gay agenda are slim at best. That doesn’t mean he has to be circuit riding preacher on the stump when it comes to social issues. If you want to win you need votes and some of those votes will need to come from younger voters who arent really into the social issues, and face it if you don’t win you don’t get to make the rules. You can die on the hill of the perfectly principled, and vocal about it candidate, or you can pick your fights, elect small gov conservatives, hopefully limit the governments intrusion in your life and assume they will be much more conservative on all issues than the alternative. You decide.

[SoConPubbie]

You can die on the hill of the perfectly principled, and vocal about it candidate, or you can pick your fights, elect small gov conservatives, hopefully limit the governments intrusion in your life and assume they will be much more conservative on all issues than the alternative. You decide.

False choice and shades of a straw-man argument.

The third category you did not list, was the Reagan category, you know, the three-legged stool type of candidate?

The one that elevates ALL of the conservative positions to the same level of importance.

Try to win without this approach, and you will have another Dole, McCain, Romney debacle.