"The argument over what is a conservative is very important no matter who brings it up." Not true. It's very important if a LewRockwellite brings it up, because the sole purpose of the bringing is to declare the non-LewRockwellite "not conservative enough", thus trumping all, and allowing the LewRockwellite the smug self-satisfaction one gets from bullying one's opposition into giving up the argument. You advance nothing, not even one convert to your cause, but it feels swell.
So, most of your premises are suspect. You've devolved into griping about semantics. Don't blame yourself: It's impossible to discuss LewRockwell stuff without someone getting that way, sooner or later.
Semantics are no small matter as I tried to explain - it controls ideas and ideas control actions. All this arguing over who is more conservative than who and variations of labels obscure the real debate of the constitutionality of policy foreign and domestic. Also if the grassroots has one understanding of 'conservative' that differs from the leadership's definition then the grassroots support people and things they actually oppose - or used to oppose. This misunderstanding or a shift in ideology decides our form of government - our very lives. No small matter.