True enough, but for me and many on this forum, "not being conservative enough" is going detract from our enthusiasm after holding our noses for so long and achieving results like we are seeing in the issues listed above.
The problem I have is people claiming every time after a Republican loses, that if they'd only supported or emphasized (insert their pet issue here) more, they'd have won. It's superficial and self-serving.
It's even funnier when people do it for some sort of state election in a place they don't understand - I saw people doing it for Ehrlich and Steele in Maryland - as if they'd somehow been bigger social cons, this mysterious "base" that supposedly exists but ONLY comes out to vote if a candidate EXACTLY matches all their views, would have come voted and they would have won.
The Maryland races, in hindsight, were unwinnable, and Ehrlich, in hindsight, won four years ago in a fluke over a horrible candidate after a previous personally hated Democratic Governor. If more "conservative" candidates had run, they would have lost by even more.
Now people are going to dismiss Maryland as a hopless "blue" state (as much as I hate the color assignments which are the reverse of what they should be) but it's true of a lot more evenly balanced states too.