Well, I do think that standing on principle is a good thing, though I am not self-righteous about it. I am just talking strategy here.
Nor am I a puritan. There are plenty of issues -- especially social issues -- where I am willing to overlook differences.
But there are some positions that are critical to me in terms of supporting presidential or legislative candidates:
-- Absolute commitment to enforcement of immigration laws and border control. Failure to take this position is a deal killer for me.
-- Firm, demonstrated commitment to cut taxes, spending and regulation, which includes a commitment to get rid of the IRS through repeal of the 16th amendment and replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax.
-- Commitment to eliminate or drastically cut back the regulatory power of a number of federal agencies (take your pick, but especially EPA, Department of Labor and Department of Education.
-- Firm and absolute commitment to the recognition, preservation and strengthening of national sovereignty, and to America's legitimate national security interests.
-- Opposition to political correctness, "diversity, affirmative action."
I understand these things can't all be addressed in one term, but the candidate's leaning in these areas are critical to me.
In terms of priority, the top three are immigration, national security and cutting back on government regulation and taxation.
I don't think these things are too much to ask of the so-called "Republican" party.
The Crying Clown and the neutered one in the senate are afraid Donors and their Democrat friends across the aisle might not wanna let them play "Oligarchy" with them any more.
Conservatism is a three-legged stool of social, economic and fiscal conservatives. You can't just ask social conservatives to compromise unless you're willing to on some of your issues.
Again, Reagan was right -- someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend, not your enemy.