Combat-wombat:
I agree with you regarding his social conservatism.
However, as President, he can only sign or veto bills that reach his desk.
So, as a pragmatist, I would rather see someone as President who would veto another gun ban. The likelihood of our needing this veto: HIGH.
He would sign bills that restrict gambling (stupid), define marriage in the Constitution (as inappropriate as Prohibition), and enforce "decency" on the airwaves (wrong). The likelihood of his getting these bills on his desk? LOW. The likelihood of an Amendment dealing with marriage? ZERO. An Amendment requires a "yes" vote from 2/3 of all the states.
I don't hope to agree with a candidate all the time. Hell, the fact that someone wants to be President tends to disqualify him/her in my mind. You either get a narcissist who desparately wants power and approval at any cost (Gore, Kerry, Clinton), or someone too well connected to the in-crowd of the power structure (Bush, Bush, Nixon). I tend to think that Kennedy and Reagan really wanted to be good Presidents; I didn't agree with either of them all the time, either.
So what it comes down to for me is this: which candidate's victory will push the US in the direction I'd like, given all factors I can see at the time?
I can't see that in any of the "major" candidates right now. Thompson, Richardson, Hunter, and Paul all interest me. Paul at the top of the list. I see McCain, Guiliani, Clinton and Obama, however, as having strong potential for really bad results for the country. As a grownup, I won't throw my vote away on a symbol. Too much damage can be done in 4 years.