And I agree with you both. I think you are probably right that having expressed views about women in the military, as he did in the piece you linked to, are enough to ruin his chances. That is especially true in the current circumstance of having to beat a popular woman candidate at a time when a significant part of that candidate’s supporters are extra anxious to elect that person just because she is a woman.

I can see that you expressed no personal judgment in your statement but I will respond as if you believe that the views he expressed do disqualify him in your own mind, that is, as if you disagree with the judgments he makes. Maybe you do but maybe not.

Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. If I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.

Assuming you accept that as a true statement and then accept his basic premise that the decisions made about women in combat roles should be made on the basis of producing the best combat force possible, what did he assert that doesn’t make obvious sense? There is probably something there worth a quibble but the overall thesis is so well supported that I would like to hear a reasonable and intelligent argument that disagrees. I admit only reading about half the article today but I read it in the past and actually considered posting it here myself because I thought it to be a strong argument well articulated. I am not surprised that many would have a negative reaction to it but hey, it's worth discussing why, I think.  

 Do you feel that he has revealed anything here that is a negative about his attitude towards women, anything regarding women other than sometimes life isn’t fair in every way we wish it could be?  

 The whole can sometimes be greater than the some of the parts but that requires that they be fitted together properly. The apparently rarely accepted corollary is that a couple perfectly good parts can be fitted wrongly and in the wrong place and result in the damage or destruction of an otherwise functioning machine. I believe Webb has made his case in this instance , but I think he has hurt his current cause. Not fair, IMO, but well, that’s life too, aint it? Life in general but politics for sure. 

I will try to get back with my opinions on him being too conservative. I don't know why the couple of words came up in small font and am giving up on correcting them.