It's amusing that he thinks "moral standing" is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as "male" and "illegal" are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral. It's understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue. It is not. In fact, the pro-blasphemy position is actually the observably immoral position.
But his biggest mistake is to claim that "the moral high ground" is why one side wins. This is simply more conservative posturing that reliably leads them into disaster. The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness.
Those who believe in a path to victory through "the moral high ground" inevitably find themselves outflanked by those who are willing to surrender even more nobly. That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing. And appealing to the moral sense of an immoral people whose morality is constantly in flux is neither a rational strategy nor a winning one.
Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man's advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators.