Strategy is the selection of direction and the means for getting there. Tactics comprises the ways one executes on strategic choices. Isn't that a workable definition of the two oft-confused topics?

In general, it is good to be flexible about tactics but resolute about strategy.

For example, seeking to regulate, or not to regulate, this or that, is a tactic. it is a way to execute on a strategy. Being opposed to earmarks is also a tactical decision. Seeking to to lower the economy's general cost of capital in order to promote investment so as to drive productivity gains that generate higher income per capita -- that is a statement of a strategic goal and a strategic means, pursuant to which large extra spending on earmarks may be ill-advised, although also exiguous relative to the whole budget. That sort of strategic goal should be pursued adamantly and will take a long time to achieve.

For what it's worth.

I don't think this is a useful topic for the upcoming Palin-Biden debate.