That seems to be 19th century historical revisionism. The only thing we really know about them politically is they were diverse but all wanted power to remain with the senate, compared to the other faction of populares that focused on popular assemblies.

It's not 19th century historical revisionism to regard the Senatorial aristocracy as deeply conservative (in the sense of maintaining the supremacy of the aristocracy against reforms from the lower-class), especially the Senatorial aristocracy of the Late Republic. The Senate was the aristocratic bastion of the Republic's system, and openly so. The Optimates pretty freely used the term boni amongst themselves to imply conservative leanings or joining the conservative faction.

The core issues of the Optimates were not diverse in the least - it would be more correct to say that political allegiance was often fluid and that there was no formal boundary for membership - the description was more 'conservative and liberal' than 'Republican and Democrat', to use an Americentric comparison.

There were a few core ideologues who were lifelong adherents of a faction, whatever their reasons (Cato amongst the Optimates and Caesar amongst the Populares for some famous examples), a larger number of moderates who generally, but not always, aligned with the faction (Cicero for the Optimates, Memmius for the Populares), and a much larger number of opportunists, who swapped with the changing winds (Crassus and Catiline, starting with the Optimate faction and shifting to the Populares; Pompey, starting with the Optimates, shifting towards the Populares, and then back towards the Optimates).