I went from thinking tactics lead to better postions to preaching on the virtue of solid positional play leading far batter tactics.  Is their a general consensus among gm's of which is first in importance?

Not sure about the general concensus, but I am of the latter opinion.

It's complex. It's generally accepted that strategy must be backed up with tactics, and that tactics often allow strategic shots at the opponent, but the point of strategy is to allow tactics to flow more freely. So what this really means, is that making the best use of the tactics on the board allows you to make even better use of other ones after your opponent has defended your current tactical shot!

dual motives? Its one of the first things I would try and explain to a new chess player, making your pieces accomplish more then goal or focal point.  Its exactly this that is giving me trouble at the moment, it seems this aspect of chess ebbs and flows for me.  How glorious are the games where your positional aspects are sound and your developed pieces are all sharing the defensive load..  I suppose currently, today even I am working hard to recognize breaking points, that moment where it is the best time to move from positional development and launch a sharp attack.  Even if to equalize in better position..  As a novice knowing what a better position is can be tricky..  Thanks for your input!  I have about 20 games going and not one am I in any great fear of losing, so today is a good day!

Tactics first in my opinion. I like to think of positional play as a more subtle form of tactics.