Okay...

Let's get something straight right off the bat: I'm not picking fights or making slights at ANYBODY (even Ryan!). What I am saying is simply something I believe to the very core of my being.

I am afraid that Baddboy is equating "political expediency" with "compromise".

Understanding that to gain the priority issues in modern politics by conceding secondary or tertiary issues to the opposite position is as old as politics itself... Hammurabi's "Code" (read in it's entirety) is an excellent example of the same understanding dating back 3,800 years. If this is what you want to define "compromise" as, then I agree, it is the "expedient" form of political leadership.

The UNCOMPROMISING aspect of leadership that I feel is lacking in modern American politics is the part of the formula that determines the "priorities" in the first place. Were a politician in today's climate to need to "wrangle" to get what he feels he needs from fellow politicians, then that is the game we play... the same game Sun Tsu understood so well 2,400 years ago.

However, people like Reagan, or Truman, or Lincoln (an excellent example) determined their course of action and view... and did not waiver even when things looked their worst. They were CONVINCED of the correct and morally-superior position of their view, and did not "compromise" one iota of that view. They may have brokered deals to forward that view... but the view itself remained intact from conception to completion.

I will ALWAYS rather debate, argue or try to convince someone like Ryan, or Baddboy, or Jambo, or Mick "the Lib" that MY view is closer to the truth than theirs, than I ever would want to try and convince someone that is intentionally LOOKING to change his or her view, simply to expedite political change or position.

Force ME to convince YOU... don't wait for me to "water-down" my side while you "butter-up" yours so that the two begin to look similar enough to pass for the same view!