Hard-line compromising...

You make a good point... in fact, both of you make a good point. I can't rationally argue, because I feel it is the truth.

It's funny, though...

I'm reading a history book (non-fiction, in other words) that discusses the people and processes that brought about our Constitution. A fascinating read, written by a giant in the world of historical analysis (in my opinion). I won't quote the book, but I will give the impression that I took from the work...

The men that comprised the Constitutional Congress were the cream of the crop in American politics and philosophy in 1787, and few (if any) could be said to have agreed 100% with any one other person about what would fix the issues that existed in the US at the time. These 55 men, from every conceivable background and circumstance, were as varied and disparate a group as any could imagine... then or now. Fully half of them were college educated, and half were also lawyers. Seventeen of them owned a total of more than 1,500 slaves. Seven were avowed atheists, while only two were Catholics. A whopping 31 of them would be considered "multi-millionaires" today, but no fewer than 11 of them had taken the summer off of their "JOBS" to come to the Convention... meaning politics was their "second job", not their primary one.

This wonderfully varied collection of businessmen, lawyers, politicians, farmers, brewers, merchants, doctors, fisherman, smiths, and soldiers could be broken down into two camps: those favoring a strong central government (Federalists) and those favoring a smaller, weaker central government with greater powers to the States (anti-Federalists). Both camps had strong supporters, and both camps made strong arguments that their view was the right view.

How was it that these to nearly opposite points of view, made up by such a variety of people, could manage to pound out, over the course of a single summer, one of the greatest and most enduring works of enlightened democratic government the world has ever seen?

Compromise.

It is undeniable fact. Without the ability of these men to reach agreement on where the line between the "ideal" and the "practical" actually lay, the Articles of Confederation would have remained the basis of American government, and the United States wouldn't have seen the dawn of the 1790's without first going utterly broke or being invaded by Britain, Spain or France.

Now, I am not using this as an example to urge the GOP to shun its principles and platforms... far from, in fact. The Federalists who (I feel) won the debate over the shape of our nation's fledgling government did not sacrifice the principles and beliefs they held about what the country needed to survive... and neither did the anti-Federalists like Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and George Mason. They worked to ensure that the "new government" that they didn't want to see created didn't exceed what the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and what the Articles of Confederation guaranteed to the individual States.

The GOP, and more specifically the entire conservative movement in America today, must SHOW the voting public the error of the liberal agenda and the rational basis of the conservative agenda, so that future elections are not based solely on the perception that one man, or one administration, or even one Party constitutes an ideology with no merit or legitimate views. For every "moderate" that voted for Obama in '08, I'm sure you can find a conservative Democrat (like me) that voted for the Republicans simply because Obama was so far from my position, regardless of partisan affiliation.

What brightens my thoughts is how much help the conservative movement is getting from the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama NOW... they are making fools of themselves and showing their promises to be baseless and empty. Their vaunted "recovery" plans are, in fact, holding the economy back and NOTHING Obama is doing on the foreign front is making the US and her interests safer in any way, shape or form.