Not to mention being regarded as a dead president.

Franklin, and all the founding fathers would be horrified if they saw what the "republic" has now become. It is no longer of a governmnet "by the people for the people", but instead a governmnet of the elite for the elite. Which has becomes larger, more intrusive, and oppressive every single day.
.
kind of ironic that we fought so hard for liberty, and to break away from the tyrannical rule of British Monarchy. Today we have a government that is far worse then anything that the British crown was back then. We might as well just throw out the constitution today. It has been bastardized beyond belief as it is, and most in congress don't even have a clue what is in it.

foolonthehill, you should bring that attitude to the religious blog.

I honestly do not believe compromise is a realistic expectation given the nature of public discourse. Public discourse has degraded to a "horse race" style of reporting, which is easier to do than report facts. It's all about who wins and who loses in modern reporting. It's like watching sports reporting with the difference being people's lives in the balance. I wish I shared your optimism Mr. E.

The fact is, they did try to compromise with Hitler (the Sudetenland annexation being an example) but found that compromise was not his ultimate goal.
This country and its Constitution were formed through compromise. If it hadn't been, there would have been two American nations in 1789 instead of 1861. When compromise was no longer good enough, civil war resulted. Kind of like now...

Compromise is such a loose term, it needs to be defined in most contexts. I think the art of compromise is most usefully suited when negotiations are close. If two people are not in the same area code, why waste your time. The health care negotiations are getting more intense. If the compromise happens, then the votes will show up. The mystery question remains, what will the compromise(s) be?

"Compromise," in and of itself as a concept is meaningless just as the concept of "change" is, in and of itself, meaningless. The things on which a "compromise" is made are important. To say compromise is the key to keeping the republic is an empty statement, as many of the examples in the other posts illustrate.

Defend the Republic!

http://www.fightbackwisconsin.com/index....

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property."

--Ayn Rand, on the topic of compromise: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compro...

Compromise is such an ambiguous term. Would a compromise with Hitler have consisted of exterminating only three million Jews instead of six million? I prefer to think in terms of consensus. Reach consensus on a clear definition of the problem and the solution will often become self-evident. A problem well defined is a problem solved.

"People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.” - G.K. Chesterton
.
“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another -- too often ending in the loss of both.” - Tryon Edwards

I think you've got it right, John.