The other week a Letter to the Editor referred to a 90-year old woman who had decided to vote for Romney on the basis of his debate performance. However, she was goaded into changing her mind and now plans to vote for Obama because she had the idea that the Tea Party has too much influence on Romney.
The Tea Party is made up of many individuals who do not always have the same opinions. The Tea Party is used as a "whipping boy" for voters who are confirmed Obama supporters.
It would make more sense to try to persuade Obama supporters to desert their candidate because of radical liberal groups. These radicals are much more "far out" than members of the Tea Party, who simply want to preserve the America we love.
What is supposed to be the compromise? Would such compromises include going along with adding three-quarters of a trillion dollars to the debt every year instead of $1.2 trillion? Would it include going along with huge tax increases for some kind of vague promise to make cuts in spending (which in the end usually don't end up happening)?
Would compromising with the liberals include vastly increasing the size and power of the bureaucracy? Would the compromises include ratifying half instead of all of the U.N. treaties that call for surrendering our American sovereignty?
Compromise may be a good idea when individuals disagree, but bartering away our American principles is a lousy idea.
David A. Campbell,