A recent piece from Tea Party Nation paints a picture of Congressman Charles Boustany in a negative light, proclaiming him among the worst Republican Congressmen.

The piece proclaims,

Boustany is one of those Republicans who is always looking for “compromise.”  When compromise is your goal, surrender is always your first option.

At first, you can look at this and see that the Congressman has entered into compromise, most recently on a deal to raise the debt ceiling.  However, painting compromise as a bad thing all the time is a surprising turn and one worthy of those on the left that always insist on their own way.  It surprises me to see this logic then from someone on the right side of political perspective.  To say that surrender is always your first option when compromise is your goal is a generalizing statement that paints those that make less than ideal compromises alongside the founding fathers, who would not have produced a Constitution had they not been willing to compromise what they thought was right.

You might say that the sort of compromise that the founding fathers did was different than the kind that happens in the House and Senate.  I'm not so sure that it is.  Think about what would have happened if the founding fathers that sat down to hammer out the Constitution would have not compromised their convictions to come to an agreement.  Would we be a nation today?  No doubt the world would be radically different just because of those that would not compromise to come together and get things done.

I can certainly understand the concerns of the Tea Party movement and believe me, fiscal responsibility and keeping taxes low are high on my list of things that need to get done.  But, when you have a Congress that consists of 535 Senators and Representatives, you are going to have 535 different views on how to get things done.  If you want to get anything to happen there, then compromise is key.

The argument can be made that there have been some bad ones over the years and there can be no doubt about that.  But to paint someone with a broad brush just simply because they want to get things done is incomplete analysis at best.

I don't have a favorite in the race for Congress in this district, should Jeff Landry decide to do what everyone figures he will eventually do.  That said, there are benefits of the views of both.  Landry has made stands for the people of Louisiana that he should be applauded for.  The same holds true for Charles Boustany.  Of course there will be differing views because they are two different men.  I refuse to ride down a Congressman with a long record of service to his constituents just because some blog on the web tells me to.  Keeping the purity of your convictions is a noble thing but, you find that you get little done and get labelled as being lazy for it if you happen to be elected to a governing body.

Compromise is key to getting things done in a representative republic, which we currently live in.  Given that Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington all believed in the Constitution, which was forged in the fires of compromise, I will stand with them and give the benefit of the doubt to those that try to get things done in Congress.  It's a job that is getting harder and harder to accomplish, but it is a job worthy of the title, "Leader."