but most are just better than the alternative.

It's easier to be a decent sort who stays true to their promises while on the lower rungs, but to move up or move legislation forward, you must start compromising.

My problem isn't with people being pragmatic with reasonable concessions, it's with them selling out ethics, morals, and stated beliefs simply to move up the ladder. THAT, I cannot abide.

Realistically, there isn't a state or national elected figure who has never made sometimes difficult concessions to move goals forward. Pragmatic leaders are absolutely necessary to keep things steadily moving forward towards desired goals. You know the saying: "Half a pie is better than NO pie", but what they concede on really matters!

If it sells out the ultimate goal they were elected to bring about just to get ahead personally, then shove 'em off the ladder into the abyss.

However, if it moves the goal forward, but not as far as desired because both sides need a win for anyone to get anything, well, that's just life in ppolitics.

Compromise IS the name of the game and voters NEED to understand that. Any leader who refuses to horse trade to get a win and move forward on goals, even if that lets the opposition also have a win, is an ineffective placeholder who will never get anything of value accomplished.

Politics cannot be a zero sum game. Life doesn't work that way unless you have a dictatorship. A win win compromise can bring social change forward WAY faster than a demand for all or nothing. THAT is what we have right now and it sucks!