In response to my last letter, Tea Party members took the opportunity to remind me they’re standing on principle and to compromise would mean they were rejecting their beliefs. One writer stated they will not “cower to those who claim to know better,” which I find to be a strange reaction to the thought of holding an open-minded dialog. What has “cowering” to do with listening?

By their very name Tea Partiers wish us to think back to olden times and our forefathers. I wonder if they ever consider what would have happened if Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin had “stood on a very important principle” and incorporated anti-slavery language in the Constitution. This would have resulted in Southern states voting against ratification, which would have left our fledgling nation where? Thankfully pragmatism and yes, compromise, carried the day. What they deemed as the greater good won out.

Contrary to what some in the Tea Party seem to think, they do not hold a monopoly on this principle thing. For the richest nation in the world to propose cutting food stamp monies, while at the same time emphatically rejecting a single penny tax increase on the wealthy, directly attacks my principles. And such divergent opinions should lead to what?

As for the Tea Party complaint in last week’s paper that they are being unjustly maligned, in my opinion they have only themselves to blame. The government shut down demonstrated very poor judgment with a resultant political price to be paid. You cannot wander into the swamp and expect to stay dry!

There are also those who said the architect of the shutdown, Tea Party spokesperson Ted Cruz, was merely following the wishes of his constituents. I doubt they said, “Ted, go to Washington and do something very, very foolish.”