I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile.
Oh no, I understand fully what compromise is. I also understand there's many various forms of it. Finding what you both agree on and focusing just on that can be compromise. Giving something to get something back is compromise. And yes, going along with something to make it "smaller" or "larger" in some form than it would probably be could also be compromise.
Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something.
Indeed, compromise would be giving up on those "core values" and taking what you can get. Its actually precisely my issue with "Compromise" as I've said a number of times on this forum. Republicans typically are told to "compromise" by basically continually moving AWAY from their ideal position and towards the Democrat ideal position. It rarely ever swings back the other way. The compromises that are proposed in many situations are generally "Democrats fully get what they want" or "Democrats get part of what they want". On the flip side, often for republicans its "What we want is moved away from hugely" or "What we want is moved away from slightly", however in many cases its rarely goes towards the Republican direction of things
Compromise also takes two sides, as does "core principles". When you know there are certain things that you agree on, and some things theo ther side hates, and rather than focus on what you agree on you dig your heels in and says "You're going to get on board or we're going to leave you behind, because the things you hate ARE going in" that's not exactly much different then blabbering about "core princples".
This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.
And there was no REASON for them to compromise in the past 2 years. Democrats had their nuts in a vice by having majority power in all three places. The "compromises" usually extolled were token gestures or slight reductions of some things, in attempts to be able to claim "bipartisanship" and swing the blame if it fails from themselves singularly.
The Republicans would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats actually showed they were interested in. The Republicans constitutents would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that the Democrats actually showed they were interested in. And from the view point of Conservatives, the COUNTRY would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats showed they were interested in.
So why do something that would actually...from your vantage point...do little to no good long term, and the damage of doing it both in the short term and long term would've been striking.
When the head of your party comes out pretty much right off, informs people that "they lost", gives them orders if they want to "get things done", and does a 24/7 tour of demonizing the other side the actions somewhat overshadow the hollow words being talked about with regards to "bipartisanship".
This is the first time the Democrats actually offered forth a worthwhile compromise, and the first time in a while that a compromise came down that was actually more beneficial...for the country, their constituents, and themselves in their minds...rather than harmful.