Consensus and compromise to the "democrat" leaders means bending over and taking whatever they say. It means total and complete capitulation to their agenda. No thanks.
Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but what seems to be the problem here is semantics.
If you want to get wrapped up around the axle over semantics, that's fine with me. But I think there was a very good reason (as expounded in the continental congress debates) that the founding fathers specifically eschewed the use of the word "democracy" in our founding documents. If you want to equate the representative republican form of government and "For the people, of the people, and by the people" to mean "democracy" that is your prerogative, but many of us will continue to recognize the distinction and prefer a republic over a democracy.
To quote Jim, "I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. ... I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party."
I'll not try to put words in Jim's mouth, but I guess he is proposing not the elimination of the Democrat Party so that only the GOP remains, but rather the destruction of the far left leadership of the democrat party through activism at the polls and in educating the voters of its true agenda. If successful, the GOP would become dominant, but the democrat party would have to move back toward the center and return to American principles in order to maintain a two-party system, or be replaced by a new "third" party that would become the "second" party by default. After all, that's how the Republican Party came into being in the first place.