The problem with that logic is that the status quo is unacceptable. If our failure to compromise at all means that no bill gets passed, that's a homerun for the liberals. They want us to refuse to compromise because it preserves a status quo that benefits them.
"True leaders never compromise" is a ridiculous mantra. Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T. So he compromised and settled for the $1.3T. But according to you, he should have "refused to compromise", even if that meant no tax cut at all. Evidently, in your book, no tax cut is better than a $1.3T tax cut.
"Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T..."
Let's see if I got this right. Dubya is a Republican. RINOs are Republicans. Democrats are Democrats. I believe that's correct.
Now, back to a strong leader concept. Without fail, the Democrats walk in "lock step" on any matter their leader requests it. Any time they are in power they get their way 100%...no compromise.
Dubya and his Republicans could not stick together even if you made them jump into a pool of super glue. What's the difference? Weak leader who compromises and never uses a veto?