...have been beating the hell out of us for a 100 years, haven't they?
Just tell me, is that a fact or not? I'm not interested in hearing about the immorality of compromise. Just tell me: is it a fact or not that politicians who compromise are more successful in achieving their ultimate objectives than politicians who don't?
Take Ron Paul for example. Politically, he was an almost complete failure, as he himself would and has recently acknowledged. He passed virtually no legislation in 30 years. Why? Because he was "Doctor No." That's not a black mark on Dr. Paul, because political success was not his goal. His goal was to educate people and build a movement. And he did exactly the right thing to accomplish that goal.
But eventually all that educating and movement-building has to be translated into political power, right? If not, this is all pointless. Political power, aka actually making law, is Rand's goal. Hence he is not playing "Doctor No," he's playing politics. He is, as you say, justifying the means (sometimes voting for bills that are contrary to his and our principles) by the ends (building a coalition in the Senate to accomplish things legislatively, and/or some day winning the Presidency and all the influence that comes with it).