If you are paying attention to the Republican primaries, there has been a theme of looking for the true “conservative” candidate.
They say the front runner, Mitt Romney, is too much of a moderate, and that the “base” of the party is looking for someone who is more to the right of center.
Because of that, there has been a number of surges in the primaries and polls, with people such as Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum getting “bumps” in their numbers as each is tabbed as the “conservative choice,” and the candidate the “base” wants.
Here’s the thing, though. Each time one of those candidates bumps, it is followed by a slide and you are once again left with Romney, the moderate, as the front runner for the GOP nomination to square off against President Obama in the November elections.
So, maybe the base should get the message that there are more people looking for a moderate than a one-side-of-the-aisle candidate.
What is the problem with being a moderate? Why is the fact that someone can look at both sides of the issue and sometimes side with the other party a bad thing?
Why has the fact that someone might change their mind become a character trait to be attacked? Circumstances arise all the time causing you to react a certain way, only to get more information later on and then realize that you were wrong in your original thinking. So why would changing your mind when more information presents itself be a bad thing?
For me, the candidate that I would vote for is someone who will put the best interest of the entire body of their constituents first, not someone who is going to toe the party line. That goes with any election at the town, county state and federal levels.
Keith Lobdell is the Editor of the Valley News. Contact him at email@example.com.