Its why we vote for a candidate who values the sanctity of life, if WE value the sanctity of life.  Its why we support candidates who understands the concept of fiscal restraint, if WE value fiscal restraint.  And frankly, its why we support a candidate or candidates who believe in the value, the necessity, and the overriding power of our founding document (the constitution) as conservatives on this site, and elsewhere, will.

So should we be purists?

If there is a candidate who represents our views to the "t", then why wouldn't we be?  Particularly in the primary.  If you believe in something, you do what is necessary to champion that belief.  What better way, than to give your support, your voice, to someone who can amplify it and make your case for you. If your candidate still loses the race, that person has at least made your voice heard through the ensuing debate and exchange of ideas.

I was happy to see the Clark Durant team recognize the value of a primary and the ideas that become a part of the discussion during the primary.  In a recent letter to Durant supporters, campaign manager Dick Wadhams makes the case for a vibrant primary:

" ... We need to respect EVERY candidate's efforts and encourage them to make their case to Republicans in Michigan.  Although I feel confident in Clark's campaign and the fact that I think we are in the strongest position to challenge Stabenow, it would be premature to do anything beyond having these general conversations."

Part of the primary process is making the case.  Arguing the positions held by the candidate.  Hopefully the positions are heartfelt and true to the nature of the candidate.

Likewise, I have had conversations with Gary Glenn who while arguably one of the better known names throughout the state, agrees we need to see more of the candidates themselves, and not be bound to a predetermined nomination of who appears more electable.  Glenn, using "establishment" candidate Hoekstra as an example for supporting discussion by ALL of the candidates, says to me:

"I'm finding that when Tea Party and other conservative activists learn that Hoekstra voted for the $850 billion Wall Street bailout, raising the debt ceiling to $11 trillion, earmarks like the Bridge to Nowhere, the Brady Bill gun control law, and that he's been funded by Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., and opposes state and national Right to Work laws, they refuse to support him. Far better we learn that now in the Republican primary, and nominate a conservative who can activate the grassroots and beat Stabenow instead, than in the general election after it's too late."

Indeed.  Get the voices of the candidates out there in the PRIMARY, and let the public decide who best represents their views.  If in the Michigan Senate Primary, Pete Hoekstra winds up being the selection of Republicans, so be it.

An intense primary changes the dialogue. The public may not fully understand your views or opinions unless they have been exposed to them.  Without the competition of ideas, how might they do so otherwise?  It is only with the full exposure of those ideas that the seeds can take root.  A predetermined win for a political figure who has "earned" their stripes in a political party by deceit, or pandering to a nature not their own, is not only bad, its dangerous.

The primary should be used to determine the core instincts of the candidate. It is not in my view, a "popularity contest", though selecting a likeable flag bearer serves the message more advantageously.

There is no doubt the natural instincts of our politicians must be vetted, and their initial responses are more often than not, a "tell" into how well they will represent your views.  Changing one's mind when given new information is not necessarily a bad thing, but a pattern can emerge during a quite proper series of debates, statements, or actions by any candidate.  Natural instincts can be vetted, and those who are open and honest can be predictable.

A primary provides this service.

I started this with a question that in reality asks, should a candidate in office already, suffer resources and time electioneering in a primary, repeatedly?  In other words, why would we hold primaries for candidates of our party when our party already occupies the seat?

Because we should always be looking for the best voice to represent us.

It may or may not be the incumbent who wears our badge, but the selection process keeps them true to principle, and does not allow them to deviate without good cause. And admittedly "good cause" might sometimes exist.  However, it offers an educational opportunity when a challenger presents it as an issue.  If there is a house full of those who consistently vote wrong, should we feel better to know they are in the same party we support?

Primaries 'freshen' the candidate, and ultimately keep the elected to their core ( and as-run-on) positions.

Look at the wall to the left.

As Michigan knows all too well, rust never sleeps. And the oxidation of the presumed safe lifetime seats held by members of either party leads to the corrosion of principles.