Is the moderate politician the answer in 2010?

We call them RINOs or DINOs, but are they really the answer in future politics? I suppose it depends on what you consider a successful outcome would be. There was a time when we considered moderates as the ones most likely to “reach across the aisle.”

The question lies in what that politician is willing to sacrifice to accomplish bi-partisanship. When a politician agrees to sign a bill against his party’s wishes, it usually has a payback clause. Hopefully he will receive a vote from a partner across the aisle, which is willing to vote against his party’s wishes on a bill the original politician sees as important. Unfortunately, the whole process requires the politician to place priorities on bills. If the constituents from that politician’s district don’t see eye to eye on the priority, the fireworks begin.

I’ve always viewed “moderates” as people in government willing to “sell” his or her values for a vote to be named at a later date. This isn’t how our system should work. I’m certainly not saying that some degree of give and take shouldn’t happen. What I am saying is that basic principles of the party line should be followed, and only minor details should be open for compromise. There are certain issues that I don’t see eye to eye with my party line, but I am not a politician. I don’t constantly write about the things I don’t agree with, but I do write about the things we all hold dear to our hearts.

With the current trend in the Congress, I believe that Republicans need to return to the roots of conservatism to fend off the unrelenting onslaught of the Progressive Democratic movement. It’s obvious that the Democrats don’t want to shelve the entire healthcare bill to write something truly bi-partisan, so why should the Republicans give in to receiving small concessions on a flawed bill.

The wishey- washy moderates are politicians with no principles other than gaining money for their re-election campaigns.