Columnist David A. Keene is correct only in his premise ("High stakes in the GOP primaries," Web, May 2). He suggests voting only for Republican incumbents in the upcoming primaries. He writes that the one circumstance where it is acceptable to vote for the challenger is in "heavily Republican" states. This is "without risking loss" of the seat.
This is the party line, and it's absurd. The point of elections is to choose the best candidate whose beliefs align with your beliefs, incumbent or not. As a nation, we could be doing a better job with our choice of representatives in the Senate and the House. So challengers are the best alternative to a Congress with an approval rating of 9 percent.
Most of the senators in difficult races are Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs. "Almost all have cast a vote or two" that did not help the party, as Mr. Keene admits. These senators are unable to verbalize smaller government, enforcing immigration, balancing the budget, defunding Obamacare and rolling back what are euphemistically called "entitlements." They can't do so because they like the status quo.
Voting for the candidate aligned with your beliefs is exactly the reason for voting. The primaries are your only chance to have better representation so the representatives you elect can "cast a vote or two" in favor of you.
Even if your candidate loses in the primary, it is still important to vote in the general election for the better candidate. Mr. Keene gets this right.