Confessions of a "Single Issue Voter"

March 17th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

For the past 10 years, I voted Republican, rain or shine. I was a single-issue voter.

My only concern was that the candidate be a Republican.

Why?

Because I don't like what the Democrat Party has done to America.

This year, another issue arises that concerns me greatly… so much so, that I might not be voting Republican this November. I'll maintain my GOP registration, but my vote is suddenly in play, where it hadn't been for 10 years.

That issue is: Illegal Immigration, and Federal Amnesties for Illegals.

Some agree, and some don't… that's fine. In any event, I've been active and vehement on the Illegal threads, to the displeasure of not a few. I've been called a few names, and that's to be expected (goes with being a Republican, no?) Among them are "racist," "xenophobe," "libertarian," "Buchananite," "knee-jerk," etc… And…

"Single-issue voter."

As though that's somehow damning. I was a single-issue voter beore, but now it's just a different issue. What bothers some is that it's a different single issue than theirs. Further, I don't really understand those who use this term in the pejorative… Is there no issue, position, or policy on which the GOP could lose your vote? Is there no circumstance under which you would part ways?

Your right to vote is your currency in the Political Economy. If your support is never in doubt, what is the incentive of politicians to listen to you? Do you continue to patronize restaurants with good food and bad service? Or do you let your wallet do the talking?

If so, then why should politics be any different?

How do you feel when arrogant party functionaries mock you, asking "Do you want Hillary?" or "You gonna vote Democrat?" or some other such demagoguery? Are we nothing but pawns?

Or do moments arise when notice must be loudly given to our "leaders," who serve at our pleasure, that there will be an electoral price paid for failing to heed the will of the American People?

[Travis McGee]

The only "value" of this Stupid Party bill will be to shout !AMNISTIA! from one end of Mexico to the other, causing millions of new illegals to cross the border. That's all.

[jwalsh07]

How is this smart politics, let alone good principle?

The two are sometimes mutually exclusive. Bush and the Texan Repubs are paying the piper. They made promises and they're keeping them despite raising the ire of loads of Americans who oppose illegal immigration, as I do.

So, if thats enough to change your vote, so be it.

[Brownie74]

As you know, I have been yelled at a few times myself on these immigration threads. And I could really care less.

I have been asked who I would vote for in 2004. I have no idea. I don't know who is running yet. I may even support Bush and the Republican party again if Bush reverses his immigration and amnesty policies. Who knows!

This is a "single issue" issue with me because I feel that our existing immigration policy (or lack thereof) is the greatest single threat to the sovereignty and secutity of the United States since the cold war.

I would feel more comfortable facing off against Russia or China than being invaded from within by illegal aliens that this administration refuses to stop.

We have laws on the books and the Constitution of the United States to protect us and to limit and regulate immigration. Bush is sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States and yet he doesn't.

I will not support anyone that knowingly allows the invasion of America.

[jwalsh07]

How long has the bill been law McGee?

[NittanyLion]

But why do we think Democrats are so nasty? Because, in general, they are :) And why is this true of them? To some extent it's because of the way they are dominated by... you guessed it... single-issue-zealot voters (such as on the issue of abortion). Like I said, single-issue voters are not healthy, for that party, or for the country.

I think you've pretty much nailed it. In certain cases single issue voters can be very effective in accomplishing their narrow agenda; in others they're clearly much less effective. The one common thread, however, is that a nation dominated by them is not politically healthy.

This is not directly related to the thread, but one wonders what will become of the pro-abortion lobby if Bush were to appoint three justices in the Thomas/Scalia mold. IMHO, the abortion issue is debated so vigorously only because the status quo is tenuous. A solid SCOTUS majority either way could quickly change that equation, and perhaps marginalize those voters.

[wasp69]

If they can take our unity for granted, we have no influence.

If it was taken off the table once, what is it that has emboldened those to put it back? Has it been us?

[sneakypete]

, let Hillary run the nation into the ground at a slightly faster rate for four years, and hope that the Republicans get a backbone in 2008.

I agree,and may even vote for Bubbette! myself. Her winning the election would either be the wake-up call the Republicans need,or the opening shot of the 2nd American Revolution. Either way sanity will prevail in the end.

Then again,there is a 50/50 chance that Bubbette! beating Bubba-2 would only be a sign that the Republicans are far enough to the left. In that case,there is surely a revolution in our future. So be it.

[Sabertooth]

If it was taken off the table once, what is it that has emboldened those to put it back? Has it been us?

I'm not clear on your question, could you rephrase it?

[Dr. Frank fan]

What I don't follow is the reasoning that leads a President at 80% popularity to spit into the wind of the 70% of Americans who oppose illegals.

I don't follow the reasoning either, really. But I do know that, while I disagree with and don't really understand this action on his part, it's not the type of thing I would consider serious enough to make me support Gore or Hillary or Tipper or Alec in '04. Why? Because I'm not a single-issue voter. And in the end, I suspect, neither are you :)

How is this smart politics, let alone good principle?

Obviously you and I agree that it's not smart politics. Presumably he's getting advice from insider Washington beltway types who still think that pandering like this has a chance in he** of inducing Hispanics to rush over to the conservative side of the aisle. Personally I see this idea as a strange combination of wishful thinking, stereotyping ("they're Catholic so they're natural Republican voters right?"), delusion, and opportunism (clearly, some people encouraging Bush to do things like this don't want to Help The Republican Party at all, they just want to increase immigration...). But people who have the worldview in which this action makes sense seem to have tremendous sway at the moment, in media and in politics and with the President.

Another factor may be that Bush took this sort of "uniter not a divider" approach in Texas and it seemed to work there, so he figured, why not continue with a winning play? Of course, chances are it wasn't stuff like this which made people like him down there, but perhaps he doesn't know or realize that, and no one is telling him otherwise.

In any event, like I said, while I may disagree with this type of thing, it's just not going to push me into the arms of Hillary :) Best,

[jwalsh07]

By the way, seeing that your from the lions den and I'm not, I can understand your, uh, passion on the topic. I've been to SD.

[alnick]

Thank you, thank you. I have that understanding as well. I also read that it only applies to people who have the necessary family ties in place as of August 2001.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that anyone who feels strongly about this issue to investigate this and find out EXACTLY what this bill does before making any decisions.

[Travis McGee]

How long has the bill been law McGee?

You really are oblivious, do you know that?

The fine print of this bill is MEANINGLESS. The effective dates of this bill are MEANINGLESS.

245(I) will NEVER be read in Mexico.

The only MEANING of this bell is to shout !AMNISTIA! from one end of Mexico to the other.

It's all about symbolism, and the clear message is "COME ON IN! STICK AROUND! GET AMNESTY IN A FEW YEARS!"

This Stupid Party bill guarantees that millions of more newly optimistic Mexicans are putting on their walking shoes today for the long walk to El Norte.

If you don't "get it", then truly you are a perfect member of the Stupid Party.

[RonDog]

This year, another issue arises that concerns me greatly… so much so, that I might not be voting Republican this November.

O.K. The immigration mess is a DISASTER. The question is, WHO can best fix it: RATS or Republicans?

Before we DUMP the Republicans...

Republican "frying pan"

...perhaps it would be wise to consider the only alternative:

RAT "fire"

Do you really trust the RATs do do better on immigration? Is there a THIRD choice? WHO?
(Or, more precisely, WHO that can get elected?)

[Sabertooth]

It is a sticky wicket and beginning by allowing those who are legal to get the paperwork right is a good thing, as Martha says.

As the INS memo at #67 made clear, section 245(i) is about Illegals. I've got no big beef with foreign nationals who got here legally and have encountered a paperwork snafu, but that's a function of Section 245, not 245(i).

I'm not anti-immigrant.

Rooting out the bad guys may take some time. You seem to think that to wish is to have. They are here, getting them out is quite another set of problems. Maybe before you vote for Buchannan you should offer your suggestions and maybe even volunteer to help the administration.

Total asset forfeiture.

They Will
Deport Themsleves

Simple, Constitutional, and and at least partially self-funding.

[McGavin999]

Yep, one issue. Conservatives got mad and stayed home. Guess they showed us huh? We got 8 years of misery, Isreal on the brink of war, loss of national prestige, terrorists running rampant, no weapons inspectors in Iraq, purjury and sex scandals, Hollywood types jumping on the bed in the Lincoln bedroom, children thinking oral sex isn't really sex, shall I go on?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Thanks for your vote. signed...........President Hillary

[wasp69]

The first time it was taken off the table, did we as conservatives take for granted that it was off and we could turn our attention elsewhere? Don't get me wrong, I think the government has become a bloated, unresponsive, animal where there are no real differences between the parties.

[sneakypete]

Even the Green Party isn't comprised of disaffected Democrats. It's communists, anti-globalists, and young people who don't understand the real world.

With the exception of the anti-globalists,those ARE the people who make up the Dim Party.

[sweetliberty]

"Last week's 245(i) extension was specifically about Illegals. "

Thank you for posting the clarification of 245(i). It seems there has been a lot of effort to keep this one in the shadows.

[sneakypete]

Isn't that his fault?

No. Nothing is EVER his fault. I would think you would know this by now.