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?

[Michael2001]

Ditto

[Texasforever]

But yes, Big Kosovo is coming.

Well I am not going to argue with a man that has given this country as much as you have.

[McGavin999]

I think that once this thing gets out, it's not going to be at all what everyone is afraid of. This is about reunifying families, not a blanket amnesty. Have a little faith guy, he told us he was in favor of this before the election. I repeat, this is NOT a blanket amnesty. We're talking about wives, children and parents of people who are here LEGALLY.

[Travis McGee]

Please, that's not true.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep. I sure do. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that little tommy dachle does NOT assume control of the presidency. But apparently that's fine by you? Do I misunderstand????????........................

I anxiously await your reply. I'm sure you're busy right now, so I'll show my patience..............yuk! yuk!

:O)

[MeekOneGOP]

Let me ask you, if a husband cheats on his wife knowing she'll leave...

Whose fault is the divorce?

You're smarter than that. Get some sleep and come back later. That's what I'm gonna do. I'll see you in a few hours, my good FRiend..................

[cascademountaineer]

Illegal immigration needs no encouragement

Agree there.

it's happening regardless of amnesty or no amnesty.

It spikes during time periods in which amnesty is given. The stats are there, no one can really argue with that. And along with that increase go increases in smuggling and drug trafficking. Do you want that? I dont.

Not granting amnesty COMPELS them to break the law. If they remain as illegals, everything they do is illegal

Huh? Thats fuzzy logic. Its similar to saying laws against shoplifting compel people to break the law because it makes shoplifting illegal.

That doesnt even make sense.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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?

This is where we disagree, Saber. The illegal immigration issue has turned these threads into an ugly free-for-all rife with emotional displays of xenophobia, paranoia and fear. President Bush hasn't done a thing to give amnesty to illegal aliens, yet is being savagely attacked and vilified while the Democrats who enabled and encouraged illegal aliens to overrun parts of the country are given a pass.

My understanding is that the new section 245(i) provisions would simply allow certain aliens additional time to file to extend their visas contingent upon having a sponsor and paying a fine for not having filed on time. These provisions had already been part of the immigration law, but expired in 1998. The recent House bill would reinstate section 245(i) for a brief period. Reinstatement of an expired extension to file papers hardly qualifies as amnesty or even mini-amnesty. But judging from the vitriol directed at Bush, one would think he committed treason or betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Whatever the merits or faults of this legislation, unconstitutionality is not one of them.

I don't see a problem with Congress allowing 200,000 or even 300,000 Mexicans who live and work here additional time to file immigration papers. But even if I did have a problem with that, I would not turn against a leader I admire and respect because I disagree with him on one issue. To switch allegiance to a party whose record on that issue is far worse - never mind all the other issues on which the enemy party is wrong or malicious - is irrational, to say the least.

No sir, there is something called loyalty and it works both ways. I don't expect my candidate to agree with me on every single issue and I don't consider it a betrayal when that happens. I try to make a rational decision, choosing the candidate whose views more closely reflect my own. Sometimes the choice is clear-cut (Reagan vs. Mondale); sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. In the last election, for me the choice was clear-cut.

If I ever feel I've been betrayed, I will vote for NO ONE, but I would never vote for the socialists who have done so much to destroy our country.

[Texasforever]

That is the best post from either side on this ridiculous orgy.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thank you, Sir. Kind of you to say so.

[2Trievers]

"There is a lot more to be concerned about than immigration, especially ANWR and another intitlement in the form of prescription drug care, but whatever floats your boat."

You are so right Provocateur ... there is a lot more to be concerned about here ... maybe we can explore some of these obvious problems in the next few days on the threads ... it will be enlightening for all.

[MeekOneGOP]

That is the best post from either side on this ridiculous orgy.

I bump that! Thanks............

[MeekOneGOP]

I bump that! Thanks............
And goodnight too, btw..............
:O) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Consort]

It spikes during time periods in which amnesty is given. The stats are there, no one can really argue with that. And along with that increase go increases in smuggling and drug trafficking. Do you want that? I dont.

All of that involves crossing our borders -- spikes or no spikes. If amnesties don't spike it, then something else will. Effective border control deals with those problems and eleminates the need for amnesties.

"Not granting amnesty COMPELS them to break the law. If they remain as illegals, everything they do is illegal..."
Huh? Thats fuzzy logic.

By crossing the border, they made themselves illegals and, as such, they are felons or fugitives on the run or in hiding. They are not part of the mainstream. Being on the run often entails breaking the law, evading capture, creating potential lethal situations.... Amnesty (which bothers all of us) would change that status. It's a painful reality.

Its similar to saying laws against shoplifting compel people to break the law because it makes shoplifting illegal.
That doesnt even make sense.

Maybe it does or maybe it doesn't. A shoplifter (who is a US citizen) can do everything that other citizens can do: get a job, put kids in school, vote, get a security clearance, get a license, get a passport. He can do whether or not he gets arrested for his crime. Not so for the illegal alien.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I also believe that illegal immigration should be a litmus test for our politicians. It's the key to

Look, I'll make it very simple for you. Choice A: George Bush, who is "bad" on the issue of immigration. Choice B: Pete Wilson (ex-gov of California), who was "good" on the issue of immigration.

Who would you rather have had as President since 9/11? Pete Wilson because he's "good" on immigration?

[FreedomFriend]

My top three issues are:

1. Abortion (Pro-Life Position)
2. Immigration (Anti-Illegal/reduced legal stance)
3.Taxes (For No to Low Fed Taxes et al)

[Sabertooth]

This is where we disagree, Saber. The illegal immigration issue has turned these threads into an ugly free-for-all rife with emotional displays of xenophobia, paranoia and fear.

These sound like Democrat talking points.

President Bush hasn't done a thing to give amnesty to illegal aliens, yet is being savagely attacked and vilified while the Democrats who enabled and encouraged illegal aliens to overrun parts of the country are given a pass.

My understanding is that the new section 245(i) provisions would simply allow certain aliens additional time to file to extend their visas contingent upon having a sponsor and paying a fine for not having filed on time. These provisions had already been part of the immigration law, but expired in 1998. The recent House bill would reinstate section 245(i) for a brief period. Reinstatement of an expired extension to file papers hardly qualifies as amnesty or even mini-amnesty.

Once again...

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

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

Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.

The Democrats aren't getting a pass, this is a bipartisan Surrender to Illegals. But who's President now?

[Sabertooth]

Ever notice how much these threads read like an opus? Oh well, there will always be those who choose to opt out....

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not going away, and neither is this issue.

[angkor]

my vote is suddenly in play, where it hadn't been for 10 years.

I'm with you 100 percent on this one.