Posted on 03/17/2002 1:36:37 PM PST by 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?
So what's the choice now? The Stupid Party, or the Evil Party?
You are not voting for Simon for governor? Geez, we have something in common!
Btw, Bush is not on the ballot.
Now there's a dream.
Frankly, I think a lot of Republicans enjoy being in the undemanding but still cushy position of minority party politician.
It's a lot easier being in 2nd place.
If voting for Republicans doesn't solve the problem, why should I reward them further?
Let me ask you again:
"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 "
You never go back.
Maybe some folks see the holocaust of a million innocents as a larger priority than who gets in or stays out of our borders. Not saying your issue is irrelevent but, if you don't like the single issues others find important, don't come crying if some consider your issue something not worth getting worked up about.
It used to be Abortion and Gun Control, in that order but now Immigration is a hot button issue for me too.
I voted for Bush and there is a lot to like about him, but am extremely disappointed in his lack of action on the core issues. I sometimes think it is the fanatics who really do get things done.
A single-issue voter is someone who lets one issue be the litmus test governing whether someone gets his/her vote. Like the solid 1/3 of the country which is so "pro-choice" that they would vote for Charles Manson if he only said he was "pro-choice".
Party loyalists are not so bad, and are to be expected in a healthy democratic system. Single-issue voters, by contrast, do not a healthy electorate make.
No skin off my nose if you decide to stop voting 100% Republican - in fact it's probably a healthy thing - but don't do it because you have decided to become a single-issue voter. Instead, evaluate each race on a case-by-case basis. Would you vote for a Charles Manson just because you liked his immigration policy?
Like I said, single-issue voting is generally not healthy.
Last time I saw Republicans with a spine was 1988.
Agreed, and that's not my expectation. I've voted many times for Republicans with whom I disagreed on many issues. Two of those votes were for George HW Bush and George W Bush.
But not this November, not if the Issue is Illegals and Amnesty.
Nope.
I'll admit that being single issue year in and year out would make me personally uneasy, but people have to vote their consciences.
I would generally agree, but there are times when the moment arises.
It's extremely damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law for the feds to turn a blind eye to the breaking of immigration laws by millions of illegals.
We must enforce all laws, or none: selective einforcement only breeds bitter cynicism and eventually disrespect for all laws and finally to anarchy.
What's even worse is to allow millions of illegal alien foreigner to vote freely in our elections, as they do in Kali. If this is not a total sellout of national sovereignty and trampling of actual U.S. citizen's rights, what is?
'88 wasn't bad, but I'll take '94's "Contract With America" over the "Kinder and gentler" "1000 Points of Light."
With a total of FOUR issues, I guess that makes me pretty sophisticated.
I thought it was the Mini-14.
BTW, someone asked, but I'm pretty positive that Saber will be voting for Simon in November. Simon has said he wants stronger borders and is against the Amnesty. I heard him say it on Savage's program the other day.
The one exception will be Arlen Spector, who will NEVER receive my vote.
Well, it kinda depends on if they're a big enough bloc of swing voters.
Where is Ross Perot when ya need him?
Depends on the issue, naturally. In a contest between someone who advocates genocide and someone who doesn't, then by all means let "whether or not they are genocidal" be the single issue which dictates your vote :)
I guess the question is whether you consider immigration matters sufficiently important to dictate yoru vote like that. I guess you do. Well, that's your right. Just don't come complaining to any of us when it turns out that the guy you voted for Because Of The Single Issue Of Immigration turns out to be Charles Manson.
I understand that there are issues people feel so strongly about that they feel the need to magnify these feelings, and communicate them dramatically to politicians, by becoming single issue voters. In some cases (i.e. abortion) it seems to work, because the party gets the message that they had better nominate someone who is Correct on the issue, OR ELSE. This even drifts into the Republican party in a state like California, where they were almost convinced that they should nominate themselves a Democrat like Riordan for governor simply because he's not pro-life and thus wouldn't anger the (presumably) larger-than-average single-issue pro-choice voters out there.
I understand the motivations and forces behind all this, and behind wanting to be a single-issue voter, and to tell everyone that you are.
I still don't think it's a sign of a healthy or informed elecotrate, however. Over time these Single-Issue voters become indistinguishable from No-Thought voters, and eventually the Single Issue which these voters enslave their votes to ends up becoming like a mini-pagan-religion. "I cannot vote for you because you do not honor my god, Pro-Choice, you worship at the altar of his archenemy, Pro-Life, you heathen."
I know, I know, no one says stuff like that, but the effect is the same.
What's wrong with simply deciding these things on a case-by-case basis, again?
Are you a citizen of Scottland?
I can't imagine Democrat voters punishing Democrat candidates for supporting Bush's tax cut.
"I'm so mad about that tax cut, that I'll vote for a Republican next time." Doesn't sound right, does it?
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.
No, I think it's just us who throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For example, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. Another example, although imo, an evil one is John Brown. As much as I dislike him, I admire his single minded determination. In the end he had a lot of influence if for no other reason than he polarized people.
Nothing. I might have a different issue next time, or go back to Party Line voting.
o/~ you're so vein, you prolly think this post is about you o/~
No, I think it's just us who throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ah, but I consider those of us who've been loyal Republicans, yet opposed to Amnesty, to be the baby...
And Dubya to be the foot shooter.
Would the GOP be so divided right now if he hadn't pushed for that 245(i) Amnesty last week?
Isn't that his fault?
I checked the vanity box when posting.
"Your Opinions/Questions"
It would appear the Democrat Party has catered to two huge blocs of single-issue voters: pro-choice and pro-entitlements. Voting solely for one issue certainly hasn't helped these groups' plight, as one can see by looking at the black vote. Reliably voting for DEM candidates 90-10 has only succeeded in getting blacks' vote taken for granted.
Question is, has the same thing happened to conservatives? I think it's difficult for most here to evaluate that question, as we're a bit too close to the issue. Would the GOP wake up and listen a bit more closely if a legitimate party existed to the right of it, and threatened to take away a sizable chunk of voters? Or would it run toward the middle to gain moderates in order to replace the staunch conservatives it lost?
In 1992, we paid a heavy price because a President Bush took his base for granted.
Was it worth it?
No bread and 1/2 water ration for your insolence.
So taking out my little score card I see, the door cracked open for more stem cell research, more government involvement in public schools, no vouchers, and a whole lot more money poured down a rat hole. I see open borders, a disdain for immigration laws and a worship of illegal aliens, CFR will be the crack in the door to abuse of the 1st Amendment, and we are still in the U.N., in fact instead of Bush refusing to attend a U.N. meeting whose agenda includes taxation of Americans, he's hot footing it to Monterry without a whisper about what his position will be.
So by my tally, the right to bear arms seems only slightly safe for the next few years, even though Bush had said he would have signed some gun control bill that was presented before he was elected. Is this enough to keep me in the Republican camp? Only if I write in Tancrudo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.