Confessions of a "Single Issue Voter"

March 17th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[ChadGore]

Vanity !

o/~ you're so vein, you prolly think this post is about you o/~

[Sabertooth]

I wonder if conservatives are the only ones who shoot themselves in the foot over "single issues."

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?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Well, I'll just urge that when the time comes in November, you will weigh ALL the costs for each side of the decision before voting(which I'm confident you would do anyway). In 1992 we paid a heavy price for some to send a message. Was it worth it?

[Sabertooth]

Vanity !

I checked the vanity box when posting.

"Your Opinions/Questions"

[NittanyLion]

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."

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?

[Sabertooth]

In 1992 we paid a heavy price for some to send a message. Was it worth it?

In 1992, we paid a heavy price because a President Bush took his base for granted.

Was it worth it?

[Sabertooth]

It bothers me to be taken for a fool, to be told to keep rowing hard while the captain is chopping a hole in the bottom of the boat.

No bread and 1/2 water ration for your insolence.

[MissAmericanPie]

It might also be argued, you think voting for a Republican will solve the problem? If a person is a single issue voter the answer is no. I'm a multi-issue voter, guns, immigration/visas, the constitution, crime, education, getting us out of the U.N., and last but for sure not least abortion.

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.

[Rowdee]

Egads! A Californian making sense....in my old neck of the woods! Good writing. Good questions.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Of course not. Huge mistake for Bush the Elderberry. We'll see if Bush has learned from his father. But for me that judgement is based on more than a single issue.

[browardchad]

I've voted many times for Republicans with whom I disagreed on many issues.

And Reagan? He supported the same "amnesty" (although it technically isn't) for Mexicans.

Did Bush run on an anti-immigration agenda? I recall it was fairly obvious that he was sympathetic to Americans of Mexican descent, and I don't remember that he hid it.

I don't see any Democrats rising up to quell Mexican immigration (look at the congressional vote), so I assume you will vote for whatever "third party" candidate that runs on anti-immigration. Will it bother you that in the time of greatest peril to freedom, that you might help to insure a Democratic victory by voting for a candidate that cannot possibly win? Or is it simply more important to stop Mexican immigration than to stop terrorism from killing innocent Americans?

[Dr. Frank fan]

In 1992, we paid a heavy price because a President Bush took his base for granted. Was it worth it?

You probably should instead ask, Was it worth it to have 8 years of Clinton just to punish Bush for "taking his base for granted"?

Personally, I know what I think. Your answer may vary.

[jwalsh07]

I too am a single issue voter. My issue?

DEFEATING RATS

[Sabertooth]

We'll see if Bush has learned from his father. But for me that judgement is based on more than a single issue.

Seems to me that Bush the Younger is ready to risk losing a decent chunk of voters on a single issue postion that's highly unpopular with 70% of Americans.

He's had plenty of warning.

[Captain Shady]

Somewhere between Republican leadership and Republican voter on immigration is a simple failure to communicate.

[Sabertooth]

Was it worth it to have 8 years of Clinton just to punish Bush for "taking his base for granted"?

Maybe not, if his son still hasn't learned the lesson.

[wasp69]

Sabertooth, I have some wisdom if you are willing to hear it. In 1860, a political party split over one issue. Because of that split, the opposition won and the rest is history. My point being: If we can get the candidate who will do the least amount of damage, then "we the people" can push them to do as we wish. There are many examples of just that. We can do it if we remain united and the uniting force is FR.

[McGavin999]

Is there no issue, position, or policy on which the GOP could lose your vote?

It's that kind of thinking that got us 8 years of Bill Clinton. How'd you like his stance on immigration?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Any President who fails to allow existing bans to sunset is "for gun control." Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 sold out gun owners right and left. Bush 43 should fight for repeals of the actions of these sell-outs.

Ask me 2-1/2 years from now how gun control would have been any worse under Gore than Bush. Consider how Bush's Patriot Act would have been fought tooth and nail by most Freepers and Congressional Republicans had it been a Gore plan.

[bjcintennessee]

I don't have a problem with 'single issue voters' who feel strongly about something, but only if their vote is going to a person whom they hope will help the achieve their goal.

I have a great respect for most of your posts, so I am going to try -- one more time -- to give you my understanding of 245(i). According to Dick Armey (on Hannity & Colmes), this is not an amnesty bill. This bill allows an extension to aliens who came here legally on temporary visas. A closer look into the INS has shown that they are so back-logged that it often is not the alien's fault that their visas have not yet been renewed. Armey spoke of driving past the INS every morning and seeing lines that were backed up to the street and around the corner.

And yes, two of the 9-11 terrorists were here on expired visas. They lived such a low-profile lifestyle, however, that no background check would have turned up anything that would have gotten them deported.

245(i) allows aliens who came here on temporary visas and put down roots and started families to have their status reviewed. Once all these people re-register, then all other aliens could be rounded up and deported.

245(i) does not apply to the 3 million illegal aliens who snuck across our borders without paperwork.

I don't know who first labelled this bill as an amnesty for illegal aliens, but if I have understood everything correctly, they have done the country a great disservice simply to get a more stirring headline.