You're sincerely welcome. Thanks for being fair-minded.
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?
I vote against DemocRATs every time.
You're sincerely welcome. Thanks for being fair-minded.
So, your vote costs the Republicans nothing.
Where is your bargaining power?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Psst...I don't think they're getting it.
Not then, now.
The victory of Bill Simon over Dick Riordan in California was a shot across the GOP's Beltway bow. Republicans are in no mood to surrender core principles for political expediency, and we're making the RINO leadership aware of it.
I called my VA senator's office on the eve of this vote. I was told "no one knows of any such bill". I said I was calling SEN Warner because this act was not in the form it had come out of the Senate. His aide advised me to call my REP since she knew of nothing like this on the schedule.
This is a cop out and the corruption of my party. The absence of truth is a LIE.
We must not abstain from voting or vote DEM. We will not have our vote count. We must vote for one of the independant paties that will take a visable stand on the issues of we Freepers. We cant just blindly vote libertatians where our issues are diluted ..
So, it sounds lke we agree?
You are a thoughtful and indefatigable poster on FreeRepublic, and I enjoy your contributions on many subjects. So, I took time to think about your challenging post -- to be or not to be a "single-issue" voter -- for several hours before clicking on to post a reply.
On the immigration issue I thoroughly agree with you. The only question I raise is the "single-issue" part of your equation.
As a political scientist and historian, I see "single-issue" voters on either side of any issue as a fragmenting force. They and their organizations -- which the First Amendment guarantees that they can set up, finance, and operate including through endorsements and advertisements -- are by definition logical enemies of concensus and conpromise on legislation to deal with any subject.
On the other hand, every citizen has every right to say to himself. here is one issue I consider truly basic -- the country's going to Hell in a handcart on this -- and I refuse to vote for any candidate in any race who takes the wrong position on this issue. That is your thinking on immigration.
I understand and empathize with your position, because I take almost the same position concerning Presidents and Senators -- what kind of judges/Justices will they nominate and confirm? My position is almost, but not quite, to Hell with what party they belong to or where they stand on any other issue. The nation is going to Hell in a handcart if we don't get judges on the bench who understand and will obey the Constitution.
The "not quite" point is the one I urge you to consider. If a Senatorial candidate, for instance, was "bad" on the judicial appointment issue, but "good" on the prosecution of the War on Terrorism, I would have to think long and hard whether to support him. Perhaps (though unlikely) a candidate would be bad on judges but good on a half dozen issues such as vouchers and gun control. I might have to think twice.
So, my friend, I suggest that you may declare yourself to be a "single-issue" voter on your hot button subject, but in your mind leave some wiggle room that perhaps some huge issue or some combination of other issues, might cause you to vote differently in a specific race for a specific candidate in a specific set of circumstances.
Knowing you to be a thoughtful man, I suspect that may already be your ground level thinking on this subject. If so, I offer you not advice, but congratulations. May your tribe prosper and may you prevail on your issue. (And might the same be true of me on my issue.)
Cordially and with great respect,
Congressman Billybob
I know it was naive of me, but I sent an e-mail to the whitehouse requesting that this bill be explained in simple terms to the American public because it has made a lot of people hostile to the republican party.
I got their auto-response, and was told that it would be passed along because they are really interested in what we have to say (smile!).
If someone appears on O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes soon to discuss this further...
The GOP, if they get a clue... That's the point of the rabble-rousing.
70% American opposition to Illegals wasn't enough to get Bush's attention. He needs to understand he's courting disaster from within his own ranks.
The Richmond Times Dispath today refers to the Illegal Aliens as "undocumented" not "Illegal". The spin is on!
We disagree on the ramifications of Bush signing on to extending 245(i) so that those who it affects, those who can prove they were here from 1998 to April of 2001, is the end of the worls as we know it. We also disagree on the term amnesty. The affected people are not turned into citizens and they have to pay a one thousand dollar. What 245(i) essentially does is allow them to complete paperwork here rather than return to their own countries. Bush and Armey extended for political reasons under the hubric of needing more time because INS sucks.
We also probably agree that INS sucks.
It is yet more gasoline on an already out of control fire.
We also disagree on the term amnesty. The affected people are not turned into citizens and they have to pay a one thousand dollar.
The "one time only" Amnesty of 1986 didn't automatically make anyone on citizens either.Letting illegals pay $1,000 to stay is like fining a car thief but letting him keep the Mustang.
Letting Illegals stay here = Amnesty for those Illegals.
Votes for candidates like Simon are a lot more effective than single issue vote exclusion. One vote won't hurt 'em. Campaign cash to conservative candidates instead of the RNC, will further get their attention.
I know, I know you will automatically call these people criminals although the vast majority of them have busted their ass trying to make a better life and have led generally good lives.
Probably a lot better than people born in the US.
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.