Question about single issue voters

[Romandub]

I was watching CNN after McCain announced Palin as his VP choice, and Bay Buchanan (Pat Buchanan's sister) was giving commentary. She said she was thrilled with Palin as the choice, because of her pro-life stance. Upon further questioning, she said she "would not have voted for the ticket" if McCain had chosen Tom Ridge or Joe Liebermann because they were pro-choice.

I was telling that story to a couple of very liberal friends last night expressing my surprise that people would vote or not vote for a candidate on the basis of a single issue and both of my friends said they would never vote for a pro-life candidate. So clearly, people from both sides of the issue would vote on a candidate based solely on that one issue.

So I am curious, why is it that a single issue trumps everything else in a campaign, especially a presidential campaign. I can certainly understand someone taking the issue into consideration, even giving it more weight, but I am having trouble understanding why people choose based on just one issue.

I am not trying to start a fight here, but am genuinely interested in the reasons that people make voting choices on single issues. Please share your thoughts.

[Meganator]

I am not a single-issue voter, but I would guess that for an issue like abortion, it is important to those voters that a candidate's stance could result in Supreme Court appointments that can have an effect long after that person is out of office.

[Romandub]

I can see that, but do people feel so strongly about that one issue that it trumps everything else--fiscal policy, foreign policy, economic policy? That's what I am having trouble understanding.

[SusanMac]

While I also think people should look at a variety of issues when making their decision, here's my guess as to why abortion is such a big one....

This Pres is likely to have a few Supreme Court picks. B/c abortion rights is a topic very actively lobbied to be overturned, the stance of both the Pres & VP on this issue is critical and could actually change the status of this current law.

Another popular "single issue" topic is gay rights. That's one that I definitely don't get basing a Presidential selection on!


ETA: oops -- I hadn't seen Meganator's post before posting.

[stefania4]

For me, the issue stems from "Does this candidate believe women can lead their own lives?" I can not, can not, can not vote for my own second-class citizenship.

[ADM]

People DO vote, or not, on a single issue!

Sometimes it doesn't even concern political issues. I remember reading that a member of a conservative Southern church, said that he could and would not vote for Adali Stevenson (who was divorced). His reasoning: "If he can't run his own family, how can he run the country?"

That was a long time ago, but it only proves that things never change TOO much. Some conservative people, even today, will use almost the same words about Nancy Palin, concerning her daughter, Bristol. :(

[beacooker]

Some conservative people, even today, will use almost the same words about Nancy Palin, concerning her daughter, Bristol. :(

Ok, this is the second time on this bb that I have seen someone refer to SARAH Palin as 'Nancy' Palin. Just curious where that is coming from? I'm not bashing anyone for getting a name wrong, I just think its odd that the same mistake was made twice, especially since both posters seemed to be conservative. Is there someone named Nancy Palin who is causing some confusion?

[ADM]

Ok, this is the second time on this bb that I have seen someone refer to SARAH Palin as 'Nancy' Palin. Just curious where that is coming from? I'm not bashing anyone for getting a name wrong, I just think its odd that the same mistake was made twice, especially since both posters seemed to be conservative. Is there someone named Nancy Palin who is causing some confusion?

It was only my pathetic mistake. No one to blame but myself. :o

FYI: I may not be a raging liberal, but I am certainly not conservative. It is the conservatives who are to the right of Atila the Hun who make those unfair voting judgments.

[beacooker]

Honestly, I really wasn't meaning to pick on a simple mistake. :) I just thought it was interesting that 2 separate people came up with the name of 'Nancy' instead of 'Sarah'. I just wondered if there really were a Nancy Palin, or someone with a similar name. I wonder if 'Nancy Pelosi' is causing the confusion, somehow?

[LaraW]

Ok, this is the second time on this bb that I have seen someone refer to SARAH Palin as 'Nancy' Palin. Just curious where that is coming from? I'm not bashing anyone for getting a name wrong, I just think its odd that the same mistake was made twice, especially since both posters seemed to be conservative. Is there someone named Nancy Palin who is causing some confusion?

I keep doing this too. I think it is because of Nancy Pelosi (sp).

[Valerie226]

For me, the issue stems from "Does this candidate believe women can lead their own lives?" I can not, can not, can not vote for my own second-class citizenship.

Thank you for that, you said it better than I can.

[blazedog]

Interesting question -- given that anti-abortion advocates tend to come bundled up in a whole penumbra of other fundamentalist stuff like creationism, anti-gay sentiments, I haven't had to deal with pulling the lever for a candidate who is otherwise completely in synch with my value system except for wanting to make abortion illegal.

I don't know anyone who is in favor of abortions but the ability of a woman to opt for an abortion is the very essence of an essential and fundamental freedom. Moreover, anti-abortion people tend to also be against the very programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies and/or the need for an abortion.

As others have pointed out, anti-abortion forces would have the next President select Supreme Court nominees through a so-called litmus test -- i.e. no one who would not overturn Roe v. Wade would be considered.

[blazedog]

I thought this article from Saturday's NY Times was quite thought provoking -- every Saturday they have a section on "beliefs".

August 30, 2008
BELIEFS
For Ex-G.O.P. Official, Obama Is Candidate of Catholic Values

By PETER STEINFELS

When Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president last spring, it made waves, especially among Roman Catholics.

A constitutional scholar who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Mr. Kmiec was well known as an articulate opponent of abortion.

He explains his current stance in “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,” which will be published in two weeks by Overlook Press. But reached this week in Denver, Mr. Kmiec agreed to give necessarily brief replies to questions sent by e-mail.

Q. What is your position on the morality of abortion, and how is it related to your religious faith?

A. I fully accept the teaching of the church that participating in an abortion is an intrinsic evil. My acceptance of abortion as a grave, categorical wrong is one part respectful deference to authoritative Catholic teaching and one part reasoned deduction from our scientific knowledge of genetics and the beginning of an individual life.

Q. Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

A. Yes, but not on the terms usually suggested by Republicans. Roe is mistaken constitutional law not just because it invalidated state laws on the subject but because it is contrary to what is described as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that we have an unalienable right to life from our creator. It may surprise the general citizenry that not a single sitting justice utilizes the declaration as a source of interpretative guidance.

But even employing the jurisprudential methods applied by the modern court, there is no satisfactory showing that abortion as a matter of custom and tradition was properly found to be an implied aspect of the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment.

Q. Given those views, why do you support Barack Obama?

A. There is a widespread misconception that overturning Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In fact, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion. I doubt that many of our non-legally-trained pro-life friends fully grasp the limited effect of overturning Roe.

Secondly, pundits like to toss about the notion that the future of Roe depends on one vote, the mythical fifth vote to overturn the decision. There are serious problems with this assumption: first, Republicans have failed to achieve reversal in the five previous times they asked the court for it; and second, it is far from certain that only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have written and joined dissenting opinions suggesting the appropriateness of overturning Roe.

So given those views, the better question is how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?

Senator Obama’s articulated concerns with the payment of a living wage, access to health care, stabilizing the market for shelter, special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged and the importance of community are all part of the church’s social justice mission.

Applying this to the issue of abortion, the senator has repeatedly indicated that he is not pro-abortion, that he understands the serious moral question it presents, and, most significantly, that he wants to move us beyond the 35 years of acrimony that have done next to nothing to reduce the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to abortions.

Q. But all the same, isn’t your support at odds with Catholic teaching?

A. Quite the contrary. Senator Obama is articulating policies that permit faithful Catholics to follow the church’s admonition that we continue to explore ways to give greater protection to human life.

Consider the choices: A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion.

It is, of course, not enough for a Catholic legislator to declare himself or herself pro-choice and just leave it at that, but neither Senator Obama, who is not Catholic except by sensibility, nor Joe Biden, who is a lifelong Catholic, leaves matters in that unreflective way.

In my view, Obama and Biden seek to fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” to “ensure proper support for families and motherhood.” It cannot possibly contravene Catholic doctrine to improve the respect for life by paying better attention to the social and economic conditions of women which correlate strongly with the number of abortions.

Q. You have been fiercely attacked by some Catholic abortion opponents and in one instance barred from receiving communion. How do you feel about that?

A. To be the subject of an angry homily at Mass last April 18 and excoriated as giving scandal for endorsing Senator Obama and then to be denied communion for that “offense” was the most humiliating experience in my faith life.

To be separated in that public manner from the receipt of the eucharist, and to be effectively shunned or separated from the body of Christ in the sense of that particular congregation, has left, I very much regret to say, a permanent spiritual scar. Thankfully, it has also given me a new appreciation for the significance of the sacrament in my daily worship. And the priest, having been called to order by Cardinal Roger Mahony, sent me an apology, which of course I have accepted.

Nonetheless, I remain deeply troubled that other church leaders not fall into similar traps. That would do untold damage to the church within the context of American democracy.

There are clearly partisan forces that want nothing more than to manufacture or stir up faith-based opposition to their political opponents. The church has been careful to underscore that Catholics have unfettered latitude to vote for any candidate so long as the intent of the Catholic voter is not to express approval of a grave evil.

[ktg0930]

This Pres is likely to have a few Supreme Court picks. B/c abortion rights is a topic very actively lobbied to be overturned, the stance of both the Pres & VP on this issue is critical and could actually change the status of this current law.

I don't consider myself a single issue voter, but for this election, this is the reason I would not vote for a pro-life candidate. I don't think I would have an abortion, but I firmly support a woman's right to choose was is best for her and her family.

I also agree with Blazedog that oftentimes, pro-lifers don't support programs that help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

[Chefzhat]

Being a single issue voter effectively allows one to be a voter that does not think, or consider the weight of their choices. I've been hearing so much about the "1/4 Group" of disgruntled Hillary voters who are going to vote McCain just because their candidate was not, in their minds, treated fairly. It is immature, and smacks of the infantile behavior of taking their toys and going home. The fact that women are doing it makes it a bit worse - they are playing into a stereotype that shouldn't be furthered.

I guess there is no issue that I feel that strongly about. I can't even get cranked up about the abortion issue any more. It's been years and years of threats, admonishments, and scare tactics. I'm of the firm opinion that States have more to do with abortion and availability than SCOTUS.

For me to make my decision I need to see several issues very clearly, view voting records and positions, and then see where I stand.

[stacy7272]

Well, I'm going to throw something out here - maybe many people are single-issue voters because it is an issue they can understand, relate to, and identify with. It takes a lot to really understand fiscal policy, foreign policy, the energy crisis, etc.

I've heard quotes from people currently in office (more than Bush and on both sides) that gives evidence that even the people we have making decisions on these topics don't fully understand them (I mean the basic facts). Seriously, this stuff can be so complex that it is hard for a layperson to have any idea what should be done.

[ADM]

I also agree with Blazedog that oftentimes, pro-lifers don't support programs that help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

As you just said, and pro-lifers are are often the ones who complain the most about their tax dollars being spent on welfare programs that help those children once they are born. :rolleyes:

[newcook]

I find this to be a very interesting discussion. I am Canadian so do not have a right to vote in your election. But I do have an opinion on this subject. I attended a church which, during any election campaign (American or Canadian), would preach politics for months on end. Basically, the position was that you are not worthy to call yourself a Christian unless to vote for a decidedly pro-life candidate. During previous election campaigns, you would have thought that a Christian must support Bush or else not be a Christian at all, and that was despite the fact that for all intents and purposes, just about no one present had the right to vote in a U.S. election.

I ended up leaving that church because I felt that they spent more time preaching politics than Christ. I also felt that the commandment of Christ to love our neighbors as Christ loved the church was not consistent with the hateful way they treated people who "sinned" those "namely" big sins of homosexuality or abortion. To me, it is a far cry from "judge not that you be not judged". You would think we Christians had forgotten the grace of God by which we were saved. If Jesus had treated us the way we treat those we consider "sinners", we would all be lost.

I love the article shared by Blazedog because it points out that the means used by anti abortion preachers do not lead to the intended end.

[ClaraB]

I thought this article from Saturday's NY Times was quite thought provoking -- every Saturday they have a section on "beliefs".

Thanks for posting this article, Blazedog - as a Catholic, I agree 100% with it. I am firmly prolife (from abortion to capital punishment), but I have come to realize that making abortion illegal isn't the road to take - reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is, as well as providing support for abortion alternatives (including adoption). In that espect, I think Obama is the choice to make.

Regarding single-issue voters, my single issue is this: who is most qualified to lead our country?

[Robyncz]

Thanks for posting this article, Blazedog - as a Catholic, I agree 100% with it. I am firmly prolife (from abortion to capital punishment), but I have come to realize that making abortion illegal isn't the road to take - reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is, as well as providing support for abortion alternatives (including adoption). In that espect, I think Obama is the choice to make.

Regarding single-issue voters, my single issue is this: who is most qualified to lead our country?

Another Catholic chiming in to say thanks for posting that article!!!

[Blissful_in_TX]

Thanks for posting this article, Blazedog - as a Catholic, I agree 100% with it. I am firmly prolife (from abortion to capital punishment), but I have come to realize that making abortion illegal isn't the road to take - reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is,....

Former Catholic here, and I too found the article enlightening. But question - if the Catholic Church is so adamantly anti-birth control (except for Natural Family Planning – don’t get me started; not effective for everyone), I don’t really see how they take the road to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with? Which brings me back to the mind boggling question of how people who are the most anti-abortion are often the most anti-sex education. :confused:

[Cinnamon Crazy]

Former Catholic here, and I too found the article enlightening. But question - if the Catholic Church is so adamantly anti-birth control (except for Natural Family Planning – don’t get me started; not effective for everyone), I don’t really see how they take the road to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with? Which brings me back to the mind boggling question of how people who are the most anti-abortion are often the most anti-sex education. :confused:

Another Catholic here who wanted to thank Blazedog for posting the article. I am pro-life, but I respect all aspects of life. One priest said it best during a homily...we need to support all aspects of live...from an unborn child to various adults needing government assistance. Many times those who are already born tend to be forgotten.

This Catholic Republican tax accountant plans to vote for Obama this November because I see that he truly wants to support life.

By the way, I sent the article to my uber-conservative brother & sister-in-law. They teach Natural Family Planning and send their kids to Catholic school (and really shelter them). I am curious to see what they say.

[newcook]

By the way, I sent the article to my uber-conservative brother & sister-in-law. They teach Natural Family Planning and send their kids to Catholic school (and really shelter them). I am curious to see what they say.

I am also curious to see it.

[newcook]

Former Catholic here, and I too found the article enlightening. But question - if the Catholic Church is so adamantly anti-birth control (except for Natural Family Planning – don’t get me started; not effective for everyone), I don’t really see how they take the road to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with? Which brings me back to the mind boggling question of how people who are the most anti-abortion are often the most anti-sex education. :confused:

I believe they see abstinence as the only acceptable route

[ktg0930]

Former Catholic here, and I too found the article enlightening. But question - if the Catholic Church is so adamantly anti-birth control (except for Natural Family Planning – don’t get me started; not effective for everyone), I don’t really see how they take the road to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with? Which brings me back to the mind boggling question of how people who are the most anti-abortion are often the most anti-sex education. :confused:

I'm not Catholic, but I don't think the church doctrine has concerned itself with reducing unwanted pregnancies. I would assume that some Catholics support reducing unwanted pregnancies but the church teaches that God has given the babies and therefore, they should be wanted. Catholics, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Blissful_in_TX]

I believe they see abstinence as the only acceptable route

I was actually referring to the fact that they’re totally anti-birth control, even for those already married. And I suppose I’m actually looking at this from a more global perspective, because let’s face it; a lot of Catholics use birth control anyway, and they have easy access to it. But if you take a country like Guatemala where the Church holds a significant amount of influence, then it is very difficult for anyone to get their hands on birth control (except for the wealthy), and as a result many, many unwanted babies are born to women who are literally too poor to feed or care for them. Adoption is one answer, but my guess is there is not a large enough demand for much domestic adoption; of course International Adoption has been popular there (though I’m not sure if that program is still active at this time?)

Anyway, that goes back to the discussion about the “new” mortal sins a while back; I consider forbidding the use of birth control to be a serious social injustice which leads to poverty. And where the guy in the article says “Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” to “ensure proper support for families and motherhood.” It cannot possibly contravene Catholic doctrine to improve the respect for life by paying better attention to the social and economic conditions of women”Really? Really??? How is promoting women (again not necessarily in the US) to have more children than they can literally afford by forbidding birth control, and they have risk either abandoning or starving them ….how is that in support of the social and economic conditions of women? :confused:

Sorry to get off topic; that just riles me up.

[stefania4]

Well, I'm going to throw something out here - maybe many people are single-issue voters because it is an issue they can understand, relate to, and identify with. It takes a lot to really understand fiscal policy, foreign policy, the energy crisis, etc.


That's undoubtedly true of some number of people.

But for others, it's a matter of an idea being so unacceptable that there's no reason to listen further. If a candidate said they really felt that, for example, Japanese internment should be reinstated I would immediately discredit anything else they said. The same is true, for me, of the anti-choice candidates who feel that all women - solely because they are women - can not be entrusted with their own reproductive decisions. It matters not one whit to me what a candidate thinks about energy, Social Security, education, capital punishment or foreign relations if they have such a derogatory view of 53% of the population.

Last summer I was hopeful that Giuliani would win the Republican nomination, because for the first time in my voting life I would actually have the opportunity to weigh other issues and make a choice.

[stacy7272]

I've posted a link to this before but this illustrates why I get nervous when I see people being encouraged to vote for votings sake. I wish we could encourage people to actually look into some issues first. This is a video from Penn & Teller showing how willingly people will sign a petition to ban water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4

[Valerie226]

That's undoubtedly true of some number of people.

But for others, it's a matter of an idea being so unacceptable that there's no reason to listen further. If a candidate said they really felt that, for example, Japanese internment should be reinstated I would immediately discredit anything else they said. The same is true, for me, of the anti-choice candidates who feel that all women - solely because they are women - can not be entrusted with their own reproductive decisions. It matters not one whit to me what a candidate thinks about energy, Social Security, education, capital punishment or foreign relations if they have such a derogatory view of 53% of the population.

Last summer I was hopeful that Giuliani would win the Republican nomination, because for the first time in my voting life I would actually have the opportunity to weigh other issues and make a choice.

Exactly! the way the parties are oriented these days, if I know someone is anti-abortion, I already know how they will ( almost certainly) feel and vote on any number of other issues because almost everyone in the party toes the party line. No room for flexibility on anything it seems. so although we call it "single issue" voting it encompasses a range issues that to me don't seem like they should necessarily be connected, but are because party politics are what they are.
I'm old enough to actually remember weighing individuals , some of whom were D's and some R's, and deciding who I more closely agreed with. Now, if someone calls themselves Republican I know with virtual certainty that they will oppose sex education, at least some forms of birth control, funding for family planning in the third world, and will want prayer in school, teaching creationism, censorship of media, gay people persecuted and back in the closet with no civil rights, oppose reasonable gun control, want oil wells drilled everywhere but their own backyard, will not support environmental issues, will doubt global warming, oppose stem cell research, and on and on. so call it 'single issue" but many wide ranging and predictable positions usually follow.

[PoppyJ]

Now, if someone calls themselves Republican I know with virtual certainty that they will oppose sex education, at least some forms of birth control, funding for family planning in the third world, and will want prayer in school, teaching creationism, censorship of media, gay people persecuted and back in the closet with no civil rights, oppose reasonable gun control, want oil wells drilled everywhere but their own backyard, will not support environmental issues, will doubt global warming, oppose stem cell research, and on and on. .


Wow...talk about generalization!!! I really hate to talk politics but this is offensive and naive to think that every Republican supports all of those things. I believe in a woman's right to choose, in sex education, gay rights, gun control, evolution, support environmental issues, and do think there is global warming. So I must be a Democrat, right?!? Nope- I am a Republican and proud of it.

Back to the cooking threads!

[blazedog]

Wow...talk about generalization!!! I really hate to talk politics but this is offensive and naive to think that every Republican supports all of those things. I believe in a woman's right to choose, in sex education, gay rights, gun control, evolution, support environmental issues, and do think there is global warming. So I must be a Democrat, right?!? Nope- I am a Republican and proud of it.

Back to the cooking threads!

I am certainly old enough to remember a time when Republicans were not controlled by their extreme fundamentalist right and there are still pockets of Republican sanity in the Northeast -- socially liberally and completely without any form of power or respect within the GOP. John Lindsey, Nelson Rockefeller (who was I believe booed at the 1964 Republican convention. In some respects the first Bush represents that model - although Babs Bush's infamous Katrina comments reveal their let them eat cake origins.:D

I don't understand how someone who has the social liberal views AT THIS POINT IN TIME would be a Republican since one is then supporting forces completely opposite to the views you hold.

And for the record, don't give me the fiscal conservative/small government mantra since the Bush administration with its soaring deficits should have been the final nail in THAT coffin.

[Gumbeaux]

And for the record.......don't just blame the Democrats for getting bogged down with social issues; the Republican Party is better at that.

[ADM]

In some respects the first Bush represents that model - although Babs Bush's infamous Katrina comments reveal their let them eat cake origins.

Aah, finally someone who will admit to hearing that remark!

Does anyone recall her assessment of Hillary?

[blazedog]

Aah, finally someone who will admit to hearing that remark!

Does anyone recall her assessment of Hillary?

In depth

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000823.htm

McCain, Barbara Bush and the B-Word

As Perrspectives has noted repeatedly (see here, here and here), John McCain since 2004 has kowtowed before his former tormenter George W. Bush, all part of his quest for the White House. Now, apparently, McCain is emulating the President's mother. Like Barbara Bush, McCain is content to condone a Democratic woman being labeled a "*****." And like Babs in 1984, McCain is learning he will be rewarded by Republican voters for doing it.

McCain's Hillary Clinton BitchGate episode harkens back to 1984. Then, Second Lady Barbara Bush trotted out the B-word to describe Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale's running mate and the first woman vice-presidential candidate. Of her husband's opponent, Barbara Bush said, "I can't say it, but it rhymes with rich." (Ironically, Richard Nixon famously said of Mrs. Bush, "she knows how to hate." Whether discussing political opponents, the poor, American war casualties or even her own staffers, "America's Grandmother" proved that her dog Millie wasn't the only ***** in the first Bush White House.)

As we fast forward 23 years, John McCain laughs and describes as an "excellent question" a female supporter's query about Hillary Clinton: "how do we beat the *****?" McCain, who was quick to denounce Democrats for not renouncing MoveOn.org's ill-advised "General Betray Us" ad in September, refused to apologize the next day. Worse still, his campaign claimed media bias in the coverage of the affair, and sought to raise money from its Hillary-hating supporters in its wake.

More disturbing still, the emerging media consensus is that McCain's dalliance with the B-word is not only good politics, but somehow permissible given the caricature of Hillary Clinton conservatives have successfully propagated. (Imagine for one moment the firestorm had anyone similarly called Laura Bush a *****.) Howard Kurtz of CNN and the Washington Post declared that CNN (which McCain aide Rick Davis deemed the "Clinton News Network"), "may have overdramatized the incident." The Politico's Mike Allen, while appearing (ironically) on CNN, summed up the conventional wisdom:

"But what Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that and what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor."

And so it goes. Barbara Bush's trash-talking was no barrier to either her husband's political success or her own reputation. And as John McCain's experience now shows, helping Republican voters get their hate on is apparently a formula for success.

[stefania4]

Wow...talk about generalization!!! I really hate to talk politics but this is offensive and naive to think that every Republican supports all of those things.

Perhaps Valerie was talking specifically about Republican candidates?

If someone wishes to run for office, they need the endorsements from other legislators and office-holders in that party, as well as state party cash. Both parties are unlikely to invest heavily in anyone who doesn't heartily endorse the party platform.

[Valerie226]

Perhaps Valerie was talking specifically about Republican candidates?

If someone wishes to run for office, they need the endorsements from other legislators and office-holders in that party, as well as state party cash. Both parties are unlikely to invest heavily in anyone who doesn't heartily endorse the party platform.

Yes, excuse me for not being clear. I was talking about Republican candidates. I don't at all believe that all REPUBLICANS think or agree with these positions any more than all Democrats agree 100% with their party's official positions. I even have friends who admit to being republicans! ;)I just happen to agree with more with the dems.
It did not used to be that way! candidates within each party actually varied on their positions and could be told apart. I used to vote for republicans and democrats equally but the polarization has gotten greater and greater and I have almost given up even bothering to read candidate profiles as they are lock step with the party platform.

[blazedog]

Yes, excuse me for not being clear. I was talking about Republican candidates. I don't at all believe that all REPUBLICANS think or agree with these positions any more than all Democrats agree 100% with their party's official positions. I even have friends who admit to being republicans! ;)I just happen to agree with more with the dems.
It did not used to be that way! candidates within each party actually varied on their positions and could be told apart. I used to vote for republicans and democrats equally but the polarization has gotten greater and greater and I have almost given up even bothering to read candidate profiles as they are lock step with the party platform.

While I am not taking issue with you are are writing, I remain confused as to why someone who has positions on what are some of the defining issues of our times contrary to a political party would still want to identify as a Republican -- why not an independent?

[Valerie226]

Your question is for PoppyJ, right? I'm a solid Democrat although I wish we had candidates across the board that offered some choice. there are times I don't agree with the democrats but the R's are beyond hope right now.

[blazedog]

Your question is for PoppyJ, right? I'm a solid Democrat although I wish we had candidates across the board that offered some choice. there are times I don't agree with the democrats but the R's are beyond hope right now.

Yes and no :p

I know you aren't stating you are a Rep with positions completely contrary to their platform on every critical issue. I had directly asked the OP why should would consider herself to be a Rep rather than a Independent -- assuming affiliating with the Democrats was anathema.

However, you differentiated between Republican officials and Republican voters.

I don't understand now how someone would pull the lever for a Republican knowing that the party is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science, etc. - assuming those aren't one's positions since Bush illustrated that he (and the Party) aren't kidding when it comes to that kind of stuff -- not funding stem cells, not acting against planetary warming, Schiavo -- the list is endless.

[Valerie226]

I don't understand either. I couldn't belong to a party with so many unacceptable ( to me) positions. Loss of party members (and consequently elections ) are apparently the only things that will convince Republicans that their "big" tent is becoming more of a pup tent.
I used to be an independent but switched to Democrat as the untenable repub social positions became more embedded in everyone's agenda.
My feeling is that a lot of people identify with what the republican party "was" before being taken over by the far right. In fact, I even thought it might be moderating somewhat with the choice of Mccain. but I guess I was wrong!

[Romandub]

I consider myself a moderate--progressive on social issues (believe in a woman's right to choose, have no problem with gay marriage), but fiscally conservative (I have to live within my means, why can't the government?)

I am an Obama supporter this year, but was a McCain supporter in 2000. Due mostly to the Republican Party platform, which I find very troublesome, I tend to vote for Democrats. Having said all that, I don't feel at home with either party--and I think that's mostly because the real activists in each party are the hard-core left and right-wingers. The great moderate, centrist, reasonable BIG middle of the country is left to figure out which party fits them best, or offends them the least.

I have many Republican friends (some very highly placed in the Bush administration.) They frequently talk about the fight that's going on right now for the "soul" of the Republican Party. I think what we are seeing is the extreme right wing being very highly motivated, while the more moderate wing is less so, or frustrated, or something. In the meantime, I think the Democrats have found the enthusiasm and energy they've lost over the last 8 years. Whether that translates into a win in November, remains to be seen. Unfortunately, much of the enthusiasm for Obama (and remember, he is my guy!) comes from the youth vote and the African-American vote, and both groups have historical low turnouts on election day. I sincerely hope this year will be different.

Just my thoughts.

[ADM]

Unfortunately, much of the enthusiasm for Obama (and remember, he is my guy!) comes from the youth vote and the African-American vote, and both groups have historical low turnouts on election day. I sincerely hope this year will be different.

Then pray for no rain! (That's not a joke).

[Gumbeaux]

So I am curious, why is it that a single issue trumps everything else in a campaign, especially a presidential campaign. I can certainly understand someone taking the issue into consideration, even giving it more weight, but I am having trouble understanding why people choose based on just one issue.

I liked President Ford more than any other Republican president because he owned a golden. I did not vote for him but I had a lot of respect for him because of the breed that he chose for a pet. :)

http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/NY16212270813.jpg

[PurplePotato]

Well, I'm going to throw something out here - maybe many people are single-issue voters because it is an issue they can understand, relate to, and identify with. It takes a lot to really understand fiscal policy, foreign policy, the energy crisis, etc.

I've heard quotes from people currently in office (more than Bush and on both sides) that gives evidence that even the people we have making decisions on these topics don't fully understand them (I mean the basic facts). Seriously, this stuff can be so complex that it is hard for a layperson to have any idea what should be done.

I think you make a very good point.

Those same people don't stop to think that with a Democratic Congress the chances of getting a very conservative, pro-life justice confirmed is pretty low so the risk of the president completely changing the Supreme Court is really not something that concerns me too much.

[ClaraB]

I liked President Ford more than any other Republican president because he owned a golden. I did not vote for him but I had a lot of respect for him because of the breed that he chose for a pet. :)

http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/NY16212270813.jpg
That's probably as good a reason to vote for a politician as many others (assuming, of course, that said politician doesn't kick his/her dog :eek: :D)

[Gumbeaux]

That's probably as good a reason to vote for a politician as many others (assuming, of course, that said politician doesn't kick his/her dog :eek: :D)

President Johnson enraged pet owners when he picked his dog up by the ears.

http://www.anecdotage.com/pics/lbjbeagle.jpg