Anyone here a single-issue voter?

Just curious how many people are so supportive and fervent about a certain issue, that they will either change their allegiances or even abstain from voting should the particular Democratic candidate in question not agree with them exactly.

If you are, please explain what the issue is and why you feel so strongly about it.

Period.

Everything else comes in second to that, because until then, none of my issues have a chance of being addressed.

i opened this thread looking to see if anyone answered yes (so i could laugh at them in private) and the first one i see is a yes AND I AGREE. I AGREE 100%. I never thought i would be a single issue voter, and now i am.

He represents many many issues, ALL of which he is on the wrong side of.

That makes us anti-Bush people the opposite of single-issue voters. We're "every-issue" voters!

i never want to think of myself as a single-issue voter

all the candidates are the same on the opposing bush issue, so it doesnt really count.

I guess I'm a single issue voter and didn't even know it!

anyone who voted for the bushwar or the patriot act would pose severe problems for me as a candidate for office. Having said that, if it came down to a choice between getting the bushies out and voting for, jsut as an example, John Kerry, I'd vote for Kerry.

The issue would have to be whether they would go to war in the future, or whether they dont have what it takes to run the country.

This is my big problem with the vote for war people. It isnt an issue, its just about revenge. The issue has to be phrased in such a way that it applies to them as president. Few people have phrased it in that way.

Lots of people seem to believe that this one war is different than all the others, and refuse to vote for anyone who voted for it, and only support candidates that either voted against it (Kucinich) or read a speech about it (Dean).

I'm waiting for all of those folks to post on this thread. Btw, no one voted for the war.

Some people put the war powers vote over getting bush out of office, definately the most extreme case of single issue voting I could imagine.

I will vote for a Dem candidate who now sees the light -- e.g., Kerry. I won't vote for blind Dems -- e.g., Lieberman. But I support Dean.

I absolutely WILL NOT vote for any candidate who supports any sort of constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. I view it as a declaration of war against myself and other gay folks.

...I think it's safe to say that you are indeed a single-issue voter :)

I won't vote for any candidate who is not actively pro-choice. However, I think "single-issue" is a misnomer. I have many issues on which I judge a candidate--some are more more important to me than others. For example, I examine a candidate's record for racism, anti-gay actions or sentiments, theocratic tendencies, a poor record on social services funding, etc.

And, I fear that as the election approaches, and the situation in Iraq/Afganistan worsens, I won't be able to vote for any candidate who voted for or spoke in favor of the war.

There are just too many issues for a reasonable person to be a single single-issue voter.

on a whole lot of single issues. ;-)

and there are always plenty of good candidates whom I agree with on most issues who are also pro-choice.

I did make an exception and voted in the GOP primary in 2000 for McCain, but I had no intention of voting for him in the general election. There were other reasons for doing that, mainly that I feared something like 9-11 would happen if Bush took office. It also made ex-Gov. Engler look really bad when McCain won the Michigan primary. It also annoyed me greatly when the Bush people started their dirty tricks campaign against him, and made accusations about his service and imprisonment in Vietnam. I don't hold it against anyone who found a way out of that conflict until they cross the line and start criticizing those who served (or others who found a way out, like Limbaugh criticizing Clinton).
If a candidate states that he or she is anti-abortion, than I figure that person doesn't understand women very well and shouldn't be in office in a nation that has a female majority.

Any candidate who collaborated with the fratboy by voting for the illegal invasion, subjugation, and occupation of Iraq, and by doing so, aided and abetted in the deaths of Iraqi civilians, will not get my vote.

That eliminates: Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt.

As of August the 17th between 6113 and 7830 Iraqi civilians have died.
At least 20,000 civilians have been injured.

I'm amazed and appalled that so many Democrats are willing to overlook those deaths and injuries caused by their candidate's vote to enable the slaughter.

But, I suppose, "He isn't as bad as Bush", overrides humanity when it comes to "pragmatic" politics.

the death and destruction of poor, brown skinned, funny smelling, weird looking, strange talking peoples on the other side of the world is always a price that is worth it when it's politically expedient.

If I were convinced that those who voted for the Iraq resolution were truly misled, I would be willing to entertain supporting them. But I don't believe that.

It's a big issue, but I take a holistic approach to issues; you look at one and find that they are nearly all connected.

the bill that in its text stated: "illegal invasion, subjugation, and occupation of Iraq, and by doing so, aided and abetted in the deaths of Iraqi civilians"

This insane oversimplification hindsight interpretation of this vote is frankly stupid.

Why dont you make a point that matters in this election. Explain to me how voting on that resolution would make those people bad presidents. Give it a shot. The world isnt black and white. These people were of course mislead. We were all mislead. Some or all of them may, like us have strongly suspected that we were being mislead, but unlike us these people have responsibilities to more than just their hunches.

They voted correctly imo. Voting no would not have stopped the war. It would have just put them in a politically shitty position. If they had voted no, and we had found WMD, the democratic leadership would be borked and wed be running low on viable bush opponants.

This is not about good vs evil. THat kind of thinking is garunteeing conservative domination. We have to make our decisions based on the future, not taking a skewed look at the past, getting angry, and voting on indignation.

I will not vote for anyone who opposes the freedom of sexual expression. In Federal elections that would be choice, gay marriege and sodomy.

I will vote for anyone who supports those things. If they are otherwise some woirthless turd I may have some second thoughts but I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.