Nathaniel

Shockey

Read Nathaniel's bio and previous columns here

November 19, 2007

Immigration Waffling, Reagan and the Clinton Thumb: How Not to Get My Vote

As most Americans are well aware, the 2008 presidential election is right around the corner. OK, not really, but it’s something to talk about. So just to get things started, I thought I’d offer a few thoughts.

It seems like a good idea for me – an American, and as such, the proud owner of a potential vote, which can be quite consequential among 100 million others – to share a few of my deal-breakers for presidential hopefuls, just in case anyone was either curious or perhaps covetous of my potentially consequential vote. So here they are, my 2008 presidential deal-breakers (listed in no particular order of importance):

1. Immigration – If I had my way, we’d be much tougher on immigration laws, not because illegals are bad people, but because I think they’re bad for America. And for what it’s worth, an even better way to deal with illegals would be to more strictly enforce laws on hiring them.

But here’s the thing. It has seemed, at least thus far, that any presidential hopeful, when asked about his/her stance on immigration or any of its specific aspects, responds with the following sentence, and I quote, “America needs to get tough on immigration laws by enforcing the ones we already have. At the same time, America was founded upon immigration and, in many ways, still relies heavily upon it. If our country is to succeed, we must not offend any immigrants, legal or illegal, anyone who is related to or whose ancestors were related to an immigrant, legal or illegal, or more specifically, anyone with a vote, composed or catatonic. This is my stance, and I will not budge. You have my word.”

So my immigration deal-breaker has not so much to do with agreeing with me as it does to having a lucid opinion, ideally founded on some degree of reason. A candidate who suggested rewarding all immigrants who made it safely across the border with a two-bed, one bath apartment and a year’s subscription to TV Guide would have a better chance of getting my potentially consequential vote than anyone who uttered the previous quotation.

2. The irritating fist/thumb point – It was Bill Clinton who immortalized this gesture when he assured his concerned public that he had had utterly no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and, by the way, what is adultery? For whatever reason, that ugly scenario has not had what would have seemed the natural effect of dissuading future candidates from using the now infamous gesture. Therefore, any candidate who insists on exercising the irritating fist/thumb point gesture during his/her campaign proves an obvious inability to learn from history and hence, will not earn my potentially consequential vote.

3. Universal Health Care – Anyone who maintains the achievement of universal health care as one of his/her goals will not, under any circumstance, receive my potentially consequential vote. It is a dumb idea. It would chase away the good doctors, create an unlimited demand for health care, which is a recipe for disaster, and in the meantime, skyrocket already ridiculous health care costs by forcing everyone to pay for even more things that have nothing at all to do with our health, such as the salaries of the thousands of people who work for health care companies.

For a more thorough, excellent explanation of this crisis, take a look at my North Star Writers Group colleague, Dan Calabrese, who wrote a column about this on October 15. Personally, I prefer to visit a recommended doctor when necessary, pay him $150 an hour, and in the meantime, do something completely unheard of in case something really catastrophic and expensive happens to me – save. I know it all sounds crazy but it’s what I cling to, and if anyone disagrees with me to such an extent as to advocate universal health care, he or she will just have to depend on the other 100 million voters to get elected.

4. Reaganomics – I am not ready to accept this word as part of the English vernacular. At this point, it just seems irresponsible. But what’s more annoying than the overuse of this word is the reason for the overuse, which I judge to be the absence of any ability to either have a clear opinion, or articulate it. If you’ve watched the recent primary debates, you’ve witnessed either this exact conversation, or a very close variation:

“Mr. Senator, your position on gay marriage is still unclear to me. Could you explain it a bit further?”

“Let me put it this way. It’s called Reaganomics.”

“Doesn’t Reaganomics concern the economy?”

“Have some respect, man! Have you even heard of Ronald Reagan?” the senator says at the approval of the other candidates who are, at this point, unanimously shaking their heads in disgust.

You can only get away with alluding to Reagan so many times before it becomes a cop-out, and as far as I’m concerned, any candidate who can’t get away from it will find his or herself quite at odds with my potentially consequential vote.

At this point, these are my deal-breakers. And to be blunt, they should be yours, too. That is, unless you would rather watch the illegal immigration situation continue to spiral out of control while making the equivalent of a mortgage payment on your cold prescription, and making matters worse, this is all being defended by a nincompoop who won’t stop pointing his fist/thumb at you while Reagan becomes the root of several nouns, a verb and an interjection in Webster’s 2010 college dictionary.

© 2007 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS083. Request permission to publish here.