Vote Democratic...even if the guy's a crook?

[thatcrazycajun]

I had a discussion with my Songbird singing_phoenix yesterday about the necessity of voting Democratic all up and down the ticket in next month's elections. She asked for substantive information about the candidates, being unwilling to simply vote yellow-dog. In the race for state insurance commissioner here, we looked at the local newspaper's endorsement list and came upon this:

"[Republican incumbent John] Oxendine's opponent is Democrat Guy Drexinger, an attorney and accountant who advises small businesses. He's making his first run at public office. He is bright and sincere, but whatever skills and ideas Drexinger might bring to the commissioner's office are overshadowed by his failure in 1995 to disclosure a fraudulent scheme by a legal client. With Drexinger's knowledge, the client obtained a bank loan guaranteed by the Small Business Administration while illegally concealing a side agreement for another loan. After the scheme was discovered, Drexinger's law license was temporarily suspended, he lost his real estate license and was reprimanded by the state Board of Accountancy." --Atlanta Journal-Constitution, www.ajc.com

I had a hard time convincing her (or myself, for that matter) not to support the GOP candidate in the face of the foregoing. Are we supposed to vote to put people in office whom we know from the outset to be dishonest, merely because they're in the correct party? I share markbernstein's fervor to see Democrats regain Congress and more statewide posts in general, but I need some help on this one.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the race. Specifically, short of serious felonies, I would hold my nose and vote for a Democrat in any US Congressional election this year, hoping the party could get a better candidate for the next term. Those elections are that important.

On the state level, I'd probably do the same for any gubernatorial, lieutenant governor, or attorney general race. For the rest, again, case by case.

And we do have such a case here in NY. Democratic incumbent Alan Hevesi has been hit with serious ethics charges, repaid $80K+, and is still under further investigation for misuse of a state driver for his (ill) wife (with no accounting). I haven't decided yet whether to vote for him or abstain from voting in that race (voting for the Republican, whose credentials don't convince me, is right out).

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I am going to vote Democrat straight up and down the line.
This is a nose-holder option for me, as "Despise" is not a strong enough word for how I feel about both our political parties.
However, the Republicans need to be taken out to the wood shed and paddled.
They have sacrificed loyalty to the nation as a whole for loyalty to their party.
They have bought the religious right into politics. They have failed us all.
They need to wander in the wilderness for at least eight years.
But the year after this I'm voting green.


Shelley

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Add to that the fact that, as near as I can tell, John Oxendine has done a fine job as insurance comissioner for the last decade or more.

I already sent in my ballot, and I don't actually recall anymore who I voted for on insurance commish, but I could easily see myself voting for Oxendine given the above information. *shrug*

[filkferengi]

Here's the thing: right out of law school, my spouse went to work for Mr. Oxendine, with decent pay and regular hours. We were dating, so time together was at a premium. Notwithstanding that, he left after six months, which was six months longer than the previous associate. Professional conduct was a rarity in the lawfirm that Mr. Oxendine had been given by his daddy. If even my spouse, the kindest, most tolerant man in the worlds, couldn't put up with this guy, for good money & more time with me, that's rather telling.


Despite a wedding proclamation signed by then-Gov. Joe Frank Harris [a democrat], Mr. Oxendine turned republican because the democrats didn't want him on the ballot. Since being in office as insurance commissioner, he has wrecked two government-supplied cars and asked for a third with all sorts of luxury options at tax-payer expense [which wasn't supplied; wonder why?].

Have you considered the libertarian candidate [if there is one]?

[the-gwenzilliad.livejournal.com]

Surely you remember, "Vote for the Crook: It's Important. I was at the University of Southwestern Louisiana when all that was going on. ;-)

[billroper]

You get better government by voting for the better candidate, regardless of his or her party affiliation.

I'd like to have better candidates, but that's a different problem altogether. (I'm not sure that the primary system of nominating candidates has done us any favors, despite the fact that it's a more democratic way of operating. And that would lead to a very long discussion...)

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

You get better government by voting for the better candidate, regardless of his or her party affiliation.

Sadly, this is no longer the case. It was, once. Back in the day when democracy was a process for reaching political consensus rather than a means of determining how 50.1% of the people impose their will on 49.9% of the people.

I do not like the world we have made, but we are not done with this ride yet. Sadly, we have some nasty times ahead of us before things get so unpleasant for everyone that even the most partisan are willing to deal with their party opponents.

Serious consideration

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

"There is no man so righteous that he does only good and never sins." --Eccl.

As with all things, it is worth considering several factors beyond party affiliation.

1) The nature of the crime, the level of remorse, and its relevance to the office. In this case, enabling fraud certainly gives rise to concerns. But was this a bad call in a difficult situation? A life lesson from which he has learned? Or is he simply a scoundrel? What was his age and relevant circumstances? These facts do not go to excuse his past bad deeds,

Consider a) he apparently was not criminally convicted; b) his law license was suspended, he was not permanently disbarred; c) he was reprimanded by the Board of Accountancy, they did not even see fit to revoke his license.

As a lawyer, I appreciate better than some the conflicts that can arise in representing a client. On the one hand, I am supposed to be a "zealous advocate for my client." A criminal must have confidence that he can confess to me his most heinous crime and I will try to get him off to the best of my ability. On the other hand, I am "an officer of the court." I must behave with the highest level of personal probity, and avoid anything that bespeaks a lack of candor to the court or any agency empowered by law.

So was this a man who actively engaged in fraud and sought to hide it? Or was it a man who made a poor judgement on whether his duty as an officer of the court outweighed his duty to help his client? Given the fact that there is no conviction, and that he received intermediate punishments from two of his three governing boards, there must be some mitigating circumstances.

That doesn't necessarily mean a free pass. It does mean doing a bit more digging online, and possibly from his supporters, to find out the real facts.

2) But assume the worst. Let us assume he knowingly and willingly committed fraud, but that they lacked evidence to convict. What do we know about the man _now_. While everyone should rightly be suspicious of the penitent on the gallows steps, he now has ten years of history. Do we brand anyone who ever committed a crime for life?

Suppose he was a reformed gang member who now fights against drugs and crime. Would we say "sure, he has spent the last ten years doing good, but that can't erase his conviction for possession of crack ten years ago. Once a druggie, always a druggie I say." Is dishonesty so inherent, and so obviously so from this single paragraph, that you can conclude that you "know from the outset [he is] dishonest?"

Again, this doesn't conclusively prove the matter one way or another. But it is a heck of a lot more complex than can be derived from a one paragraph endorsement. If it really troubles you, go and see what the man has to say about himself. In this day and age, I imagine that someone has dug up the old records and any press stories and put them online.

I will not vote for a Democrat I know is a dishonest crook, but I will not blindly accept the editorial judgement of a newspaper either -- especially when tools for further research lie at your fingertips.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Terribly, terribly tough. My first instinct was to say, "No. Vote for the other guy. Vote for someone else. Party doesn't matter as much as honesty and service." But you know that I share max_bialystock's sentiments, and I also agree with the excellent analysis of the general situation by osewalrus.

So I think it comes down to figuring out where the tipping point is between your feelings about Oxendine as an public servant and as a Republican versus your feelings about Drexinger's potential as a public servant and his troubled past and whether or not you believe he's truly past it. And then determine where that tipping point is in relation to both candidates' reality. If you simply can't vote for the Dem... vote for the Repub.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

If it were for Congress, I'd vote for him anyway because there what we need are raw numbers. For state insurance commissioner, I'd vote for a Republican over a fraudulent Democrat.