You. Just. Can't. Have. It. Both. Ways.

[Stinky The Clown]

Obama is not supporting Frank Caprio, the Democrat, running for governor of Rhode Island against former Republican (liberal, and very nice guy) turned independent, Linc Chaffee.

I know damned little about Caprio, except this: He is a lifelong Democrat who has successfully run for statewide office and is a statewide office incumbent. He has never NOT been a Democrat.

People here on DU are arguing that he's running "against Obama" and triangulating to pick off some repubican votes.

People here are calling him a scumbag and are happy that Obama has refused to endorse him.

Google DU and use the search term "Caprio" and you will learn all you need to learn.

Are these the same people who argued against those who supported Blanch Lincoln's LIBERAL opponent in the Arkansas primary? Are these the same people who, amazingly, see support for Crist as a good thing over lifelong Democrat Kendrick Meek? Are these the same people who excoriate Teh Gays fro threatening to withhold their vote for the Democratic president?

Is there no consistency?

You just can't have it both ways. you are either a party loyalist or you are a person of principle. They are two different things.

What are you?

And unless you say you're a party loyalist, you better not claim any higher moral ground than **ANYONE** who says he will or will not do something based on principle.

Hypocrisy. Its not for repubicans anymore.




No. I will NOT link to the threads that appear to bear witness to my insinuations.

[closeupready]

1. Agreed.

n/t

[Warpy]

2. In the dark and distant BR* past, I voted for a Republican

in Mass. named Ed Brooke when the Democrat running against him was a conservative, antichoice lump. In New England, the Republican was occasionally more liberal than his opponent and the party wasn't nearly as lockstep over the cliff as it is now.

That changed in 1980 when the party went insane. Fortunately, Tsongas had run in 1978 and I voted for the better candidate.

*Before Reagan

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That was then . . . .

I, too, grew up in New England when the choices were no so sharp as they are now. Lots of NE repubicans back then were pretty damned liberal.

[YOY]

3. +1

and a certain crowd here doesn't support Democratic candidates when they're just not conservative enough!!!

I'm shocked they would do that! I mean, I've seen people here told to support those conserva-Dems at all costs citing party loyalty.

Shocked I tell ya!!!

[JVS]

5. What about a person of the principle of loyalty?

:evilgrin:

[TheKentuckian]

6. Conservatives are hypocrites. Nothing surprising about that. Never once does their meandering ever

lead to the more people oriented pol or policy. They are all about the corporate agenda and those who will push it.

[Individualist]

7. Principle above party! K&R

I'm sure you remember when DU vilified republicans for their "my party right or wrong" attitude. You said it all with your next to last paragraph.

[treestar]

8. Maybe they were different people

Three way races are complicated. It is up to each voter's conscience. Maybe it would be better if we didn't have these polls out there and so didn't vote for strategic reasons.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Three way races are complicated? Really? So its okay to vote Green?

Ralph Nader was okay if that was one's conscience?

By that, do you mean voting against Obama for a candidate in any one of the scores of minor party candidates is okay if that is one's conscience?

????

[Panaconda]

9. Sure I can

and not only 'both' ways but I am able to get it three ways through the most slippery of triangulations.

Why you ask?

Because I'm a "values voter" and I will fight for my position since my personal identity depends upon this. That is because my personal identity does depend upon my political positions. They are one and the same - "be the change you want to see." Of course what I actually mean is "seek the change that suits me best as a fully actualized individual" since it never involves self-sacrifice or focus on the needs of others, but always on my personal choices and self-expression. In fact, my political positions are not political positions at all, but narcissistic expressions of my personality.

:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

10. The two positions are completely consistent.

Whatever Obama does, that's what's right. Which part of that don't you understand?

(Grip THIS... :P )

[Stinky The Clown]

14. :-)

:hug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Caprio is a traitor. Chafee is a true Democrat.

Caprio endorsed Hillary in the 2008 RI primary.

Chafee endorsed Obama in the 2008 RI primary.

Caprio's loyalty to the party is thus highly suspect, if we define the party as Barack Obama.

QED.

This is what I have learned from reading several threads on this topic in various fora here.


Seriously... for the second time today, you need to get your priories straight.

[Baalath]

21. Dems for Hillary were traitors?

Or am I missing your point? Because that is a stretch.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. The post is in mocking jest

The argument described is not mine.

[MissDeeds]

12. I agree, Stinky

It is hypocrisy, and unfortunately it's being embraced by some on DU.

K&R, but unfortunately the un-rec crowd has been busy.

[Greyhound]

15. K&R&LOL.

[Recursion]

16. Does Caprio want his endorsement?

People seem to take it as a given that he wants the endorsement, and isn't doing this as a "I'm not an Obama-ite" shadow-play.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. If you read any of the accounts of this, the answer is "Yes" he wanted Obama's endorsement

The lack of endorsement is why he said what he said.

Have you read any of the accounts? Here's my other thread, with links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9383084

[Winterblues]

17. Zell Miller and Ben Nelson are life long Democrats as well

What's your point?

[moriah]

18. As a Blanche Lincoln supporter....

I can assure you that no, I'm not one of those who think Obama's refusal to endorse Caprio is a good thing. Or think Crist would be a better choice.

But while I think that voting against the Democratic Party is not in the LGBT community's best interest, I understand why some feel they must take a stand on principle. I think Obama is trying to advocate as much as he can for the LGBT community, certainly a lot more than the Republicans.... but if Obama took a stance I couldn't tolerate on an issue that was more personal for me -- such as trying to decide what constituted a sufficient medical reason for a pre-viability abortion, or other issues specific to women, I might overcome my party loyalty too in that instance.

And for the record, during the Lincoln/Halter wars, the only thing I spoke up about was how they were tearing each other down and that the attacks wouldn't be good in the general for whoever actually did win the primary. I really wish the debate had stayed more positive, and I think that we've learned the results of it not staying positive.

[ThomCat]

37. You think that what he had one so far is

"advocating as much as he can?" Really? :wtf:

I agree that it's more than a republican would do. But it's the absolute minimum any democrat could do without being in a damn coma!

If you really believe that his track record is good, then you're showing how clueless you are.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. General Treasurer of Rhode Island

Sounds like the guy is media-savvy... and perhaps wikipedia savvy. However arrived at, this is quite a flattering entry.


__________________

General Treasurer of Rhode Island

Campaign

On November 7, 2006, Caprio, the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party, was elected General Treasurer of Rhode Island, receiving 73% of the vote. He won by a larger margin than any candidate for a contested statewide office on the Rhode Island ballot in 2006.<4>

Caprio made Rhode Island history as the first candidate in the state to officially announce his candidacy via a multimedia broadcast that included television, Web, on-demand cable television, and radio. This was done, he explained, because he wants his "vision for the treasurer’s office" to be accessible to "as many Rhode Islanders as possible in as comfortable a format as possible." <5>

Caprio was the first political candidate in the United States to use On-Demand Television in a campaign.<6> His television documentary, Caprio, the Biography, was available for free viewing throughout Rhode Island via Cox Communications's On-Demand program. He also launched one of the nation's first campaign internet TV channels.<7> Both the website and his television ads garnered awards.<8><9>

Investments and the 2008 market crisis
Months before the subprime mortgage crisis began to take a toll on banks, financial services companies and public pension funds, Caprio began to minimize the State’s exposure to asset backed securities. Steps included conducting a competitive bidding process that expanded the number of qualified investment banks underwriting the State's bond transactions, and minimizing the State’s exposure to companies such as Bear Stearns.<10>

As part of his effort to ensure the health of Rhode Island’s pension system, Caprio moved $1 billion from Quality D money market funds (with loose terms that could have allowed for investment in CDOs and SIVs) into Quality A institutional money market funds. This occurred before the subprime crisis began to shake financial markets. At the same time, Caprio moved approximately $150 million in high-yield investments into safe Treasury bonds, before the high yield market began to decline. Rhode Island’s pension fund has maintained its 5-year average on investment returns in spite of the current economic turmoil.<11>

Caprio’s approach to assessing and managing risk has helped ensure that the public funds managed by his office avoid the investment losses now plaguing other states.<10> In the midst of the 2008 market collapse, Caprio established a financial “SWAT team” of Rhode Island’s top financial minds to ensure the State’s protection from AIG’s collapse.<11>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_T._Caprio

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Sure you can. Just put the machine on spin and call it "practical".

[blondeatlast]

24. I'm not sure there's a cafeteria table left for me so I'll eat my lunch under the lovely tree

and enjoy the bird songs while being shat upon. I was a party loyalist until very recently--now I find out I'm a "dreamer' who can act as well.

I admit it, in this case I'm conflicted and damn glad I don't have to make that choice.This Meek supporter is more upset with DU over "permitting" support for Crist, who doesn't have a proven LW voting record like Chafee.

[Warpy]

26. Had I been nuts enough to stay in Florida after my dad died

I'd be voting for Meek along with you.

Look! Another windmill is over there! Onward, Sancho! Full gallop, Rocinante!

(yeah, I'm disgusted about support for Crist being allowed, too. It's not like he's actually promised to caucus with Democrats)

[Stinky The Clown]

27. You can sit with me

I sit where there is no litmus test. Principles matter. That is generally in the Democratic party for me, but I can imagine not voting Dem. No case comes to mind right now, but I can imagine it.

In Florida, I'd vote for Meek.

In South Carolina, I'd probably not vote or write in myself.

In Rhode Island, I'd vote for Caprio. If Chafee wanted my vote, he'd have to switch, but even that is no guarantee, cuz I would never have voted for Spector. I would, however, have held my nose and voted for Lieberman if he were still a Democrat and the only choice. But I would have supported Lamont in the last primary and been happy to see Joe go. If I were in Nebraska, I'd vote against Nelson in every primary and still vote for him in the general, because bad as he is I cannot imagine a viable candidate of ANY party, in that state, would be better than him.

So yeah, sit over here at this table. Let the Kool Kids sit where they like. They always show up as the biggest losers at the 25th class reunion! :)

[moriah]

28. Honestly, it doesn't seem like Stinky criticizing people who vote on principle.

I think the point is that either it's principle or loyalty, but don't argue loyalty one minute and principle the next.

Me, I could foresee a time when I might vote principle. As I said in my post, should the Democratic nominee for any race advocate a position I could not tolerate at all, I would probably stand on principle. But unless it's a very specific issue or position that's getting in my way, I'm going to vote with the party.

In the Chafee/Caprio debate, if I were a RIer I would go for Caprio even though Chafee has espoused many liberal sentiments, for one reason that stands out in my mind besides party loyalty -- Chafee wants to privatize, whereas Caprio knows first-hand how much of a bad idea that would be. He's the one who shifted a lot of RI's investments out of areas that succumbed to the mortgage-backed security nightmare, and went for good old US Treasury bonds instead. On other issues I think he's about the same -- he will sign a marriage equality bill, for just one example.

Chafee might be a fairly liberal person in comparison to the Republicans he left, but it takes me a long damn time to learn to trust someone who changed parties. I don't trust him yet, and don't think I ever would honestly.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. You're *almost* correct about what Stinky is talking about.

Your first sentence captures almost all of it. The add would be that while we might have or hold one, we can all also have a default for the other. To wit: I am a person who puts principle above party. That said, my default on Party is Democrat and that is why I am a member of the Democratic Party. It is my default. It most often represents my principles. Except of late. I have been in a rough patch and my default is not always a good one.

[ThomCat]

38. Absolutely right on all points. +1

[Tatiana]

25. Great post.

I had to read it a couple of times before I was able to comment. Basically, I think I put principles over party. I've voted for Republicans and Greens occasionally, when they were more progressive than the Dem candidate.

If the President wants to withhold his endorsement, that's his prerogative. Though I would say that Clinton's endorsement of Brown does provide an example of being the bigger person, even when it may or may not be deserved. Doing the right thing can be, in itself, a reward. So the question becomes, what is the right thing?

In the FL case, if I were voting, I'd go for Meek because Crist and Rubio both represent the current value system of the Republican Tea Party. Crist feels invading Iraq made us safer, just like Rubio does. Crist's vanity deserves to be denied and Floridians who vote against their own economic interests need to understand the danger in electing fools like Rubio. Unfortunately, Crist's vanity has caused other Floridians to have to suffer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. "Republican opposer" is an entirely consistent position.

Certainly, here in the UK, I don't tend to look much at the policy differences between Labour and the Lib Dems; I cast my vote in whichever way I think is more likely to avoid a Tory or partly-Tory government.

Simililarly, were I an American, I would support whichever non--far-right candidate looked to have the best chance of keeping out the Republican - not on any abstract ideological grounds, but because I think that that's the strategy most likely to result in, on average, left-wing government.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I'm not really a "go along with the party" loyalist in ALL circumstances.

And I guess that because I live in a very BLUE state (thank God), I can afford to be strategic, rather than sincere about my vote. So, if I'm faced with a very conservative Blue Dog Democrat a la, Al Wynn, who is more abhorrent than the Green Party candidate or an Independent, I have no problem casting my vote for the alternative Green or Independent candidate.

But, if I lived in a RED or PURPLE state where the Democrat is a good Democrat (Al Grayson); or, the Democrat is a Blue Dog who faces a disgusting Republican, my vote will go towards the Democrat each time. I'm still being strategic, but I *sincerely* do not want the Republican to win.

However, in the case of a Kendrick Meek v. a Charlie Crist where there is very little chance of Meek winning and a greater chance of Crist winning, my vote is going to Crist even though he's not a Democrat because Rubio is absolutely disgraceful!

As for the Lincoln Chafee v. Frank Caprio race, I know much more aobut Lincoln Chafee. I know that he is an honorable man, even though he used to be a Republican. I know that he is principled and fair. However, I do not know this about Caprio, and in fact, regardless of how he felt about Obama not endorsing him, there was a better way to express himself than this. His running to the right reeks of opportunism. I just don't like the guy, compared to who I know Lincoln Chafee is.

If I lived in Rhode Island, I'd vote for Chafee, even if he had no chance of winning.

[Number23]

55. You and the poster above you seem to be two of only a handful of people in this thread

who get it. I don't understand what the problem is and why this seems to be above the grasp of some here.

But what I am beginning to understand is why OPs like this get as many recs as they do. Well, in this forum anyway.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. Thanks! It's not often that I receive compliments like this. DU is a rough place! n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

32. We've got Democrats here

urging Democrats and moderates to write in Lisa Murkowski, despite the difficulties inherent in a write-in campaign, and despite the fact that we have a perfectly wonderful Democratic Senate candidate, Scott McAdams. Democrats consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. And a kick to the top . . . .

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIris]

40. Agreed.

It's pathetic.

[Smashcut]

35. They're really Obama loyalists; the party is ancillary to all that

In fact, for most of them, being a Democrat doesn't mean much of anything other than "whatever makes Obama look good." They actually think this makes them enlightened "action liberals."

That's where their own sense of consistency comes from.

[ThomCat]

39. Ha! Nice, clear perspective. I think you're on to something.

If they could change the Democratic party to the "Obama Party" I think they would, so you I think you're right.

It is definitely Obama they are loyal too first and foremost, and the party a distant second only to the extent that it helps Obama's administration, reputation, or future.

[frylock]

42. nailed it

[QC]

47. BINGO! n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Yep!

[bullwinkle428]

53. Time for an artistic DUer to come up with an "Action Liberal"

spandex super-hero costume concept!

[Scurrilous]

63. We could put it on that woodchuck.

It'd be doubly hilarious!!

[Jamastiene]

71. With a cape...

flying. That was my first thought when I saw the phrase. It was one of those "zOMFG, you have GOT to be kidding me" moments for me.

[ProSense]

54. That was brilliant!

"Look at us. We're smart than they are. They think they're enlightened "action liberals." They're not real Democrats or liberals, and have no principles. We are the ones, the party's last hope. We, the people who shit on Democrats daily and pretend that President Obama is not a Democrat. The Clinton loyalists (Best. President. Ever. Run, Hillary, Run). The Grayson loyalists (He should be speaker, make that President). The Kucinich loyalists (Only real Democrat). The Nader loyalists (See he was right). Look at us, the party is our primary concern, unlike those "Obama loyalists."

It's called divisiveness.

Then there is this

[Jakes Progress]

57. Divisiveness cuts both ways, brother.

Do you disagree that some put loyalty to the man above loyalty to principle? Or that to some loyalty to the man is the only principle? You seem to not like Clinton, Grayson, or Kucinich. So does your loyalty not extend to all Democrats? Could you identify one thing the president has done or said of which you do not approve? One?

[ProSense]

58. It's not just divisive

it's condescending and smug.

"You seem to not like Clinton, Grayson, or Kucinich."

I have issues with Clinton, separate from the issues I have with Kucinich, which are trivial. I like Grayson fine.

[Jakes Progress]

61. Nice picking.

Care to address the other questions?

[nashville_brook]

69. damn -- nailed it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. This is the lowest point DU has ever reached.

[boston bean]

41. The pragmatic, incremental, action oriented thing to do is do whatever Obama tells ya to do. nt

[QC]

48. !

:rofl:

[Scurrilous]

62. Fancy that!

:o

[The Uncola]

70. Bingo!

:applause:

[Unvanguard]

43. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

"Party loyalty" is not something people pursue for its own sake: they support it because it serves certain ends (like electing viable center-left candidates rather than right-wing ones.) In cases where it in fact harms this interest--as in Florida and, arguably, Rhode Island--it has no force as a norm.

[Number23]

45. What you're saying makes sense to me

"Party loyalty" is not something people pursue for its own sake: they support it because it serves certain ends

Sounds like common sense. But apparently, that is too nuanced for some.

Rhode Island's situation is not hard to understand. The independent is apparently more liberal than the Democrat and has openly supported the President which is why he withheld his endorsement for the Dem. This would fly in the face of every argument that Obama is anti-liberal but since it doesn't fit the narrative, it seems to have confused some people.

Florida is a bit more complex, but even that is not difficult. Meek should win. Since it is apparent that is not going to happen, many are rooting for Crist -- the less insane option. I don't get what the difficulty is here.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Nuance

That's a great word. I wish it were more widely appreciated.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

56. To me, the issue with Meek is now moot

He's staying in. That means he and Crist will split the vote, and Rubio will win. I'd vote for Meek, because in the end, it sadly doesn't matter anyway. I'd go with the guy on principal.

As a Rhode Islander, I have no worries about the Rethug candidate winning the race. Therefore I can vote the candidate whom I believe best represents my principles. For me, Linc Chafee is that guy. I had no choice in the primary. As a Democrat, Caprio had no opponent. One of them dropped out to run for Congress, and the other got outspent into withdrawal.

[Number23]

60. That makes perfect sense. I mean, it really does

What you're saying should not be so hard for so many to understand. It's perfectly logical. Perfectly reasonable.

Best of luck to your guy. The folks I voted for in my home state of Georgia don't stand a chance so I envy your optimism and hope that it turns out the way that you want.

[depakid]

59. Actually, in more than a few cases party or politician loyalty outwieghs anything else

and unfortunately, we've seen that this phenomena isn't limited to the Republican side of the aisle.

[Catherina]

44. Judging by the unrecs, at least 29 people here think you can.

Very odd.

Rec'd.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

50. K and R!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillyT]

52. HUGE K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:yourock:

:kick:

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

64. Chafee is more "Democrat" than 90% who actually have that label

And certainly more Democrat than Caprio... who's running to the freaking *RIGHT*.


I wouldn't vote for Ben Nelson if there is a viable candidate to his left... and one shouldn't vote for ANY candidate that has a *viable* candidate on the ballot to his left.

The key word is viable.



To be clear... Meek is the preferred choice in Florida. But Meek is not *viable*. Frankly, it appears that Crist isn't viable either... so a good Democrat should vote for Meek.


In Rhode Island, the candidate that is the most "Democratic" is Lincoln Chafee... regardless of what his official "label" is. And Chafee is *viable*.

[scheming daemons]

65. Based on this post, Stinky... I assume you would vote for the "Democrat" against Bernie Sanders?

Chafee is a better "Democrat" than 90% of the politicians that actually wear the label.

Just like Bernie.

[cornermouse]

66. And is Lieberman also a better "democrat" than 90% of the politicians

that wear the label. Sorry, but when I look at Chaffee I see another Lieberman who later threw his support behind McCain.

[scheming daemons]

67. To compare Chafee to Lieberman is to expose your utter lack of knowledge about both candidates

Joe Lieberman aligns himself with the GOP more often than with the Democrats.


Lincoln Chafee aligns himself with Democrats on just about every issue that matters to us.


Caprio is more like Lieberman than Chafee is.



The proper comparison is Lincoln Chafee to Bernie Sanders. Both with the "(I)" label... but both reliably *DEMOCRATIC* in their voting records and philophies.

[cornermouse]

68. They're both independents because they couldn't capture their party nomination.

They both were in Congress with Obama and were, according to media, friends.
Obama actively supported them both while giving little more than lip service, if that much, to the democratic nominee.

Addition: Its unfortunate you felt you had to try to throw insults in order to defend your position.

[Jamastiene]

72. It is almost like the only way to get along with the current

trends in the Democratic Party is to think, "OK. What is the opposite of what a Democrat would have done just 5 years ago?" and then do that. That seems to be the only way to get along with those who support the latest trend. It's upside down world. I can't get with it. It's just a bunch of soulless nonsense to me.

I'm just thankful that I have some damn good local Democrats to vote for this time around and some damn good local Democrats who are already in power. I can vote my conscience without reservations for Marshall and mostly vote my conscience with only a few reservations for Kissell. I'm actually looking forward to voting this time around.

And, I am in a state that, overall, normally votes the worst Republicans in and the worst Blue Dog Dems in. Red as red can be, but now blue. This time, we have a liberal and at least a somewhat progressive to vote for....and the rest of the country? Red, redder, and reddest candidates to choose from. I don't envy the rest of the country for once. It looks like upside down world, truly. If someone would have told me it was going to be this way, I would have scoffed at them and said that famous last word, "Never."