Seems like some major misunderstandings in response to this article on this site.
Anyone who is genuinely interested in the true purpose of the Blue Republicans can read my dozens of articles and listen to my 40 or 50 interviews. No reasonable person could possibly say that we are not fully committed to a Ron Paul victory and the re-establishment of small, Constitutional government in the USA. Tens of thousands of words have been written by me and by others about our work. No one has to speculate. Just do some homework. I don’t care if someone disagrees with me. I do care when someone who has never once spoken to me, not read all my work and gets his facts wrong calls into question my integrity, honesty or motivation.
My goal is a Constitutional Republic. I don’t give a flying fish about parties, except inasmuch as they already exist and are powerful - so we have to deal with them and in them. I don’t much care how we get our rights back or our Constitution back, although I don’t want to see anyone get hurt. Anyone whose politics is sufficiently in line with mine that they would support Ron Paul and the Constitution is someone I am going to respect and support. As is the case with Dennis Flynn, if he is the ONLY such person with such politics in a race in which ALL OTHERS do not support Paul and what he stands for, I will support him all the more strongly.
All of America’s politicians have a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect our inalienable rights. That goes for Republican politicians, Democratic politicians and all others. The oath is the oath. We should demand that from candidates of ANY party.
I am also for REAL change – not for theoretical purity that wins us no supporters. Obviously, the effort to take back our country is well ahead in the Republican party, which is where my focus will remain. It is also why I have spent hundreds of hours of my life this last year to bring new registrants to that party specifically to vote for Ron Paul and to fill the party with those who passionate about liberty and the Constitution.
There is no “either-or” between liberty in the Republican party and liberty in the Democratic party. The Democratic Party has indeed appeared to be a lost cause in terms of liberty and the Constitution. But unfortunately, we are stuck with them as almost half of the political establishment. I have written plenty about the damage they have been doing to this country. But in the America I would like to see, Democrats and Republicans would ALL respect our Constitution and our civil rights. It therefore makes no sense to abuse someone who is in the Democrat party and supports those things - just because he is not in the Republican party. (That very idea, by definition, puts party before principle, which is exactly the mistake that has brought America to the current tyranny that we are supposed to be fighting against.)
Of course the most important thing for us to do is to get critical mass in the Republican party … but if you are a classical liberal Constitutionalist in a very heavily Democratic district, then it’s not unreasonable to think that the way to turn that district around is to run as a Democrat. Sure, Dennis Flynn could be a Republican, but then he wouldn’t get elected, so he wouldn’t do any good, and he’d not have the platform to espouse the values we love. Sure, you can question the strategy, but you should honor the man and his attempt (and those who support his effort). He is doing no harm to the Republican party. In fact, he is, by gaining the trust of Democrats, able to bring more Democrats around to vote for Ron Paul – as he has already started doing. Ron Paul himself doesn’t ask for those who agree with him to join the Republican party.
Moreover, as a Republican Constitutionalist (which I am, although not yet officially, as I am not yet a citizen), and I am asked to support a candidate, my first criterion should be “Is he a Ron Paul-supporting, Constitutionalist who, if elected, would jolt his district’s political establishment in the direction of liberty?”. Flynn is such a man. If I only support people I agree with on absolutely everything, I would support no one and therefore contribute nothing to our cause. (In fact, I have a couple of differences with Ron Paul himself, but that doesn’t make my work any less important or passionate or effective.)
But most simply and obviously, there is no liberty Republican in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, is there? So all this “undermining our effort in the Republican party” is prima facie baloney.
If you are more interested about WHERE to promote liberty than in promoting liberty EVERYWHERE – then it is not really liberty that is motivating you. Now, if you honestly believe that promoting liberty only in one party is more practically effective than promoting liberty in that party and elsewhere (seems like a logical impossibility to me, but I address it because it seems also to be the case that some have been making in this thread), then you are entitled to your opinion. But that does not provide you with a basis to question the motivations or integrity or bona fides of those with whom you have a methodological disagreement.
One thing I know for sure is that the thing will cause us liberty-loving Constitutionalists to lose our battles is NOT Democrats’ coming round to understand what Paul and his message are all about. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we need to win the war. Rather, it will be in-fighting that is instigated by those who claim to be for liberty, but assert that they know more about it than those with whom they disagree and so stand in judgment of not just their opponents, but also those who are doing heavy lifting to actually win supporters for our cause.
This last year, I worked tirelessly and without any form of compensation to bring Ron Paul’s message to American citizens who would not otherwise have been exposed to it – and I have done so in way that has actually made a difference by persuading people. There are those who have done much more than I, but I will put my efforts and my results up to be measured against those of anyone in this nation.
As for writing on the Huffington Post. You bet. I will spread the word of liberty WHEREVER and WHENEVER I can. I don’t care who owns the website, who else writes on it or whatever. I also write on the Daily Paul, the Moderate Voice and the Daily Capitalist. All I know is that once given that kind of platform to reach thousands – and I do reach thousands - I have a moral responsibility to use it for good. Right now, that means bringing liberals and conservatives around to the message of freedom and the Constitution. Since the HuffPo has a liberal and Democrat audience, I write to persuade that audience. Frankly, that is why I am so good at what I do. If I find allies in that audience, I will embrace them, whoever they are. And I will understand that they won’t come all the way to my exact position in one step. And for the record, Huff Po does not pay me, and so they exert no editorial control over my work (or as far as I am aware, anyone else’s, although I cannot vouch for that). I am just a guy with a login on their site. How blessed I am to be able to use it in a cause I believe in.
Finally, it is a rEVOLution, remember? I try to come from a place of LOVE. Love is expansive, kind, and looks for ways to unify, not to divide. My degrees are in physics and philosophy. I know what intellectual purity is about and I know its value… Nevertheless, if I agree with someone on most of the liberty platform, but we differ in our understanding of particular aspects, I will work with him to move forward on those areas of agreement. As I have written, winning arguments is nice, but it is frankly easy and a waste of time. Orthodoxy is the death of any movement. What matters is winning supporters. You do that by finding common ground and growing it. Applying the non-aggression principle in everything – including how you communicate - will help in that effort.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: