David Secor, who is running as a Democrat in California’s 50th Congressional District based in San Diego against Republican stalwart Duncan Hunter, has replied at length to my previous post. I’ve decided to highlight it as a blog post unto itself rather than hope it will be read in the comments section. I recommend reading the previous post  first to get a sense of what exactly the candidate is responding to.  I won’t comment on Secor’s response here but will, rather, yield the floor to him and respond later.

Before I turn the blog over to Secor, I want to thank him for taking the time to explain himself. I also want to say a word about why I think this dialogue is important. This conflict interests me because it points to some of the less visible strains running through progressive discourse in the US. Here are two “opponents” (I refer to Secor and Mike Flynn) who inhabit more common ground than this personal antagonism between them would suggest, notably on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) that Secor refers to here. But beyond the personal disagreement is a political one, over the notion that the system as it stands is capable of change or whether a new counter-system is required to effect real, meaningful change.  This is a conflict that has raged on the left for a long time–and on the right, as well–but only recently has it come to be a vital, relevant debate beyond the merely academic.

So thank you, again,  to David Secor for his contribution to this dialogue. It follows in full after the jump:

If Flynn reads this, read on and create your own model of an apology for a politophobic miscommunication.

My “intrusion” into a private discussion ON TWITTER! was NOT campaigning, as instantly panty-twisted Flynn claimed. (Randy never jumped, I can only assume because he’s not a self-possessed misanthrope.) My comment, as any human can see was simply to INFORM that there was a person running for Congress against Duncan Hunter, one of the members of the joint committee that formalized the language for reauthorization of the NDAA, and, even worse, had said he “looked hard” at the language permitting indefinite detention of citizens under the nebulous finding of having committed a “belligerent act,” and found nothing wrong with it.

Had 44-year-old teen Flynn been as interested in the NDAA as he was in carrying on a personal conversation with Randy Dixon Riviera, he would have either said, “Good,” or just ignored the interruption. Instead he replied “Yeah, so?” I DID NOT RESPOND to the intentional slight. Flynn felt compelled, with no prevarication by me, to then vomit forth his hatred for ALL politicians. Like all anarchists ignoring the fact that NDAA will ONLY be struck down by politicians – tweeting to me “Since YOUR KIND likes polls so much let’s do an instapol.. HEY anyone on twitter want David to campaign them Anyone at all”

Note I had NOT responded to Flynn’s “Yeah, so?”

Since that didn’t provoke me, anarchist Flynn threw another, stronger barb, saying without doing HIS homework, that I was a “power grubbin’ money pilferin’ politician.” (Had Flynn done his homework he would know that I support term limits for Congress, and take NO contributions over $100.)

It got a response. And NO, christof, despite your presumption, I did not even notice Flynn’s avatar, as the words NDAA were my focus. I was unaware until Flynn took such offense, that he was gay. My response was not directed at a gay man, it was directed at a man – period – a man who had without any provocation, attacked me personally, and branded me a co-conspirator with Obama, Hunter and the other cowards in Congress who passed NDAA. I was among protesters who picketed Hunter’s office over his NDAA treason.

I did not apologize to Flynn for slamming him. He more than deserved it. I apologized for the hyperbolic invective brought on by his unprovoked attack. Being gay is not a license to attack or demean at will. And any cyber-bully, regardless of orientation, over the age of 15 (I actually thought Flynn was just a 15-year-old jerk as my email said) that gets what he gives and continues to cry fowl, deserves no respect. He did not hold back attacking me. You may take some words as out of bounds, I take being called a power grubbin money hungry The for Flynn or other readers can’t see the difference. Flynn is, as his language shows, a gutless provocateur – “Shoot first . . . and second . . . and ask NO questions.

My use of the words “Since YOUR KIND likes poles” AFTER his use of “Since YOUR KIND likes polls” was mirrored words that was not true when FLYNN used them – I never have used or read any poll on the D-50 race, and, apparently, according to Flynn, not true when I used them. Fine, BOTH were personal and unfounded attacks. EXCEPT the gay man who LIT THE FIRE initially is the only burn victim! And the gay slur is the only one we notice. Being called power grabbin’ and money pilferin’ wouldn’t send you reaching for your gun. I’m not you – as you may notice at the end of my comment.

Flynn instigated this back-and- forth bashing, you all contend it’s the PERPETRATOR of the bashing, Flynn’s rage, that’s justifiable. He launched a verbal attack, and got a worse one back. Moral: If you don’t want a no-holds-barred fight, don’t start one.

I blocked you cristof not out of disrespect, but in case you were an innocent bystander who would be drawn into this trumped up incident – rushing to the defense of a hurt friend. I did not want you to embarrass yourself trying to defend the indefensible. Unfortunately, you did it anyway. I am just as pleased as you that your errant blog is public record.

You Flynn can stay where you are, a prisoner of your mindless rage.

And Randy, if you are as opposed to NDAA as @NDAA2012 would indicate, you should have the sense to know that my (and other citizens’ dedicated to repealing NDAA) election to Congress, will have more potential real impact than a million rants against “the system.” The only difference between you and me is I had the nerve to walk into the cage of the big dogs. (If you are one of the young anarchists all over these days, (been there, done that), you needn’t bother trying to decipher the rest.

Cristof, after you wrote “That’s all (of Secor’s communication) I care to reproduce,” readers might be interested to know that I had further written, that my 32-year-old stepson is gay, and far more mature than the 44-year-old juvenile Flynn, and regarding Flynn’s irrelevant off-topic comment about young people’s difficulties with coming out, I wrote that I pitied any young person coming out who might encounter Flynn himself, and be seduced into believing, or worse adopting, Flynn’s attitude, his ego, and the obvious self-loathing that, upon hearing a totally benign reference to politics, instantly drives him to become a contemptuous and venomous ass toward others.

(Flynn is like the fear-based at Salem who felt driven to attack “witches,” but their VICTIMS were human. Flynn is driven to attack “politicians” but his VICTIM is human.

Cristof, you also omitted, but I further wrote that I cc’d my response to Flynn’s non-probative rant to the very same place Flynn, in a vindictive, pitiful attempt to frighten me, and put some controversial air in his hole-filled balloon, had cc’d his.
I also wrote, as you know, that I’d be happy to meet with any leader in the LGBT community here who couldn’t see that Flynn, like many people they must know, is simply an egoistic bombthrower pretending to be the “victim” of an unprovoked assault.

Cristof, in doing your “homework,” you hit on a few truths about me, but decided to minimize, dismiss, or omit them entirely. You went with your bias. It’s your blog. It’s your privilege.
The quality, accuracy and propriety of your conclusions, however, each reader will judge for themselves. As you say, both your argument and mine are public record. I am satisfied. You may comment, or better for all, return to a private chat on the internet. As each of us has had our say, I will not read, and so naturally not respond, to further comments.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, for any readers interested in politics, here’s the story:

I entered politics because, like most, I had become disgusted with the corruption, and with the ceaseless attacks on our civil liberties. I did not want or need to march into the cesspool that is American politics (DEM AND GOP) today. (I have a pension of $24K/yr and will have Social Security.) Rather I felt compelled to move past bitching and personally attempt to end the Hunter Dynasty that has plagued this district and it’s people for 32 years. All thinking people in this district, regardless of party, understand that only after Hunter II is gone can the people here get true representation in Congress.

My only “ins” with the majority non-Dems whose votes I need to win in this conservative district is that I am not a machine Democrat (the party did not make me a candidate, and did not endorse me until they were forced to when I beat 3 others in the June primary), and I take no bribes (all other candidates in all other races in the county do), only contributions under $100. For those reasons, non-Dems at least listen to me. That’s all I can ask.

I’m not in this race, as politicophobe Mike Flynn slanders, to pilfer money. Besides not taking bribes, I further pledged to donate 20% of my salary to non-profits and education in District 50.

I’m not in this race, as politicophobe Mike Flynn projectilely vomits, lusting for power.
If elected, and Hunter II does not rise from the grave, I will retire from Congress, let someone else take over, and return home where I would prefer to be.

The difference between you and me is that I stood up, put my life where my mouth is, and acted. I may lose the election, but I will know that I did something even the Democratic Party would not attempt to do this year – take on this county’s political Goliath. (Of the four congressman in this county, only Hunter II was unopposed.)

I did not want to enter politics. My odds couldn’t be longer. But, as Dr. King said,
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. Yet he must take it. Because conscience tells him it is right.”