Not All Party Switchers Are Opportunists-- Meet Jason Thigpen (NC-03)

Lately, I've been railing a lot about Steve Israel recruiting Republicans to run for Congress as Democrats. That usually works out very badly-- at least for people, unlike Steve Israel, who give a damn about Democratic values. But not every Republican-turned-fake-Democratic is an opportunistic shill. Jason Thigpen, who's running in North Carolina's third CD against Walter Jones is running because if realized that his value system is more inline with progressive Democrats than it is with Republicans. He blogged about it here last year after he had switched parties. Needless to say, anyone who switches for the right reasons, gets no help from the DCCC. And, of course, he's getting no help from the DCCC. Maybe if he backed Chained CPI , tracking or was anti-Choice and anti-gay they'd embrace him.

More recently, Jason sent an email to his supporters about why he switched parties and why he's running for Congress against a long-time entrenched incumbent. I thought it would be worth publishing so you have it in your mind when the DCCC asks you to help them financially so they can fund candidates like Jennifer Garrison, Jerry Cannon, Suzanne Patrick, Kevin Strouse and Mike Parrish.

They say that your life flashes in front of you when you face a life-threatening situation. But in Iraq when my gun truck was blown up by a roadside bomb and I raced to rescue a fallen comrade, I thought only of my two little girls and how much I loved them.



That’s why, after returning home from Iraq, I decided to run for United States Congress in North Carolina’s 3rd district. But I’m not only concerned about my family’s future; I’m concerned about the future of your family, your children and grandchildren, and about the destiny of our nation.



In the past you have supported Democratic candidates like me. Now I ask for your trust and support in my run for Congress…


By now you’ve probably heard about my switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. After a great deal of deliberation, I left the GOP because I refuse to be a member of a political party that is controlled by Tea Party extremists who promote hate, intolerance and divisiveness. Those are not my values, and I know they’re not yours.



Radical right-wing zealots in Raleigh and Washington are trying to keep many of our fellow citizens from experiencing the fruits of liberty. This is not the world I want my daughters to grow up in. I didn’t go to war to defend the liberties and freedoms of any one particular ideology, creed, race, ethnic group or gender. I joined the military and went to Iraq to fight for ALL Americans.



When I get to Washington I will continue that fight. I will work to raise the minimum wage so those who work hard can realize the American Dream. I will support legislation that creates equal pay for women and protects their reproductive rights. I will push for equal rights for all citizens and an end to voter suppression. And I’ll continue to stand up for veterans and their families.



Those are all common-sense ideas that the vast majority of Americans agree on. When I’m elected, I will do everything in my power to make them a reality.


You want to cut Social Security and other social insurance programs? If you do, vote for a Republican, a New Dem or a Blue Dog. They do too. Want to protect Social Security? Then vote for independent-minded progressives like Jason Thigpen. That simple? Absolutely. You can support Jason's grassroots campaign here.

Debate: Jason Thigpen vs Paul Ryan

The other day a friend in southeast Wisconsin sent me a reply to a letter he had written to his congressman about Social Security. His congressman is Paul Ryan. It happened just around the time Jason Thigpen had switched parties and decided to run for Congress as a Democrat instead of as a Republican-- primarily because he realized his values weren't compatible with the current bent of the GOP and fit much better with the Democratic Party. Jason's in eastern North Carolina but Ryan is such an icon of what passes for Republican thought on the budget that I asked him if he'd mind responding to Ryan's points. Here then is a former Republican analyzing his old party's basic economic agenda. And below that is Ryan's original letter. If you'd like to help Jason's grassroots campaign, he can use some net roots live here on his ActBlue page.

Fact Over Fiction: Jason Thigpen responds to letter by Paul Ryan addressing constituent concerns over Social Security reform

When first reading Paul Ryan’s response to a constituent inquiry regarding concerns for Social Security reform I felt compelled to respond with more clarity by offering more substance over form. At best I believe more facts are deserved before anyone could render a decision on a matter as important as Social Security.

Like many career politicians, Ryan has offered a slanted perspective on this issue benefiting the special interest groups who continue to support his lifelong campaign efforts against social programs, that he and his fellow multi-millionaire career politician buddies will never use themselves.

So, let’s dispel several myths Congressman Ryan would have you believe:

1.     Social Security is not an entitlement program. Rather, it’s an earned income benefit.
2.     Social Security, according to law, does not contribute to the federal deficit.
3.     Social Security is not in danger. In fact, it has a surplus of over $2.7 Trillion.

Ryan’s proposal to cut Social Security in 2012 was unpopular, where Americans overwhelmingly agreed that making such drastic cuts to programs certain to have dire consequences for all middle and working-class Americans isn’t an acceptable solution. One should ask who is lobbying Congressman Ryan to disregard the needs of his constituents for his own personal and political ambitions. Perhaps the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is assisting him with an onslaught of pre-drafted legislative bills in an attempt to undermine the very process of what representative government should truly be. They can best accomplish this by privatizing Social Security and Medicare, getting rid of minimum wages, the privatization of education, and promote fossil fuel expansion endeavors while destroying environmental regulations.

Trying to leverage such terms as “chained CPI” (chained Consumer Price Index) in hopes of endearing support from folks unaware it’s merely a ploy to reduce what many surmise of the cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) as being "too generous." COLAs are the annual increases, based on inflation, recipients of Social Security are supposed to receive even though COLAs have been virtually non-existent in recent years.

Even worse, I find it personally offensive Congressman Ryan would push forth legislation that would not only take away from our seniors, but would also cut the VA benefits from over 3 million veterans. He had no issue voting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in-site. While he was fighting calories on his P90X workout routine, I was fighting in a war on terror while serving the US Army in Iraq along with nearly 3 million other service-members whom have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. For this career politician to sit here at home pushing an agenda to keep us at war, while also systematically seeking to disparage those who have sacrificed so much to ensure the continued freedoms of our American way of life, is beyond repugnant. It’s shameful. I’d ask him, and any other elected leader sharing his views, to please come with me and truly visit some of the families and service-members who’ve lost so much in order to preserve his freedom to ravage their sorrows with such policies. I’d ask him to explain his proposal to the children of these great men and women.

But there’s no need to worry because there are viable solutions to remedy future concerns for Social Security but it’s not popular to the corporations that have no heartbeat but according to the Supreme Court, are people too.

I believe the three best solutions for resolving concerns over the future solvency of Social Security are:

1.     Congress should keep their hands off Social Security. How about a jobs bill?
2.     Raising the federal minimum wage by a modest amount, whereby more funds are paid into Social Security.
3.     Increase the cap on taxable income for Social Security from 83% to 90%, as it was during President Reagan’s administration, for incomes up to $200,000.

These are practical and reasonable solutions for addressing the future concerns of Social Security. I don't personally believe any cuts to Social Security are acceptable. My sincere hope is that we can work together to ensure Congress addresses the issues and concerns regarding Social Security for all Americans, especially those most affected by it as well as those whom have sacrificed so much for it.

And now the Ryan letter:

Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to reform Social Security. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know your views on this important issue.

You raised some interesting and insightful points regarding Social Security. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, one of my top priorities is to preserve the Social Security safety net and to make sure the program remains solvent for future generations. This critical program provides financial support for more than 54 million beneficiaries. However, the risk to Social Security, driven by demographic changes, is nearer at hand than most acknowledge.

One of the primary looming financial pressures facing Social Security is the aging of the American society. The "Baby Boom" generation has already started to collect their Social Security retirement benefits. As a result, there are fewer workers to support each retiree than when Social Security was created. Increasing life expectancy and the approaching retirement of more "Baby Boomers" continues to put increasing pressure on Social Security each year. Over the next several years, the number of retirees is expected to grow more rapidly than the number of individuals whose taxes will pay for future benefits. Unfortunately, Social Security faces a $9.6 trillion deficit over the next 75 years.

Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in future benefits. According to the 2013 Social Security Trustees Report, beneficiaries will face a painful 23 percent benefit cut in 2033 when the Trust Funds are exhausted.  At that time, even those who are currently on Social Security-- those now 62 and older-- may experience indiscriminate cuts in benefits at a time when they are increasingly reliant on the program.

There is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security—one that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal realities of this critical program. The budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2014 that my colleagues on the House Budget Committee and I have put forward,   The Path to   Prosperity , addresses the challenges Social Security is facing and serves as a blueprint for American renewal.

This budget strengthens Social Security by establishing a requirement that policymakers come to the table and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for current beneficiaries and makes it stronger for future generations. It would build upon President Obama's Fiscal Commission, calling on action to solve the pressing problems Social Security faces by requiring the President to put forward specific ideas on fixing Social Security. It also puts the onus on Congress to offer legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical program. Both parties must work together to chart a path forward on common-sense reforms, and this budget provides the nation's leaders with the tools to get there.

The problems facing the future of Social Security are real, and the numbers do not lie. We cannot demonize those who offer solutions if we seriously intend to tackle the inevitable solvency of Social Security. Ultimately, we cannot kick the can down the road and let another generation of retirees struggle because Congress failed to act. By addressing these issues now, we can ensure that each individual is given the resources to save for their future in the manor which they see fit. This fiscal crisis is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It is an American problem, and it cannot be solved exclusively using the political ideology of either party. I welcome the long overdue debate regarding how we will leave the next generation with a better America.

I am hopeful that Congress will address the issue of Social Security reform and have a serious discussion on the problems associated with our entitlement programs. If you would like to learn more about the specific reforms proposed by The Path to Prosperity, I would encourage you to visit: http://budget.house.gov/fy2014/.

Only Hostile Republicans Call Social Security "Entitlements"

Jason Thigpen is running for Congress in eastern North Carolina (the Outer Banks, most of the coastal plain, from the outskirts of New Bern, down the 17 to Jacksonville and on past Camp Lejeune into Wilmington. The district has been trending Republican in recent years but Democrats have a 12% voter registration edge and Jason is just the kind of guy who can appeal across the partisan divide without abandoning his progressive values. He penned this guest post. Please give it a read and see if you'd like to contribute to his grassroots campaign here.

Carpetbaggers Want Entitlement Reform
By:  Jason Thigpen

For too long politicians have mislabeled our savings, retirement, and healthcare programs as entitlements, referring to Social Security and Medicare as if you haven’t paid for them. While it never ceases to amaze me how sleazy politicians and their pundits can be, they have somehow managed to convince most of America that entitlement is a bad word. This is a misguided effort in hopes of leading people to believe what they've already paid for, isn't actually theirs. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an entitlement is "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

So let’s get something straight – they actually want us, being the middle and working class, to get behind them chanting, "We need to cut all this excessive entitlement spending for Social Security and Medicare… yeah! Too much deficit spending…yeah! Wait, hold on a second…I paid into those programs and will one day rely on them." That’s like being forced to make payments on a house you’ll never own and may never live in. Would you pay $60,000 for a car regularly sold for $20,000? If so, I’ve got the car for you. It may sound humorous but this is the reality of how these career politicians have become multi-millionaires, with an average net worth of over $6 Million each and will never rely on or need Social Security or Medicare anyway. Neighbors representing neighbors, right?

In order to receive the full benefits of what you paid into Social Security you have to live to be nearly 120 years old, never mind the fact you're paying taxes on an interest-free loan you made to the government. According to professor of Economics Dr. Allen Smith, who’s been reporting on Social Security for years says in one of his reports titled I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund:

“Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government.”

Rather than admitting thievery, these carpetbaggers are suggesting Social Security and Medicare are running out of money because people aren’t working or paying in to the programs. But when have they pushed for an infrastructure or jobs bill benefiting Americans first, rather than big business? In my opinion, if any of these so-called Representatives truly cared about Social Security and Medicare, much less their constituents lives’, they’d actually support American businesses who hire Americans here in America.

I find it personally insulting to continue hearing these carpetbaggers talk about the people who built this great nation like they are some kind of charity case walking around with their hands out. Any politician or deficit hawk trying to justify making cuts to Social Security or Medicare is choosing to take away the paid benefits of women, children, and the elderly. Need we be reminded that it was the elderly who built this country? They are not a burden! They are our parents and grandparents, they are our childhood heroes, they are our veterans who fought to defend this country, and they should not be politicized nor forgotten!

Next time one of these carpet bagging career politicians has the audacity to talk about taking money from our seniors-- you tell him not until Wall Street is reformed and we get back the savings they gambled away, not until we get an infrastructure bill, not until we can have open and honest elections without corporations having unlimited access to buy candidates, not until we can send a damn email with it being collected by the NSA, not until we have the right to vote unencumbered and fueled by political ignorance and hate, not until we get a Supreme Court that fully accepts its role as the third branch of our government without its decisions being made by corrupt politicians at the expense of our future generations.

What Kind Of Republican Candidates Is Steve Israel Recruiting To Run As Democrats Now? Not The Ones Who Have Seen The LIght

Sunday we looked at North Carolina Republican congressional candidate Jason Thigpen's switch from the GOP to the Democratic Party. Monday evening Jason went on air with Lawrence O'Donnell to talk about his oddessey (above).

When I spoke with him over the weekend, Jason seemed to me to be a very independent-minded, thoughtful, progressive-oriented citizen with a keen understanding of a Constitution he takes very seriously. What he did not come across as is a careerist or someone likely to take walking orders from any two-bit political hack like DCCC chairman Steve Israel. Israel is happy to find malleable "ex"-Republicans and conservatives he can tell what to do. I don't expect him to embrace someone as independent as Jason. Careerists and opportunists like most of Israel's Jumpstart recruits, from Pete Aguilar, former Guantanamo com andante Jerry Cannon, anti-Choice/anti-gay fanatic Jennifer Garrison, multimillionaire self funder Sean Eldridge, Suzanne Patrick, to Domenic Recchia and Kevin Strouse.

Several months ago, I called Pete Aguilar to talk with him about where he stands on the important issues facing CA-31 voters. His campaign manager told me confidently that the DCCC hasn't told them where they stand on anything yet so he couldn't put me through to Aguilar-- who had already failed miserably as a candidate for the same House seat a year ago. He said he'd call me when Aguilar had his positions figured out. He still hasn't called back. That's a typical response from Israel's recruits. It was pretty much the same response I had when I got through to Gwen Graham in Florida, another Steve Israel top recruit, and to Kevin Strouse's campaign in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. THese are issue-free, mystery meat candidates who are hoping for a national anti-Republican wave to sweep them into a nice new career.

Israel says he's following Rahm Emanuel's playbook to win lots of seats with conservative candidates divorced from the Democratic Party's core progressive values. The problem with that strategy-- as the Democrats found in 2010-- is that once Democratic voters see the congressmen in action-- voting with Republicans and with Wall Street and abandoning working families-- they refuse to go to the polls to reelect them. None of Rahm Emanuel's recruits served more than 2 terms. None are still in Congress. The Democrats lost the House-- by a landslide-- in 2010 because all Rahm's candidates were defeated, not just by Republican voters but by disappointed Democrats who stayed away from the polls and by disgruntled independents who swung away from the faithless candidates they had voted for in 2006 and 2008.

And this is what Israel's reptilian brain thinks is the right direction for the DCCC. Take Jennifer Garrison, for example, who he recruited to run in OH-06, an R+8 district that would be a stretch for any Democrat, even one who could unify grassroots Democratic voters-- which the hated Garrison, known locally as "the Sarah Palin of Ohio," never can. Garrison voted against the minimum wage bill in the Ohio legislature, is an NRA favorite, a fanatic anti-Choice warrior and a homophobic bigot. While Israel was trying to chase moderate-- not especially progressive but not a reactionary hate-monger like Garrison-- state Senator Lou Gentile out of the race, he told Garrison to change her hard-right messaging, at least temporarily. Even a Beltway-centric pundit like Stu Rothenberg, who normally parrots whatever message the DCCC and NRCC are pushing, sensed something was amiss.

Democratic House hopeful Jennifer Garrison, who is running against Republican Rep. Bill Johnson in Ohio’s 6th District, told me, my colleague Nathan L. Gonzales and Roll Call reporter Abby Livingston during an interview on Oct. 8 that she once supported defining marriage as between a man and a woman but now supports “civil unions.”

The phrase “civil unions” stuck in my head because, while it was a term often bandied about a year or two ago, it quickly fell into disuse as the broader debate on gay rights focused on same-sex marriage.

Garrison, one of six quality Democratic candidates I wrote about recently, did a brief video interview with Roll Call after my meeting with the congressional hopeful, and Livingston asked her to “describe your evolution on gay marriage.”



The former state legislator mentioned her earlier position but said she now supports “domestic partner benefits and some recognition by the state of those [same-sex] relationships.” She did not refer to civil unions, same-sex marriage or gay marriage. It was another odd response, especially given the wording of the question.

The problem with Garrison’s response to me-- and to Roll Call-- is that she apparently told political reporter David Skolnick of the Youngstown Vindicator in mid-July that she supported same-sex marriage. At least that’s what he wrote in a July 17 piece:

“Congressional candidate Jennifer Garrison, who made her opponent’s opposition to Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Act a key issue in her successful 2004 state House race, now says that she supports same-sex marriages.”

So, I telephoned Skolnick just to double-check, and he told me that Garrison skated around the issue until he asked point blank: Did she support same-sex marriage or not? “She paused,” he told me, “and then said ‘yes.’” Skolnick says that neither Garrison nor her campaign complained about how he characterized her position on the issue.

Of course, when Garrison spoke with Skolnick, state Sen. Lou Gentile was still actively considering a run for the Democratic nomination.

Gentile, who represents 10 of the congressional district’s 18 counties and is generally viewed as more liberal than Garrison, announced on Aug. 1 that he would not run for Congress. His decision made Garrison the heavy favorite to win her party’s nomination.

Am I nit-picking here? I don’t think so, and I doubt that people who have strong opinions on either side of the matter would think so. Same-sex marriage, domestic partner benefits and civil unions are not the same thing, and Garrison must know that.

Count me as skeptical that she accidentally used the “civil unions” and then “domestic partner benefits” language rather than referring to “same-sex marriage.” Instead, I suspect that she is trying to have it both ways. When she had to worry about Gentile, she tacked left and said she supported same-sex marriage. Now, with Gentile no longer a factor, she has moved back to a position where she is more comfortable.

Obviously, local reporters will and should press Garrison on the issue, but so far, it is pretty clear that she would rather dance around the subject than take a clear position.

In 2009, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had to reassure Democratic voters he would not consider the gay-hating Garrison for a spot on his ticket. Republicans love her, of course… but enough to replace a party-line GOP incumbent? Unlikely. Are all Israel's recruits as bad as Garrison? No… but most of them are right along those lines, if not quite that extreme.

Meet North Carolina's Newest Democrat: Jason Thigpen

There are no moderates left in the Republican House Caucus. The "best" you'll get is a mainstream conservative willing to stand up to Tea Party extremism from time to time-- or a libertarian who may be good on an important issue or two but is still, essentially, a raving lunatic on everything else. Walter Jones (R-NC) is kind of a mix of the two. He is a basic mainstream conservative with some libertarian tendencies. He also has voted for progressive bills in the House more frequently than any other Republican this year-- and more frequently than 9 right-wing Democrats-- John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Ron Barber (AZ), Mike McIntyre (NC), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Pete Gallego (TX), Bill Owens (NY), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Carolyn McCarthy (NY). Until last week, Jones had attracted one Democrat, Marshall Adame, and 4 Republican primary challengers, Tea Party lunatic Scott Dacey, right-wing GOP Establishment operative Taylor Griffin, Michael Malagasi and Jason Thigpen. Now he has only 3 primary challengers-- and two Democrats.

Jones was first elected to the North Carolina state legislature as a Democrat but after losing his first congressional race, he switched to the GOP and was elected  to the House in 1994. For the next decade, Jones was a garden variety right-wing Republican hack. But something seems to have woken him up to the excesses of the Bush presidency that turned him into the most independent-minded Republican in Congress. He's been drawing right-wing primary opponents ever since. Last year Tea Party crackpot Frank Palombo managed to win close to a third of the vote in the GOP primary against him. The extremists who run the North Carolina Republican Party made the district less red when they did their gerrymandering in 2010, his district going from a solid R+15 to a bit shakier R+11. Still, Obama only managed to win 40% of the vote there last year, even against as weak and uninspiring a candidate as Mitt Romney.

And that brings us back to Walter Jones' opponents. One of the Republicans, Jason Thigpen, suddenly declared he's a Democrat, withdrew from the GOP primary battle and now wants to face off against Jones as a Democrat. Last year, Democrat Erik Anderson took 114,314 votes (37%) to Jones' 195,571 (63%). Thigpen has been slowly waking up to what a destructive force the Republican Party has turned into. Back in August, Thigpen, who is pro-Choice, favors equality under the law for all Americans (including LGBT marriage rights) and who helped Democrat Mike McIntyre get reelected in 2012, seemed to be having public doubts about his own party, posting on his Facebook page that GOP efforts to disenfranchise American citizens and prevent them from voting is completely unacceptable… and especially so for someone who has fought for this country in war time as Thigpen did (in Iraq).

"You can paint a turd and sell it as art, but it's still a turd. This is 2013 and any legislator that puts forth such a discriminatory bill should be laughed out of office. This is America, not Russia… You have those that honestly believe our country would be better off turning back the clock to years ago, also known as the 'good-old days,' which weren't all that good for everyone. After suppressing the right to vote, what's next? Are these so-called Representatives going to push for preventing our military, veterans, and women from voting? Next thing you know, they'll be proposing bills where women can only speak when spoken to and walk 10-paces behind their husband in public. These policies are archaic and in no way reflect the values of the people in the great State of North Carolina. The passing of this horrendous legislation is like a person going to the doctor with a broken ankle and the doctor amputating their leg to fix it."

The Charlotte News and Observer describes Thigpen as "a six-year Army veteran who received a Purple Heart [and] graduated from UNC-Wilmington in May and started a nonprofit group called Student Veterans Advocacy Group. The 36-year-old lives in Holly Ridge with his wife and four children." Like everyone else in North Carolina, they read Thigpen's statement about why he quit the GOP with… well, maybe not shock and awe, but certainly with great interest. Thigpen's campaign website:

“Enough is enough,” says Jason R. Thigpen-- formerly a Republican candidate seeking election to the U.S. House in North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District. “After discussing it with my wife and family, I’ve decided to run as a Democrat rather than a Republican. I simply cannot stand with a Party where its most extreme element promote hate and division amongst people. Nothing about my platform has, nor will it change. The government shutdown was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I guess being an American just isn’t good enough anymore and I refuse to be part of an extremist movement in the GOP that only appears to thrive on fear and hate mongering of anyone and everyone who doesn’t walk their line. We’ve received some wonderful support by numerous leaders and members within the NC GOP, as the vast majority of Republicans are wonderful, hard-working people that don’t agree with those radical nut-jobs either but unfortunately the extremists in the party, with their ‘burn it all down’ philosophy, appear to be the ones turning out the majority of voters in the primaries and mid-term elections. And I want the people to know there is a choice.”

“Regardless of Party affiliation, we should be able to agree and agree to disagree on issues, and still go out for coffee or dinner afterwards. To think anyone can despise, loath, insult, and threaten another American simply because of their Party affiliation is almost depressing. I mean, how many Democrats or Republicans entire families are registered with the same Party? So if your mother, father, brother, or sister are registered with a different Party would you disown them? Would you wish harm on them? Would you choose to no longer celebrate holidays with them? Would you no longer love them? These are the real questions that need answering before continuing the debate because when did being an American just no longer matter?”, Thigpen asks.

  Thigpen further explains, “I didn’t go to war to defend the liberties and freedoms of one Party, race, sex, or one income class of Americans. Whether white, black, Hispanic, Asian, man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, rich, or poor-- we fought together as equals, side-by-side for the benefit of every American in the same. So, to come home from serving our country and see North Carolina legislators using their super-majority status to gerrymander districts and pass a law to deliberately suppress and oppress the voting rights of Democrats but more specifically minorities and college students, is absolutely deplorable. This same group of spineless legislators piggybacked a motorcycle safety bill with legislation intentionally geared to shut down women’s health clinics because of their ‘right righteous’ beliefs on abortion, while then cutting funding to the programs which help feed and provide healthcare to the babies they invariably forced the same women to have. Sounds like the Christian thing to do, huh? These legislators, acting under the guise of the religious right and morality believe themselves to be the divine judge but according to the Bible, there is only one judge. They say they’re for a smaller government and individual rights while pushing legislation for more government intervention and regulation usurping our right to choose for ourselves. They take money away from the public school system so they can call it broken, only to give the money to their charter schools that are really private schools, just so our kids don’t go to the same school as theirs all the while giving some great speech trying to convince us it isn’t segregation. Right. But all along, they seemingly want you to believe that you have a choice-- like ‘cake or death.’

Thigpen says, “We have to choose a party Republican or Democrat that possess the ideals that we can adhere to and have an opportunity to represent our families, friends, and neighbors. The GOP leadership has such little regard and faith in the more than 1 Million people whom live in NC’s 3rd Congressional District that they don’t believe even one of us are good enough to represent OUR District. So they sent a lobbyist who’s lived in Washington, D.C. for the last 15 or more years. What an insult.”

“Shutting down the government was seemingly easy for our elected Representatives, as they’re not adversely affected with their pay being protected by the Constitution. They were some real patriots though, huh? These so called Representatives sat around in Washington playing chicken with their constituent’s lives all while patting each other on the back saying ‘great job.’ Yeah that’s real patriotic all right. But for the millions of Americans that rely on the benefits to feed their children, receive life sustaining medication and countless other services imperative to their needs, this was a selfish decision motivated by personal agenda. Party affiliation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those persons elected by the people to safeguard their rights failed in their duty to protect them. Moral principle and virtue are exactly what these Representatives fail to regard in their actions and it is time they are held accountable.”

Thigpen says faith is an important part of his life, and several verses from the Bible that he finds particularly relevant to this discussion are from II Timothy chapter 4 verses 2-5, “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction. The time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”

Jason R. Thigpen stands for the people of North Carolina and this great Nation because they matter, for their children and their children’s children, for they are our future leaders and innovators that will continue to carry the torch of leadership, innovation, liberty and freedom. Jason is dedicated to truly serving the people and with his proven leadership and unwavering commitment he will strive to promote prosperity for every North Carolinian and American. It is for this reason candidate Thigpen will be representing the people as a Conservative Democrat.

Thigpen closes by saying, “Representing your family, neighbors, and community is relatively easy as long as you put people before party and politics. That is my campaign slogan because regardless of whether I win or lose this election…I believe the great people of NC’s 3rd District deserve a legitimate choice in who’s going to represent them. Throughout all of the advocacy work I’ve done in our communities I’ve come to realize that our actions and efforts are what best define us to the people not the letters D or R. I’m doing this for my family, friends, and neighbors because I truly believe in serving the interests of every constituent, not just a few of them.”

After spending some time on the phone with Jason and his team over the weekend, I'm looking forward to him beating Jones next year, getting into Congress and helping Mike McIntyre come back towards the mainstream of Democratic Party progressive thought. I can tell you with great certainly that Jason Thigpen is nothing like the Republicans Rahm Emanuel and Steve Israel bring into the Democratic Party with all their ideological baggage. This is the kind of American we should be honored to welcome into the Democratic Party.