To the editor,
Your Politicrasher column last week (“Walk on the mild side,” Oct. 16) called me a “bad Republican” after inviting you to see another aspect of what should shatter the mold of anyone in the GOP forever. I’d risk saying that I may the one of the very best you’d ever met.
The column seemed intent on breaking down all that my candidacy offers to simply my position on same-sex marriage. As a result, I offer this direct and clear response. Please let your readers know where I stand: I don’t differentiate between people, don’t label nor disregard anyone’s perspectives.
I will fight for the middle class and our residents, and protect and champion our areas on many fronts — from excessive taxes, new fees proposed and supported by our local Democrats like paying for parking on our very streets (free for 100 years), and excessive costs at every turn (from electricity, auto insurance) — but I also believe that it doesn’t matter to me who the people are, and what their lifestyles.
For clarification, I’m running to help lead our areas and I’m not an ideologue and not anyone’s idea of a neo-Conservative. My perspective on Republicanism is of a “back to basics” approach to focusing on individualism, fiscal responsibility of course, but the state’s role in helping social causes (meaning our people, at every turn!).
Of course, there’s merits on “civil rights,” and I greatly appreciate the need for protections under law for lifelong commitments and loving relationships and families that don’t need to adhere to textbook definition.
Same-sex couples need equal rights for what confronts married couples, especially across health care and property/probate issues. But I respect institutions and people’s belief systems as well, which is why the debate on the statewide level is so important, as it reflects on what’s perceived as the rights of maintaining beliefs.
This law has been enacted in Massachusetts and Iowa — without addressing how worship will be affected. But as an elected official, I would have to address and relay and respond to those concerns. That may have frustrated your columnist in response to the “all or none” question, but it’s sincerely an attempt to ring a true explanation for how a Roman Catholic candidate can justify his communities’ strong feelings (in the Food Co-op, and across all aspects of my life) and support people’s civil rights.
Is an independent Republican a “bad Republican”?
I’m the anti-politician, that’s going to great levels of self-sacrifice to battle “politics as usual”: power-brokering and a one-party system.
The only way to break through this is to have someone like me shatter conventional thought. My background is about self-sacrifice, community concern and doing the right thing for my neighbors.
I’m a “good Republican.”
The writer is the Republican candidate for the 39th City Council District.
To the editor,
I couldn’t help but be disgusted by your article about Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Vito Lopez and Borough President Markowitz’s betrayal of their party to back non-party candidates in the upcoming election (“Dems betrayed! Boro’s top donkeys are Party poopers,” Oct. 9).
Of course, Markowitz has endorsed Bloomberg before — and I do appreciate that politicians think independently and don’t always follow the party line.
But in Lopez’s case, the chairman simply has no excuse. In the primary, he was well within his right to back Maritza Davila over incumbent Diana Reyna, but when Democratic voters chose Reyna, Lopez decided to bolt his own party and back Davila on the Working Families Party line.
That’s where I draw the line: If someone is lead our county party organization, he needs to command the respect of Democratic voters in this most Democratic of counties. And that means respecting the will of the majority of voters who picked Reyna over Davila.
Mort Tefler, Bay Ridge