I will stick with the Armory issue and you are dead wrong on your presumptions. Let me state for the record saving and reuse of the Armory is my paramount goal. That said it is the city administration and the democratic majority who made this a national issue.

Associating the tea party with those trying to save the Armory is futile. Co-chairman, Ron Tocci, a long serving democratic NYS assemblyman whose family helped many get jobs through the construction unions, past co-chairperson Linda Levine, a former liberal democratic NR councilperson, John Verni, a moderate republican. Michael Brown, a liberal of many parties these are but a few of the grassroots supporters attempting to help save the Armory. Would you consider any of them tea party supporters or tea party material? Even Mayor Bramson was quoted as saying he prefrred adaptive reuse of the Armory. Many believe that was a smokescreen but you have more experience with Bramson.

Now, let's review the facts as they occured. The Veterans received permission to retire the flag in front of the Armory. In the process they raised the Gadsden Flag and objections were registered with the city manager who, is charged with the day-to-day operations of the city under the NR City Charter. The city manager sent an email to the veterans advising of the complaints because of the association with the tea party and ordered the Gadsden Flag removed. The Veterans responed with the history of the Gadsden Flag and the city manger said he would sleep on it. After digesting all information the city manager informed the veterans that the Gadsden Flag could remain. Then there was an unofficial and illegal vote of city council, propted by councilman Rice directing the city manager to have city employees remove the Gadsden Flag. The veterans were present when the Gadsden Flag was removed to take posession of their property and the city workers handed the Gadsden Fleg to the veterans who folded the Gadsden Flag appropriaatey. Then the city employees confiscated the Gadsden Flag from the veterans and informed them they could pick it up at city hall. Before you challenge my account there are emails and video supporting the what I have listed.

Originally three members of council found the flag offensive (Bramson, Rice & Fertel)and one raised the question of permission (Rackman) and two (Trangucci & Tarantino) supportd leaving the flag. Ms. Rackman blew her position when she attempted to draw a parrell between the Gadsden Flag and the Rainbow Coalition Flag which was aburd. The official vote of council was 5-2, along party lines, to remove the Gadsden Flag.

FYI, the snake still flies on naval ships today. But the reality is that the city manager was over ruled on a day-to-day operations decision. The city council, who over ruled the city manager and is impowered as the legislative branch of the government, overstepped its authority by ordering the Gadsden Flag removed.

If this was truly about permission, why didn't the city council propose & pass legislation stating that any flag flown on city owned property requires city council approval? As you can see, this was a political move by Bramson & company that backfired on a national basis. It should get more interesting when the lawsuit is filed.

No need to diminish the Horse's ass award. It should only go to the Mayor. The rest of the democratic Council can get the Jack ass award, also known as the We our puppet's award

Actually, I wasn't criticizing you, nor local Republicans or conservatives. Rather. I was criticizing Republicans in Congress, and Republican governors and legislators in southern, mid-west and western states, who are over-zealous in extremest agendas.

I do believe a large majority of Americans believe in birth control, including abortion on demand by the mother for any reason, at least within the first two trimesters, and even during the third trimester when there are special issues involved.

Personally, I believe all private ownership of guns should be banned, but I realize that is unrealistic in our overly-violent USA. Therefore I compromise by pragmatically recognizing the requirement of permitting well-regulated ownership of registered firearms, and that are neither automatic nor semi-automatic weapons.

The best way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is sex education in schools, and to encourage usage of condoms and medications. That's just reality, no matter what one's morality might be. Legalizing and registering certain unlawful practices, might also reduce the transmission of sexual diseases, but puritan-types, who write our legislation, would be unwilling to legislate what libertarians recognize as pragmatic.

Democrats protect the vulnerable by preventing Republicans from gutting social programs that most Americans want kept in place, as well as enhancing social protections such as by guaranteeing medical care for all. Democrats also recognize that employment by the government provides personal income, the same as does employment by private industry. Republicans seem to have have an odd, illogical perception that working for the government is inferior to working for private business

You and I agree that many mass-murders are created by the insane. Therefore, I presume you also agree with me, that such insane people should be exempt from capital punishment. When it comes to capital punishment I am pro-life.

I think most Americans of all political beliefs are concerned about the current scandal with the IRS targeting certain political beliefs, and with the federal government spying on the Associated Press. What could be dumber than spying on the AP? I certainly hope that some very high-up people are fired by our President.

The Gadsden Flag is totally obscure and meaningless to most Americans. It was only used on a few small boats before the Declaration of Independence. It was one of a number of flags with rattlesnake and the words "Don't Tread On Me", many of which preceded the Gadsden Flag, and all of which was based on a pro-British political cartoon of Ben Franklin's from 1754 that was designed to get the colonies to unite with the UK in an effort against the French.

As I have repeated posted at TOTS, I have no opinion on whether the Gadsden Flag should be allowed to fly at the NR Armory. But I am certain the government of the City of New Rochelle has the legal capicity to deny any group from flying the Gadsden Flag on any flagpole owned by the City of New Rochelle.

The effort to raise the Gadsden Flag at NR Armory, appears to be a partisan effort by local Tea Party supporters. This implicitly connects NR Republicans with national Tea Party politicians. In doing so, it puts the scent of pepe le pew on supporters of preserving the Armory, which might be ok with local Republicans, but damages efforts to preserve NR Armory.

So let me ask you, which is more important? Actually preserving the Armory? Or, alternatively, closing the Armory while making an issue of the Gadsden Flag, ignored by most voters in NR, but perhaps popular in the nation-wide conservative press and Fox News?

Timknows - This is a reply to your post
'Please be realistic', at the link:

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/what-ever-happened-united-we-stan...

The following was originally posted far below, but the column was too narrow, due to too many replies to replies to replies.

* * *

The pepe le pew theory includes the so-called 'pro life' movement and 2nd amendment issues.

The 'pro life' movement apparently are people trying to force their personal, strict religious beliefs upon a majority of Americans, and particularly upon women.

I say 'so-called', because many if not most 'pro-life' advocates have no problem with capital punishment, and such people are hyprocrites who clearly do not support a person's right to live, nor of the possibilities of false conviction turning an 'execution' into a murder.

I think to most people in Westchester, the movement is really anti-choice, rather than pro-life.

The year before the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade legalized abortion in 49 states, NY State's Republicans and Democrats together, legalized abortion in NY State. Republican Gov Rockefeller signed the legislation, and a couple of years later was rewarded by becoming the second appointed Vice President of the USA, by the first appointed President, Republican Jerry Ford.

NY State has never been fertile ground for the pro-life movement.

NY is also among the earliest states, to have strict gun control laws. I believe Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a major advocate of gun control in NY City and State. Teddy is on Mt Rushmore along with Able Lincoln, who was killed with a gun. Teddy was also shot by some nut, but survived only because the thick speech in his pocket absorbed most of the bullet's force.

In Westchester, the pepe le pew theory includes those politicians who advocate against gun regulations, or who advocate against a woman's choices in birth control.

The national Republican Party is so enmeshed in anti-choice and anti-gun regulation, that local Republican candidates are perceived as likely to harbor similar beliefs, and to make it more difficult to be elected. Any local politician who openly advicates against choice or against stricter gun control, will not be elected to office in New Rochelle nor county-wide in Westchester.

I don't see what this has to do with Bramson, because Democrats are perceived as pro-choice and wanting more gun control.

It does reflect an impediment to Astorino, beyond the local unpopularity of things he has advocated. Astorino's election was a fluke, because everyone was tired of Andy Spano.

I find your concept of party line interesting, and not quite what I'd expected. I believe you have turned things upside down, but let me explain why.

The reason that the Democratic Party advocates to protect the poor, less fortunate or those who need it the most; as well as advocate for civil rights for everyone; and advocates for more gun control is that most Democratic voters believe in such things.

It is the voters telling the Democratic Party what to do, not the other way around.

Furthermore, most Democratic voters consider their Democratic politicians to be too conservative, and are somehwat disappointed at the lack of progressive legislation and economic policy.

Most Democrats would have preferred a Single Payer Health Plan like Canada's, rather than the somewhat conservative, corporate-oriented Obamacare.

Most Democratic voters are disappointed that Gitmo is still open, or that we are still somehow fighting wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are many other instances where Democratic politicians are more conservative than Democratic voters.

But Democratic voters and politicians have learned to be more pragmatic.

So Democratic voters are willing to voter for politicians who advocate Avalons or Forest City Echo Bay, or keeping Gitmo open, because they fear Republicans who associate with other Republican politician and voters who are anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-gun control, anti-gay, anti-ethnic, anti-immigrant; or who wish to force their religious beliefs on others; or are too militaristic. Except for guns, the Republican Party seems to be 'The Party of Anti'.

Republicans used to be pragmatic, but going back at least to 1992, the national Republicans have increasingly damaged their image and name, in support of reactionary causes that are totally obnoxious to the large majority of Westchester voters.

GW Bush and Cheney were especially abhorent examples, but various Tea Party nits such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc, and Fox News, are so far out there and irrational, as to be totally unappealing to most Westchester voters, including presumable many of Westchester's ever-dwindling, moderate Republican voters.

Nationwide, many Republican voters are among the poor Americans. The Republican Party does its work for Wall St, which is where it gets its money, but it suckers poor, under-educated, evangelists and bigots, down south and in the mid-west and west, by advocating but never delivering on, promises of mixing religion with politics, eliminating gun control, reducing civil rights for gays, women, blacks, and restricting immigration by hispanics.

Ironically, the parts of the USA where people rant the most against high taxes, are the areas of lowest taxation. It is such areas where the Republicans are strongest, but where the Republican voters mostly include poor, under-educated people, who themselves are the major receivers of federal benefits. Those Republican voters' benefits are paid from the taxes paid by the voters in the other parts of the country where Democrats are strongest. That is to say, Westchester County Democratic voters willingly pay a lot of taxes to IRS to benefit poor Republican voters in the Deep South.

The progressive agenda of Democratic voters benefits poor Republicans as much as poor Democrats. If your theory was correct, all the poor Republicans in the Deep South would switch parties.

In fact, between 1968-1992, bigots in the Deep South did switch from Democratic to Republican, because since 1947, the Democrats switched from being the Party of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, to being the party of Civil Rights. During that same time, the Republican Party of the Deep South, switched from being the Party of Lincoln and Civil Rights, to the Party of bigotry.

Democrats switched civil rights policies since 1947, because it was morally correct to do so, even though politically, it was harmful to southern Democrats getting elected in the what had been their 'Solid South' since the late 18th century.

Republicans nationally, switched civil rights policies since 1968, although it was immoral to do so, because politically it benefitted the southern national Republican Party for a few decades.

But demographic trends and an ever-progressive society, have caused the Republican Party to become a regional party of the south and west USA, with dwindling support nationally, and especially in Westchester.

If the national GOP continues its reactionary politics of obstruction, it will eventually be replaced by a new major Party, at least locally. Meanwhile, Westchester's Republican voters are ever decreasing in number, as are local Republican elected public officials, because of the extremist and obstructing policies of national Republican politicians.

How does this stuff just get swept under the rug in New Rochelle? This is one of the most heinous crimes in the country this year and not of these democrats says a word. Looks to me they're all soft on crime.

I cannot argue with the pepe le pew theory but as far as there being no party line; let's be realistic. What chance would a democratic candidate have if they presented being pro-life or pro-second amendment or for smaller government? You may counter these are national standards but these are the same standards presented locally. Even the fair-haired Boy Bramson has made party line statements in his first volley towards Astorino. The there's the party line that democrats are protecting the poor, less fortunate or those who need it the most. How exactly are they protecting them? By making them reliant on government handouts to survive. I am not casting a wide net, as there are many people who need a hand up but a hand up takes for granted that once you're on your feet you're self sufficient again. We can either feed someone a meal of fish once or teach someone to fish making them self sufficient.

This was suppose to flood the downtown with people who had disposal income so in turn, it would create the need for retail. This Avalon all falls into Bramson's GreeNR plan in which he is pushing this transit-oriented development thing. He wants to bring more high-end residential units to NR at taxpayer expense and continue to destroy the quality of life for east end NR residents. His plan has done nothing but added taxes and fees that the already broke taxpayers have to deal with. This man is destroying NR and he will do the same for the County. Mark my words.

Brian,
You are correct and thanks for catching my brain fart. I wrote it wrong. Spell check doesn’t work on the brain yet. If it did, maybe we would not have so much of the crazy rhetoric I wrote about. I said that I believe that there were votes because I did not have the exact details, so thanks for the correction and information update.

I also don’t like the use of the phrase 'Strong Mayor' and prefer the description of 'Executive Mayor'. How about just “The Mayor”! We do need to replace appointed government with elected government, especially regarding the chief executive who runs New Rochelle. Regardless, we need to do something rather than watch and bicker on the sidelines. We need to stay focused on the problem and not the little stuff that pulls us apart and prevents true conversation about change. That is how they survive and gain strength, by feeding on our weakness. It is time for some on council to insist on some music lessons; find a better fiddler and a new tailor. It is not just the acts of a fiddler and tailor, it is those around them that are and should be just as accountable. That was more my point.

Yes, we should eliminate entirely, the office of Mayor or The City Manager. No need to pay two full time salaries for one full time position. It has shown that it doesn’t work for the people, look at where we are today. With the political changes that are in front of us, it might be a good time to light a fire under some butts and see what happens. Get something done in time for the next election in November.

Does anyone have copies of the past referendums or know where to get a hold of them?

Within the New Rochelle Democratic Committee, there is no 'party-line' of anything I know of. That is to say, a 'party-line' would have to specifically voted upon by the NR Democratic Committee in Meeting, with seven days advance notice of that vote. It would take a majority vote of the District Leaders. Without such a vote, the District Leaders would have no way to know what the so-called 'party-line' is. I believe there has been no votes on Democratic Committee policy in decades, if ever.

Instead, what occurs, is that candidates for New Rochelle public office are voted upon upon during NR Democratic Committee 'conventions'. Once nominated, let alone once elected, those candidates vote according to their own conscience, during their term of office. If, while in office, a Councilperson or Mayor supports policies unpopular with the District Leaders, the Democratic Committee could vote to nominate another candidate for the next election. But once nominated or elected, that candidate creates his/her own policies or supports policies of others, according to conscience.

There is also the possibility, of am unnominated Democratic candidate being elected to office, by petitioning, perhaps via a primary. Once elected, that person would have the same standing with the Democratic Committee, as a nominated elected public official.

Elected public officials who are Democrats, from Councilperson to Congressperson, speak to the NR Democratic Committee, to keep us informed of their policies. District Leaders comment and ask questions, and receive answers. But we do not vote on these policies.

I must restate, NR Democratic District Leaders do not follow a 'party-line' because we have no known 'party-line' to follow.

Pragmatically, every politician of any party, feels various pressures and influences, whatever those may be. But those aspects of politics depends on the individual analysis, morality, conscience, and political perspective of each candidate for office, and of each elected public official.

Meanwhile, what really matters are the opinions and turnout of the voters. Voters don't follow a 'party-line', but instead choose to elect their preferred public officals from the list of names they see at the polling place.

I would be pleased to hear that the New Rochelle Republican Committee also has no official 'party-line' and that its District Leaders are as democratic and independent as the NR Democratic Committee.

Throughout the USA, and also regarding Albany, voters are apathetic because the legislators are constipated by fears of lobbies, such as the NRA, Wall St, the religious right, etc. And in regards to national Republicans there is the fear of being 'primaried' by Tea Party candidates.

I think in NR, the apathy is because the voters of NR no longer have a sense of community aside from their neighborhood and public schools. Mostly it's the children who do have a sense of community but they don't vote, and move away when they're adults.

What you think of as a pied piper effect of Westchester & New Rochelle Democratic and Unaffiated voters regularly voting Democratic, is not due to following a leader, but rather due to most local voters' complete rejection of national Republican Party's policies of anti-science, anti-immigration, anti-choice, anti-universal health care, anti-gun control, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-ethnic, anti-poor, anti-public education, as well as the GOP's tendency to promote war and of mixing religion with politics.

Those national GOP tendencies may play well in the Deep South, but are repulsive to most NR and Westchester voters.

I realize those national GOP tendencies may (hopefully) be as repulsive to NR Republican District Leaders and voters, as to the rest of our local voters. But most local voters avoid voting for Republicans, because of the local Republican candidates seeming association with the obnoxious policies of Republicans in DC, and in the State governments.

Rather than a majority of local voters following a pied piper, the voters are avoiding pepe le pew. Pepe le pew is an adorable character with good intentions, but never understands why the pussycats avoid his advances.

Timknows - I'm sorry, I was responding to something you wrote, which I misunderstood. You stated:

"...since it is backed by many Bramson supporters who realize a bad deal when they see it".

I thought you had meant that many Democrats supported Forest Echo Bay despite realizing it was a bad deal, because they did support Bramson. I was in error as reading your posting as having that meaning.

I now realize you were actually saying that many Bramson supporters signed the petition against Forest Echo Bay. In fact I am such a person, myself.

I was thinking you were being partisan, which you were not, other than that you were critizing Noam's support of Forest Echo Bay. I understand why you state I was disengenuous. It was I who was needlessly partisan, and I apologize for that, and of my criticism of your post.

But now I find myself writing of political parties, so as to explain something you have since posted. You are mistaken in your pied piper interpretation. What I said is that Democrats vote for candidates based on support of a variety of issue, despite disfavor with the same candidate on some issues. I am not saying that the candidate voted for has to be a Democrat, which was your interpretation.

On the other hand, I do think that Westchester Republican candidates deny themselves many Democratic and unaffiliated votes, by even implicitly associating with the Republican politicians of DC and Albany. It's not so much about the metaphor of the Pied Piper, as the one of the Albatross around the neck.

I agree with you as to voter apathy, and the seemingly impending death of the two party system in the USA. As much as Westchester Voters are likely to vote Democratic, Southern Voters are likely to vote Republican. It's really the quagmire of indecision in the legislatures of DC and Albany that drive the voters into apathy. Also, NYS should reform its Election Law, to provide third parties a level playing field

I signed the petition against the Forest Echo Bay folly on May 7, right after I wrote my post that you refer to.

A few days later, I signed another petition at the same website, to protect Playland from the current harmful policy to destroy it.

I ask everyone to sign the Playland petition, too.

I believe many supporters of Noam are not necessarily supporters of the Forest Echo Bay plan. The Democratic Party is less monolithic, less single-minded, more varied in opinion, than the Republican Party appears to be.

I believe most Democratic voters and Committee Members are ambivalent, or at most tolerant, of the Forest Echo Bay plan. I've heard very few Democrats advocating for it, but I have heard Democrats questioning it. Very few Democrats have ever considered voting for Richard St Paul for Mayor, or Rob Astorino for County Executive.

Democratic voters vote for their candidates, for a variety of reasons, often ignoring policies disagreed on, because of other issues agreed upon.

As an example, many Democrats are disappointed that President Obama's 'Obamacare' is much too conservative, and many Democrats would have preferred a Single-Payer Health Care, similar to Canada's. But Democrats are pragmatic enough to support candidates whose policy's are superior to that of opposing candidates, in general elections, as well as in primaries.

In comparison, Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party, tend to be non-pragamatic, and often jump at the chance to bite their nose off to spite their face. That self-destructive attitude caused the Republicans to lose seats in both houses of Congress in 2012. In New Rochelle, the Republicans damage their chances of protecting the Armory, by advocating causes that might be popular in South Carolina but that can't possibly gain traction in New Rochelle, such as with their Gadsden Flag obsession.

It's wonderful. We now have 3 luxury housing projects in downtown. I can't wait until the Monroe dorms, er, I mean the one bedroom and studio's are built on Echo Bay. Imagine owning a unit in the Trump building now? Units that sold for 850,000 are now listed for 300,000 and no buyers. It's a good thing the building was a failure to begin with or there'd be an 80% foreclosure rate. How can a city relocate housing project tenants into a luxury high rise and not expect the value to plummet?