Brooklyn T.E.A. Party held its final meeting of 2012 with a Republican speaker who spoke out against the Republican Party leadership in Brooklyn and a “conservative” Democratic candidate for mayor who spoke out against the liberal Democrats running for mayor

Tea Party President Joseph Hayon repeatedly had to keep a raucous gathering of Tea Party regulars and new comers “on topic” as they peppered the two guest speakers with questions and suggestions

The first speaker, James McCall, was introduced as someone long involved in Brooklyn politics and a Republican candidate for various offices during the last quarter-century. Mr. McCall described his past history in the Brooklyn GOP, emphasizing his involvement in the change of the Kings County Republican Party leadership twenty years ago. He then said that a key job for the Brooklyn Tea Party in the 2013 election cycle would be to shape the Brooklyn GOP organization going forward. After explaining the significance of the GOP posts of state and county committee members and the methods of obtaining those posts, Mr. McCall answered various questions about the current GOP leadership and the plans of independent Republicans in 2013.

For his part, Mr. Hayon repeatedly pointed out that the Tea Party is officially non-partisan and would give no blanket endorsement to any party or sub-group in any party. He also pointed out that The Brooklyn T.E.A. Party did have an active Republican Party Caucus headed by T.E.A. Party Secretary Frank Russo. McCall and Russo stated to the others that they would meet to discuss Tea Party involvement in the 2013 Republican Party selection process for GOP candidates for party leadership and public office.

The second speaker was described as a “conservative” Democrat who was hoping to run in the Democrat Party primary for mayor. [As a condition of my access to the candidate by his PR aide and the organizers of his appearance at the meeting, his name is being withheld at this time. I will “update” this post with his name and other biographical data once his campaign formally announces certain  policy positions and publicizes its connections with various groups, like the Tea Party,  not traditionally associated with the routine raft of Democrats running for mayor.]

The unnamed Democrat spoke at some length and detail to emphasize his complete distinctiveness from the other Democratic Party candidates running for mayor. Basically, he presented himself as a Democrat in the mold of the Reverend Ruben Diaz. His positions centered on traditional family values and he supported a strong anti-crime thrust harkening back to Rudy Giuliani.

He said he was open to various third parties, including the Conservative Party, he also clearly explained why he would not run as a Republican or accept the Republican line. In short he said the Republican brand is permanently damaged in Black, Latino and other minority communities; and in answer to a specific question, the speaker said that it made no sense for the GOP to back Alfonso Carrion, because Carrion had no connection to real Republicans and most Latinos would not vote for any Republicans under any circumstances. He also pointed out that under “Republican” Michael Bloomberg the social fabric of the City of New York has been shredded by his support for gay marriage; and although Bloomberg points out that the murder rate is down, the over-all crime rate is up.

The third speaker of the afternoon was Brooklyn T.E.A. Party Vice President Cartrell Gore. He explained that there had been evidence of widespread voter fraud in certain areas that effected the total vote to re-elect President Barack Obama. However, Mr. Gore also read from a monograph to explain that the RNC was not free to pursue many claims of voter fraud because of a 1980's era “Consent Decree” in a federal voting rights case. Under that agreement, which the courts have consistently refused to vacate,  the national Republican Party cannot police or pursue any claims of voter fraud in about seven or eight circumstances that might significantly impact the total vote of any racial or ethnic group.