Although not all were affiliated with the Tea Party or the Conservative Society for Action, those who were members outnumbered those who were unaffiliated. When asked how they learned of the Congressman’s presence at town hall at least two mentioned that they had received robo calls from Congressman Bishop inviting them to meet with him. Others said they learned through online sites. A common factor is that they are not happy with the direction the government is taking and they are unwilling to sit idle and watch all that they have worked for disappear. The protesters wanted to send the message that their voices are not being heard and that they are tired of being of ignored.

Several of the protesters, including Hauppauge resident Edward Kalick, a Viet Nam Veteran, expressed his frustration with health care reform, and claimed that the administration, of which Bishop is a part, ignores Americans. Diana Erbio, a Saint James resident, said “people cannot afford big government” and cited her opposition to bail outs, health care reform and cap and trade as reasons for attending the rally.

Jan Williams of Nesconset stated his concern that Congressman Bishop will support amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap and trade and cited Bishop’s support for health care legislation and Bishop’s voting record. He believes that Bishop aligns himself too closely with Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration.

The people who attended this rally are united in their frustration with the federal government and they hold the belief that it is their vision of the constitution, the size of government and the role of government that the founding father’s had in mind. They no longer trust the federal government and feel compelled to work against all incumbants with voting records similar to Congressman Bishop’s.

Paterson is accused of abusing his executive and political power, allegedly ordering top state police officials to interfere in close aide David Johnson’s domestic violence spat by having police call the victim to dissuade her from obtaining a restraining order against the repeat-offender aide.  What’s more, the Governor – exhibiting either boundless arrogance or gullibility – spoke to the victim personally for the same purpose.  Again, this is allegedly, and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s independent probe of the matter will provide the public with the details in due time.  An internal state police probe has been requested shut down because, well, now the image put forth of the state police is one of rampant corruption and incompetence.

No opinion of the state police could be further than the truth.  Rank and file state troopers and those of higher rank such as investigators, senior investigators, etc. are overwhelmingly of impeccable character and professionalism.  They now find themselves being regarded as political hacks by the statewide public and will most certainly be viewed by criminals to be on equal footing with the lowlifes facing arrest, and thus lawbreakers will think nothing of resisting arrest with increased vigor.  So a great part of the shame Paterson and his Democrat thugs have visited upon the state police are the reputational consequences at the hands of an unforgiving public and the extra danger troopers will have to face.

Hopefully the aforementioned byproducts of Paterson’s ineptitude, and his aide’s indiscretion, will be short lived.  However, the permanent damage Paterson might have done – and probably the most memorable feature of his “legacy” – will be that of changing the Executive Chamber-New York State Police historic relationship.

The state police detail protecting the Governor of New York, the state’s Chief Executive, usually enjoys a special, intimate bond with the governor’s office whether it is in Albany or in the East Side Manhattan office.  Now, the increased scrutiny the state police will face as a result of the Cuomo probe and the cloud of doubt upon the force may result in a firewall erected between the two institutions.  This would have a negative impact on the protective and logistical capabilities of the state police, and therefore such a barrier would weaken its stature an institution charged with the solemn role to protect the life and safety of the First Family.  In short, a neutered and more separate state police means an end to the longstanding convention of a state police dutifully tied to the governor.  It’s dangerous, yes, but also wickedly unjust from the viewpoint of the state police because rank and file troopers, mainly uniformed, will bear the punishment.

Sure, the state police could wind up being a bit more separate as the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department and Americans see it that way; the state police governor’s detail could be part of the state homeland security department or the Division of Criminal Justice Services.  Some citizens may not even notice or care precisely because of the federal government orthodoxy in such an arrangement.  But this wasn’t necessary and I argue it will prove dangerous to the detail’s core mission to protect the governor and his family.  And no, we shouldn’t turn away from the gravity of the state police being pilloried in the media – that’s just wrong.

Governor Paterson may be responsible for a permanent rift between two kindred organizations and this is yet another reason why he and his outlaw Democrat gang-that-can’t-govern-straight must go.  He’s announced that his bid to become an elected failure, rather than a failure by the constitutional miracle of succession, is over.  Now he should step down and help us forget that he was ever the speed bump between dirty Eliot Spitzer and (God willing) a governor with a modicum of integrity.

The City Council took a well-deserved shellacking Tuesday night as the voters tossed at least four deadwood incumbents into unprecedented fires of public fury. And two more may be set for roasting.

Burn, baby, burn.

The sudden mood to throw the bums out was a happy surprise of the Democratic primary of 2009, an election that otherwise went pretty much as expected.

Special congratulations to Cy Vance for victory in the Manhattan district attorney’s race.

And an expression of hope that Bill Thompson wages a vigorous issues-based campaign against Mike Bloomberg for mayor.

And a wait-and-see in controller and public advocate runoffs.

Otherwise, burn, baby, burn.

Gone from the Council are Helen Sears of Queens, Alan Gerson of Manhattan, Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn and Ken Mitchell of Staten Island. When the counting is done, also gone may be Tom White of Queens and Maria Baez of the Bronx. Good riddance to the lot.

In a system where incumbents never lose, even four defeats signal a revolution. Why did they lose? A number of forces appear to have come to bear.

Conventional wisdom is that the Council vote to extend both mayoral term limits (courageous) and Council term limits (self-servingly dumb) stoked anger. Whatever truth there may be to this thinking, it is certain the voters had larger grievances.

Like having a Council that ran a slush fund for phantom groups.

Like having a Council that gives millions of tax dollars in so-called member items to cronies, kin and kooks.

Like having a Council that voted itself a 25% retroactive pay hike while promising reforms.

Like having a Council that took the money and ditched reform.

Even Speaker Christine Quinn took her lumps while being returned to office. Against two unknown, underfunded competitors, Quinn eked out only 52% of the vote among the Democrats of Chelsea and the West Village.

Despite good intentions and a constructive approach on issues, she became just one of them, leader of a lousy pack who proposed sweeping reform and then cravenly retreated to lesser measures.

Quinn and the rest of the survivors ought to take these as the impetus for lifting the Council from the mire. So, too, the newcomers, lest they become lambs to the next slaughter.

Finally, think next year, think the state Legislature, think Albany, target of nuclear voter rage, condemned by 68% of the respondents to a Marist poll as needing major change.

Burn, baby, burn!

Gleason campaign spokesman Paul Newell confirmed that Lehner had indeed ruled in favor of Gerson, who would bounced from the ballot by the city Board of Elections due an error in his own home address on some nominating petitions.

In so doing, Lehner accepted the report of the special referee, Leslie Lowenstein, who said yesterday that the Board of Elections was “in error” when it invalidated Gerson’s petitions.

Gerson’s campaign said the mistake was made by the printer (an allegation that was backed up by the printer himself). Gleason’s campaign argued that Gerson and his petition carriers had engaged in fraud by seeking to correct the mistake after the signatures had already been collected.

Newell deemed Gerson’s victory “temporary” and said Gleason will “surely be appealing.” Among other things, Gleason’s attorney, Ray Dowd, intends to argue that he was denied the right to cross-examine Gerson and other witnesses during yesterday’s hearing before Lowenstein.

“That will surely be brought up,” said Newell, who said the case will be heard Tuesday, Aug. 18, at the appellate division.

Even as Council candidate Kevin Kim focuses most of his attention on winning the Democratic nomination in the seven-way race to replace Council Member Tony Avella (D-Queens), he has decided to simultaneously run a primary against attorney Dan Halloran for the Independence Party line in the district.

Halloran, who is also the Republican candidate in the race, recently received the Independence Party’s Wilson Pakula designation.

But this has not deterred Kim, who set out to gather the roughly 100 valid signatures needed to run against Halloran in what would be an almost unheard of Independence Party primary. Kim’s campaign said last night they expected to turn in about 150 signatures.

Kim, an attorney, said his motivation for seeking the Independence Party is to gain a few thousand extra votes in the general election, important given that the district was once held by Republicans and Avella only narrowly defeated Republican challengers in his own races.

“This is unlike many districts in New York, where even though there are twice as many Democrats as Republicans, there are also a significant number of independent voters,” Kim said.

Kim said that if he does not win the Democratic nomination, he is not interested in running solely on the Independence Line in the general election.

Kim is not a registered member of the Independence Party, so if he does gather the required amount of signatures, he still will not appear on their ballot on Primary Day. Instead, he will have created what is known as “an opportunity to ballot,” which means that the would be forced to tally write-in votes cast that day. In other words, if Kim’s signatures are accepted, anyone in the district would now be able to seek the Independence line as a write-in—including any of Kim’s Democratic opponents.

“It opens the Pandora’s box,” said Michael Niebauer, the chair of the Queens Independence Party.

Niebauer did not support Halloran for the party’s nomination. He wanted to give the ballot line to Jerry Iannecce, a community activist who also has the Queens Democratic Party’s backing, though not a clear path to the Democratic nomination.

Niebauer was overruled by State Independence Party chair Frank MacKay and other members of the party’s executive committee who wanted to support a Republican.

“I’m disappointed, but what could I do?” Niebauer said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is running on the Independence line for re-election, last week endorsed Paul Vallone in the Council race.

As Kim goes forward, he said the over $233,000 in campaign contributions he has amassed—more than any Council candidate in the city other than incumbents Dan Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and James Vacca—would help him to narrowly target voters. That would, of course, prove important, if, as expected, less than 100 people turn out for an Independence Party primary.

Gathering 100 valid signatures was a surprisingly difficult task, Kim said, since there are only about 2,000 registered Independence Party members in the vast district stretching from College Point to Little Neck. Kim said the effort involved tracking down registered Independence Party voters at their apartments and homes, many of whom believe they are registered as independent—not Independence Party—voters.

“It’s like finding a needle in a haystack,” Kim said.

Such a maneuver has worked before in Queens. In 1998, Republican Assembly candidate Matthew Hunter ran as a write-in candidate against Democrat Michael Cohen in a Liberal Party primary and ended up winning the line. (As Neibauer recalls it, Hunter wanted to run as both a Republican and a Liberal so he could say he ran on the same lines as then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had resoundingly won re-election a year earlier.) Despite the primary victory, however, Hunter did not come close in the general election. The extra 503 votes he got on the Liberal Party line did nothing to put him over the top.