Statement from Councilman Lew Fidler Regarding Simcha Felders Move to the Republican Party: A Challenge that Simcha

Felder Must Answer.

Yesterday, I expressed my disappointment in my friend and former colleague Simcha Felders decision to caucus with Republicans and asked for an explanation. Through a spokesman, Simcha issued a statement which on its face lacks any substantive credibility. Throughout the campaign, Simcha had assured the voters---and me personally--that he would sit with whichever party delivered the most for his district. Transactional for sure, but apparently honest. I took him at his word as did most voters. Simchas explanation yesterday was a subtle yet wholly significant explanation from what he had promised. It waxed poetic about philosophies and abounded with some nonsense about the Republicans in the Senate being compassionate towards the poor and for the middle class. That begs the question: When did Simcha Felder come to understand the philosophies of the political parties? What changed about the philosophies of the parties since the election that Simcha was not aware of before the election? If he knew, the philosophies of the parties before the election, why did he not state publicly that he would sit with the Republicans? That is the true issue here..was Simcha Felder being honest with the voters of the district? Since it would be hard to imagine that Simcha learned anything about party philosophy after the election, Simcha did a disservice to the voters of his Senate district. Surely, countless thousands chose him over his Republican opponent because he was the Democratic Party candidate. Therefore, Simcha---and not his spokesman---owes an answer to those questions---and specific answers, not pabulum---to those questions. Additionally, if Simcha chooses to revert to his transactional answer, then he needs to tell people what pieces of silver were offered and by whom. Whatever was

promised is being paid for out of the public till and the public has a right to know that as well. I applaud the statement made by my friend and County Leader Frank Seddio. To those that differ, I would suggest that there is a huge difference between endorsing candidates of other parties from time to time and running on a partys line and then without any intervening event, indicating that the other party is more consistent with the candidates own philosophy and organizing the legislative body with the other side. Simcha is correct that the parties are not a religion, nor should they be. But being open and honest with the voters should be. Simcha needs to answer those questions. If he cant, and does not think he can philosophically be a Democrat, he ought to do the right thing and change his party enrollment. As Democrats, we are free to---and should---disagree on issues all the time. But when you believe that the other party shares your philosophy of government more than your own, then you should change parties. To thine own self, be true. Several years ago as a member of the City Council, Simcha agreed to support a candidate for Speaker and then conveniently went to the mens room at the time of the vote. Id much prefer that behavior to the overt choice to mislead. Simcha and I will, I hope, continue to be friends.but he needs to answer the questions or they will haunt him from the first day he takes office. -30-