The following is an opinion submitted by Westporter Jay Walshon.
As the Independent party doesn’t vet their candidates, it is up to the voters to separate fact from fiction. On the national level, the votes that third-party candidates have siphoned from other candidates has been determinative, with regretful consequences. Westport’s recent history of close votes for first selectman makes the 2025 third-party candidate likely to be determinative.
The CT Independent Party does not vet candidates
Until last week, I believed that all our political parties perform vetting prior to endorsing their candidates. I was wrong.
Independent Party Chairman Chip Beckett informed me that because they’re a volunteer organization they do not vet their candidates – they merely “trust” an applicant’s “honesty” and require a pledge of allegiance to their platform. No one checks for veracity, embellishment, exaggeration, or mendacity. No one performs a criminal background check. As their website states “We are not looking at litmus tests to qualify people” – if you answer their policy questions “correctly” you can be endorsed.
Mr. Beckett stated that it is up to a town’s residents to vet their candidates.
Mr. Beckett opined that most third-party candidates are well known to a Town, making vetting less necessary – as was the case here in 2001, 2009, 2017 and 2021 when everyone knew the third-party candidates “smiling” John Kluchnick, lifetime resident/former selectman John Izzo, 14 years resident/ RTMer/forensic genealogist John Suggs, and 24 year resident TJ Elgin.
This time it’s different – and that’s a problem.
Because un-vetted, third-party candidates who “embellish”, “exaggerate”, “mislead”, and “misrepresent” can artfully dodge the notice of unsuspecting “trusting” audiences;
Because some candidates can (and will) say almost anything to camouflage shortcomings that will lose them votes; because an organized, well-funded campaign will obfuscate and deflect; and because the likelihood of impacting a local election grows increasingly probable, “vetting before voting” becomes crucial.
Westport’s DTC and RTC have nominating committees, and candidate applicants undergo rigorous scrutiny and background checks – that’s why Mr. Rosenwaks’ quest for DTC endorsement was denied.
Mr. Christie and Mr. O’Day are well known, having verifiable backgrounds, quantifiable public service, robust qualifications, reviewable track records, and well-publicized positions on controversial issues. Mr. Rosenwaks – not so much.
Facts and truth are essential for avoiding unintended consequences
In addition to his unremarkable and uncomplimentary 22-month RTM tenure, residents are dependent upon his personal persuasion, and the evangelistic assertions of his supporters. His voting record is only notable in that he’s already broken multiple promises (voted to destroy the Community Gardens, voted to censor residents (petitioning to be heard on Jesup Green), and twice violated his pledge to “prioritize environmental protection” when opposing requests to investigate gas-powered equipment alternatives and supporting the removal of 100 year old trees to level a golf tee).
Because Mr. Rosenwaks has been primarily reliant upon persuasion and rhetoric, I researched his background and assertions to determine if he actually possesses the qualifications required for Westport’s most important office. Regrettably, an apparent pattern of misrepresentations, seemingly to obscure his deficient qualifications, are as disappointing as his voting record betrayals.
Mr. Rosenwaks claimed that he started his own asset management company. In fact, it was not his own company; he was one of three founders of the company. One of the other founders supplied the capital. He was not an officer of the company, he led the origination (i.e., sales) team. In addition, Mr. Rosenwaks has never had business school education, never had a single SEC certification, has zero SEC registrations, and has had no substantive fiscal employment in almost two decades.
Mr. Rosenwaks has made a critical misrepresentation. He has claimed that “I am running as an independent; that way I will not have to answer to anyone.”
The truth is that Mr. Rosenwaks is running as an independent because he was denied the DTC’s endorsement.
Mr. Rosenwaks has also pledged to “actively co-sponsor and support” the Independent Party’s legislative platform, locally and in Hartford. There are currently fifteen bills in Hartford that Mr. Rosenwaks is pledged to support or oppose, including those that Westport may not desire, including:
- Actively oppose HB6263: “An act concerning the use of and purchase of gas-powered hand-held or backpack gas powered leaf blowers by state agencies” (“intended to eventually prohibit the use of hand-held or backpack gas-powered leaf blowers in the state”)
- Actively support HB6831: “An act supporting transit oriented communities”
- Actively support SB1252: “An act establishing priority housing development zones”
Given Mr. Rosenwaks’ self-professed lifelong ambition to “be a performer”, his embellishments and misrepresentations, campaign’s proclivity for rhetoric/ambiguity/spin, aversion to facts and specifics, newness to Westport, dearth of meaningful local track record, RTM breaches of trust and promises, and being un-vetted by his own “Independent Party”, it seems apparent that Mr. Rosenwaks is not what his evangelistic supporters want us to believe – and it’s easy for promoters to portray a version they want us to see.
But performance art is not what Westport’s residents require in our First Selectman. (Even today, Mr. Rosenwaks uses the alias “Rogue” and prides himself on his indecorous “Breaking the Law” video – an optic unbefitting for Westport’s First Selectman.
Westport’s First Selectman requires applicable qualifications and verifiable performance, not embellishments, exaggerations, misrepresentations and ambiguity – or so he should.
Third-party candidates siphon votes
Third-party party candidates rarely win elections, but their vote-siphoning “spoiler effect” are legion (Roosevelt/Wilson, Wallace/Nixon, Perot/Clinton, Nader/Bush). Locally they impact taxes, schools, infrastructure, local businesses, budgets & expenditures, project priorities, vision & planning, character preservation, ecological protection, open space preservation, traffic, water access, recreational opportunities, maintenance, housing development & density, neighborhood integrity, transportation, emergency services, regulations, public health, citizen engagement, FOIA compliance, regional/state/private partnerships, appointments (think parks and recreation) and more – all of our daily quality of life issues.
The slim margins of victory in 2017 (455 votes) and 2021 (69 votes) make Westport’s 2025 third-party candidate likely to be determinative.
Vote dilution is greatest in local elections because registrations and turnouts are small; it’s at the local level where close election outcomes are easily influenced with unintended consequence.
As seen in 2017 and 2021, this 2025 election may be decided by a handful of votes; therefore vote siphoning may be determinative, resulting in unintended consequences and subverting the majority will of the people – i.e. resulting in a First Selectman lacking the majority of resident support.
We should not decide Westport’s future based upon a barrage of signage, rhetoric, ambiguous promises, misrepresentations, campaign promotion, or a “cult of personality”.
We are not electing “class president”.
Jay M Walshon MD FACEP
Roseville Road
Westport
A guy with a background in both finance and the performing arts? Sounds pretty “bang on” Westport to me. Perhaps you’re new here?
Is there something wrong with that background? If I am not mistaken, they all have backgrounds in finance, no?
I applaud Dr. Jay for the exhaustive research he has done here. It appears candidates of The Independent Party are not really independent. The party name is an allusion to the concept of independence. Pledging to a political platform means you are indeed beholden.
I have done my own research on the candidates and I have found that Kevin Christie and Amy Wistreich have remarkably good professional and public service credentials. They have a clearly articulated platform that I wholeheartedly support. They have a transparent track record of listening to their constituents and making fact-based decisions.
Christie/Wistreich have my vote.
I have done my own research and have found that David Rosenwaks is highly qualified, capable, and caring. I do not think people respond well to hate filled fear mongering unless they are in a cult pledging allegiance to party over person.
Do your due diligence and get to know the people, not that party smear campaign.
I find David Rosenwaks a breath of fresh air after some experiences with previous First Selectpersons over my 42 years Westport property owner. I found Dr. Walshon’s letter very one-sided and full of vitriol, that does not compliment the writer. One comment that appalled me was that Dr. Walshon commented on the monies involved in Mr. Rosenwaks company. Not every starter company has all the principals contributing funds, so why point this out as a flaw. Also, please tell me what campaign doesn’t have a “barrage of signs, lots of rhetoric, ambiguous promises, misrepersentation and campaign promotion.” Mr. Rosenwaks current campaign style is different from our other candidates presently and in the past. That’s why he is running as an Independent!
I thought democracy was about giving people the opportunity to express their voice. Thank you for underscoring Rosenwaks’ point that partisan politics too often limits and disregards the will of the people. That’s precisely what he’s challenging—the idea that democracy is only for the majority, while minority voices should be silenced. That’s your position, not his.
Rosenwaks believes all voices should be heard—not just the loudest, the wealthiest, or the most influential. He believes in proactive, strategic leadership that is inclusive, collaborative, effective, and efficient.
You invoke “voter dilution,” as if citizens must conform to your political structure or risk an outcome you disapprove of. That’s not democracy; that’s control.
And your first issue on the list is “leaf blowers”? Really? At a time when our operating expenses are growing at 4% and our capital expense plans total $474 million, this perfectly illustrates why we need a different kind of leadership—one that can focus on what truly matters.
Thank you for making Rosenwaks’ point for him.
BINGO PAUL!!!! This is the EXACT reason I have become an Independent. NOBODY gets to tell me that I MUST be Republican or Democrat in a DEMOCRACY and Toni of all people promoting DEMOCRACY should KNOW THIS!
Good luck in the new American order, where dissent is terrorism, if you don’t speak English ICE Gestapo cones knocking, and if you need help buying food, you’re pretty well kicked out of the gilded ballroom.
Silence is complicity, Stephanie. It’s not fear mongering when the fact is the Secretary of War has ordered up all states to mobilize Rapid Response military teams to quell civil unrest — the kind of unrest I call dissent but what is bing deemed by Republicans as terrorism. This is on your watch.
If you were being honest with us about your own motive … what would that be?
Toni,
What is my motive? TO VOTE FOR DAVID
If Rosenwaks believes all voices should be heard it’s kind of amusing that over the course of his entire RTM term he never once stood up to say a single thing on behalf of himself or his District Constituents. Great article by Jay Walshon calling this candidate out for his lack of substance.
He listened to all. From what I gathered, he even had a gathering for the gardeners. The other issue is that the gardeners do not rule this town either.
This is the EXACT reason I am voting for David! I do not adhere to smear tactics and fear mongering on either side. This piece was an example of politics that I abhor.
My vote is strongly for Rosenwaks!
The opinion was character assassination against a good man David Rosenwaks possibly with the approval of Kevin Christie and the Democratic Town Committee. The Westport Democrats’ lust for power is nauseating. David Rosenwaks is not a spoiler because he is going to win and become the next First Selectman.
Agreed!
The gardener gathering was literally a campaign stop, not any attempt to help when help was needed. That train had left the station.
I like David and I support his ambition to be in public service. He can contribute a lot. I don’t have a very good feel for his credentials, other than I’ve seen the music video.
I have more confidence in Kevin and Amy to lead a town of 27,000 citizens and a $250 million budget.
I didn’t vote for David, but I loved the video. Thanks for pointing me to it Jay. It was clearly an homage to all of us former Bedford Bears. Should David be elected, would be awesome if he brought the bear head out to wear at the inauguration or the Selectman’s meetings.
After the antics and obfuscation of the last 4 years, I’m not sure how a singer in an awesome bear’s head is unbefitting for Westport’s 1st Selectman.
Has Jay ever bothered to talk with David? David has worked tirelessly to meet with THE PEOPLE of this town so they can get to KNOW him! You know what does NOT work: a political party fear mongering people. What do you FEAR Jay? You seem like a fear driven human, You FEAR David? That’s funny to me.
I have not been a regular reader of the Westport Journal but I have to say that I am surprised, to say the least, that the editors allow such a partisan, obvious hit piece to be published under their banner. Talk about the primary point of this letter, unvetted is an understatement here. The primary point that I would make is one word – spurious. Mr. Walshon lists every issue that any voter would be concerned with, and then clumsily tries to link the defeat or failure of those mom and apple pie issues to third party candidates. It seems to me that in today’s highly charged political climate, independent third party candidates are exactly what is needed. Especially level headed, smart, proven successful administrators like David Rosenwaks.
Mr. David Rosenwaks,
I am disappointed to read the post from Dr. Jay Walshon. He called me at work to interrupt me from my surgery patients to speak immediately about the Independent Party. I returned his call between patients under my care.
He asked about how people became nominees. I explained that in local politics people expressed an interest and applied to the party to run. People affiliate with the party that most matches their philosophical ideas, the party does not control the candidates. These people have ideas to improve the quality of life in their communities, and care enough to offer their time and talents. They submit resumes, and in the case of the Independent Party, answer questionnaires about various topics to get a sense of what the candidate believes. We do expect that those people are trustworthy and honest in their responses. The Independent Party of Connecticut is a party that wants to provide solutions to the issues of Connecticut and its towns, not cast blame on enemies in an opposing party as ruining the state or locality.
I said no party does extensive background checks on candidates. They are expensive, time-consuming, and intrusive. They are appropriate for National Security clearance, but not really for a school board or parks commissioner. I reiterated that the local folks in a community provide feedback about qualifications, community involvement, truthfulness and the willingness to listen and work with people.
This post by Dr. Walshon impugns the integrity of all voters who advocate for a candidate. I live 70 miles away. Is Dr. Walshon a doctor? Did he go to a good school? Has he had multiple malpractice cases? Lost his medical license? Does he have a criminal background of some sort? I don’t know; I took his word on being a medical doctor and being curious about the Independent Party of Connecticut. Raising false questions and conspiracy theories drives polarization and destroys our democracy. Our society still works on trust for many things, including resumes for jobs and school and destroying that trust will destroy society as we know it.
I have found Mr. David Rosenwaks to be straightforward and honest in my dealings with him. Before the election, you should do your due diligence on all candidates and vote for the person that will best represent you and your interests for the community. From my research Mr. Rosenwaks is the superior choice for Westport.
Chip Beckett
Chairman, Independent Party of Connecticut
Thank you, Chip!
Anyone saying that people can not run as an independent or vote independent is not adhering to Democracy and I find that horrifying as a resident of this town.
Mr. Beckett:
I don’t intend to reply to the comments made by Mr. Rosenwaks’ evangelistic supporters who are intent on shooting messengers that actually still care about facts and truth – particularly when a candidate’s platform is grounded in “complete honesty, trust, and transparency”. While disappointing, I anticipated as much. One would hope that voters truly do care if the answers being given by candidates (at debates, during interviews, in writing, etc.) are actually factual or not – what’s the point of asking questions if “fact-checking” important answers is “against the rules”, met with scorn, and falsely interpreted as “character assassination”? It’s the candidate(s) making the misrepresentation that should be judged and held responsible for what they portray, not the people who care to scrutinize, or the publication(s) willing to expose embellishments, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and the actual truth when it’s uncovered.
But since you took the time, I do want to address your own comments:
1. You stated: “He called me at work to interrupt me from my surgery patients to speak immediately about the Independent Party. I returned his call between patients under my care.”
Actually this is untrue. What actually occurred is I emailed you the following: “I am wondering what the vetting process is like when candidates wish to be endorsed by the Independent Party”, to which you replied: “The questionnaire and pledge are under the candidate info. They are under the state races. Look at those, and then we can talk. Chip Beckett 860-841-1661”. Ten minutes later I emailed you: “Can I call you?” to which you replied: “Feel free to call, give me 10 minutes to finish up”. I waited about 30 minutes to call to give you extra time to “finish up” whatever you were doing,. The truth is that I never “called you at work to interrupt you from your surgery patients” as you falsely portray. And I’ve only just learned today that you are a veterinarian, and clearly had no idea what you were doing with an animal when you asked me to call.
2. You stated: “We do expect that those people are trustworthy and honest in their responses. I said no party does extensive background checks on candidates. They are expensive, time-consuming, and intrusive.”
As you just verified, I correctly reported that the Independent Party does not do vetting or background checks on potential candidates, and instead relies upon trust and honesty.
However, regarding other parties, after speaking with you I fact-checked your assertion that “no party does extensive background checks on candidates” and discovered that your assertion is untrue. I was informed that Westport’s DTC and RTC have nominating committees that DO perform the vetting that the Independent Party lacks – and then I also learned that Mr. Rosenwaks was denied the endorsement of the DTC as a direct result of that vetting process. I appreciate why the Independent Party does not do vetting; however other parties do vet candidates.
3. To defend the Independent Party’s lack of vetting, you also state: “They are appropriate for National Security clearance, but not really for a school board or parks commissioner. I reiterated that the local folks in a community provide feedback about qualifications, community involvement, truthfulness and the willingness to listen and work with people.”
Well, this particular election in Westport is not for a school or parks commissioner – it is for the CEO of our Town. Even so, I believe that our residents require that even our BoE and Parks Department need to know a candidate’s background and actual qualifications before hiring.
Furthermore, you have reiterated my point that when a candidate is new to a Town, it is far more difficult for a “community” to provide factual information regarding qualifications and truthfulness – making verification by “vetting” all that more important.
4. You state: “This post by Dr. Walshon impugns the integrity of all voters who advocate for a candidate. I live 70 miles away. Is Dr. Walshon a doctor? Did he go to a good school? Has he had multiple malpractice cases? Lost his medical license? Does he have a criminal background of some sort? I don’t know; I took his word on being a medical doctor”
I have never impugned the integrity of all voters who advocate for a candidate. People can advocate for anyone that they choose. My only caveat is that people should perform due diligence and weigh their decision based upon facts and truth rather than upon rhetoric, misrepresentations, what they want to hear, and consider the potential consequences of their decision. Some people care about facts and truth, others don’t. Today some people deride facts, and some even prefer “alternate facts”.
However, since you emphasized the importance of residents “doing due diligence on candidates themselves”, it’s oxymoronic that shooting the messenger would be defended when that vetting you advise (which you admit can be time consuming and difficult) is actually performed by someone who cares.
I understand your (and others’) strategy to deflect attention away from the truth by making me the focus of attention by using phony assertions (being a DTC mole or some such falsehood) and absurd questions about my background that a 10 second google search by a kid in elementary school could answer. Regardless, I am not the issue. My opinion piece (which has been fact checked for accuracy) clearly articulates the relevant issues that voters should consider when voting in this important election.
5. Finally, again, in defense of you not vetting candidates you state: “Our society still works on trust for many things, including resumes for jobs and school and destroying that trust will destroy society as we know it.”
What an important and elucidating thing for you to state. Sure, trust is critically important for many things – and once broken is difficult to regain. However, in my experience, no one relies upon “trust” when considering applicants for jobs, school positions, or political positions. Companies, hospitals, schools and our society in general all demand verification. “Trust, but verify” is a requirement, whereas “blind trust” (as you prefer) has proven dangerous and is wholly unacceptable. While “resume padding” might be a common occurrence in some instances, adding fabricated or exaggerated information in order to enhance qualifications with an intent to deceive is dishonest, disqualifying, and usually grounds for termination.
A society is RELIANT upon verification for good reason.
I am pretty certain now that when Jay comments he loses another Democrat to the Independent party. Why are you not focused on your candidates and promoting them Jay? This is beyond alarming and pathetic that you have not bothered to endorse your candidates. Oh well…
One last thing before I go back to Independent evangelical gospel : what are you so afraid of Jay? What about David SCARES you so? You seem so full of FEAR!
The increasingly personal attacks on David Rosenwaks do nothing more than reinforce to the general public that the Democrats have absolutely no confidence in the DTC-chosen candidate.
The Democrats have lost three consecutive Board of Selectman races. It is time that they take responsibility, clean house, and listen to the Democratic voters, not just party insiders.
We’re somehow supposed to also be outraged about Mr Rosenwaks not talking for the sake of talking, while on RTM? Kevin Christie sat quietly when the LLSBC destroyed the Community Garden and Preserve. He fled the building during the ongoing hearings over the dismissed soccer coaches.
I’m a registered Democrat and a progressive voter. I would encourage others, if you don’t want to waste your vote on a spoiler, you should vote for David Rosenwaks, so we can defeat Don O’Day, next week.
Kevin Christie seems like a smart, well-meaning guy. But he isn’t going to win, primarily because his campaign has been so… unenthusiastic. It’s as if he is the DTC candidate because he drew the short straw. (The whole DTC slate seems to represent some place where voter enthusiasm goes to die. The last thing I want is for MAGA Republicans controlling our local Boards. But that is why the DTC needs to do better. Thank goodness there are viable alternatives running for both the BOS and the BOE.)
Chris makes a good point about the possibility of locking out DOD. That would make me happy,
one thing is for certain: Jay just sealed the deal that I would have people think twice about seeing a doctor who has such a hate streak in them! I would not go near a doctor who is this reactive and off.
Thank you Dr Walshon. This is a thorough and important summary.
I have served with both Mr Rosenwaks and Mr O’Day on the RTM. While Mr Rosenwaks is a nice guy, he has absolutely no business being our town’s chief elected official.
While Mr O’Day has ‘experience’ that he claims ‘matters’, in recent years this experience has been divisive and destructive. Case in point: the Long Lots school where we’ve witnessed numerous missteps and apologies that are too many to list. Nevertheless O’Day continues to cite Long Lots as ‘one of his ‘accomplishments (it’s years away being done). O’Day’s boasts about the project’s ‘geothermal’ ‘sustainability’ while ignoring the fact he recklessly spent over $110 million on one capital project with no consideration at all relating to our other looming obligations. In truth Long Lots is a massively over- budget project that is now multiple years behind schedule. Is this the kind of ‘experienced ‘leadership that Westport thinks ‘matters??
The Democrats vetted multiple candidates. Not surprisingly, Kevin Christie solidly won that endorsement. That’s because Kevin is a direct, truthful and a careful listener and experienced businessman who more is willing to take a stand, even if the choices are hard or politically risky. He is a strong and effective leader with a demonstrated track record. In choosing Amy Wistriech as his running mate, Christie demonstrates the value he places on land-use experience in his leadership team.
Vote for Kevin Christie and Amy Wistriech! It’s time Westport embraces the opportunities and challenges at our doorstep with a fresh qualified team. It’s time Westport moves forward, together.
Did Kevin Christie not support every one of those “Long Lots accomplishments” that Don O’Day cites, that you criticize? So what is “fresh” about the DTC establishment nominees?
Dr. Walshon,
As always, you are spot on !
Mr. Rosenwaks’ independent run for office reminds me of a spoiled child’s reaction to his parent’s denial for permission to have the car keys.
True leaders place their party above their personal desires.
One would think rejection from your own party for lack of qualifications would initiate a period of self reflection and a serious hubris evaluation.
Instead, Mr. Rosenwaks’ rejection initiated the petulant behavior of a child. To me, from day one, all I heard was; “if I can’t have that office, then no one in my party can have it !”
Mr. Rosenwaks, you are a young man, you have lived in this town for five minutes, you are not qualified to be our leader.
I strongly suggest you drop out of this race and endorse Mr. Christie, yet I know you do not possess the character for a gesture that grand.
Instead, like a spoiled child who did not get his way, you will fight to the end, very possibly at the risk of a defeat for our Democratic candidates.
Your professed independence is not a demonstration of strength, it reflects a weakness you are blinded by.
At a critical time in American history, when this nation’s democracy can only be saved through a tsunami Democratic victories, your role as a spoiler will end your political career in this town before it started.
Friends and fellow Westporters, our nation needs us, VOTE DEMOCRATIC !
~ Joseph V. Vallone, A.I.A.
I find this characterization of David Rosenwaks’ path to the ballot odd and totally unfair. The DTC is a fairly dysfunctional organization, and it’s choice of a candidate who’s primary claim to fame is refusing to participate in the most challenging and public issue the Board of Ed faced all year is a stain on its reputation. Secondly, David’s presence in the election will likely siphon as many votes from O’Day as it does from Christie, so to cast him as merely a spoiler is both insulting and misleading.
I am in full agreement that the Democratic Party must succeed on a national level at this crucial juncture in American history, but the idea that party affiliation is the most important thing in local politics doesn’t ring true. We are suffering through another Trump term in large part because of the ineptitude and misguided priorities of the current iteration of the Democratic Party. Thinking beyond party affiliation, particularly on a local level where being elected as an independent is actually realistic, may be our best path forward.
Mr. Vallone,
Mr. Walshon’s opinion has done more damage to the party he is trying to get elected (the Democrats) than to David Rosenwaks. More voters than ever will now vote for David Rosenwaks as he will not be a spoiler because he will win the election and become the next First Selectman.
It’s the perfect moment to elect David Rosenwaks, Westport.
Politics in America, and Westport, is at a inflection point.
How do we move forward together in such a politically polarized environment, when the national debate is being fought in our communities by local partisans of both major parties, when they should be working for Westport? When the noisy fringes insist there must be no fraternization, how can we find solutions together and a compromise that works for all?
Obviously we can’t.
The idea that someone can never win coming from the middle, or that they only serve to be a spoiler negates the people’s right to vote for who they want and feel will do the best job for Westport. It’s a selfish controlling point of view.
I have worked in politics for the unions, Democrats, Republicans and the Independent party of Connecticut running, working and consulting on campaigns for close to three decades. As the host of CT Politics Tv, I have interviewed hundreds of elected officials.
I support David Rosenwaks for Westport because he seeks to avoid partisan gridlock and bickering about national politics to instead focus on what Westport needs. The major parties exclude people who want to run for office and are not in lockstep with the brand, or who embrace an otherwise a great solution just because it came from the opposition party. A vote for David circumvents partisan roadblocks and allows you, the Westport voter, to speak directly with David without a partisan litmus test first. David’s background in high finance is one of people who believed in, trusted, and invested in him with faith he would help carry their business interests forward in partnership as the forward face of their company, which he was successful at doing. David as an artist allowed him to connect with people through his music and across many demographics and lifestyles. It’s a wide variety of people-oriented experience you want in a leader and most people just don’t have. Westport has a chance to elected a great candidate in David who will focus on ideas over ideology. His campaign has united many voters in Westport who don’t wish to be bullied into voting for the status quo by partisan hacks with selfish intent.
Westport has the opportunity to elect an independent leader they can trust won’t be controlled by partisan party politics, but will accessible to them answer to the Westport community.
David Rosenwaks is a great candidate and deserves your vote Westport.
Dan Newmyer
Mansfield Center, CT
I said we did not do background checks, as in FBI or State Police checks. Our local people do check in on candidates being who they say they are, just like the Democrats or Republicans.
I still support David Rosenwaks as his concern is Westport only. He is not a surrogate of major party leadership with national aspirations. Election Day Tuesday is all about Westport. My best wishes for a fair election and a successful community.
A sales man from an equity firm? Uh
I’m a hardcore libertarian, but in this case Westport needs an honest democrat.
Had I be there, and not many thousands of miles away from the drama I would vote dem in this instance.
Westport dems actually believe in helping people, nationally they are snakes, but in town they are honest and Westport needs straightforward honesty.
Even if you have a stupid idea, it’s okay as long as everything is up front. Beware of snakes
We all like David. He really is a nice guy. I read all the comments, per usual same people trying to bring national issues into Westport, no transparency, independent thinking lacking etc.
It is great to see everyone exercising their First Amendment Rights. If you want to get involved in Westport, be it RTM, BOE, PZ, BOF, and all appointed bi partisan committees (mandated by state of CT) you are going to get some heat if you step up.
In my opinion Jay is not slandering David, he is just pointing out his fact checking. One can agree with Jay or go do your own homework.
Jay and I, and others on this chain have not always agreed of issues. All of us have mutual respect for each other because we do participate in our Westport Democracy.
If you haven’t voted yet, do some fact checking, if the candidate fits your box, check it.
Let’s not criticize a person for doing his/her homework.
Jimmy Izzo
RTM 3
16 year Member RTM
Chair- RTM Public Protection Committee
Fact of the matter is there is ZERO transparency. At least for the last 12 years.
Z E R O
OF COURSE O’Day n Moore are pushing back on this FACT !
But everyone knows it. Its not a secret.
Quite frankly as a business owner I am sick to the teeth of reading the drivel out of the mouths of these 2 candidates.
Talk about stupid when it comes to businesses( which they’ve no god damn clue about)
Latest DPIC appointment a friend and restaurant owner who employed moores kids… lmao..
if that’s not a rubber stamp what is.
Andrea, we are not stupid or mute.
We are watching you and if we are unfortunate enough to get stuck with you and O’Day we will just spend lots of time in court… and this town will be paying the costs of our law suits.
Just like the lack of honesty and transparency costs this town gazillions in FOIA challenges.. why ? LIES !