logo
NYC mayoral candidates see who can promise more than upstart socialist Mamdani — while Cuomo ducks and dodges debate attacks

NYC mayoral candidates see who can promise more than upstart socialist Mamdani — while Cuomo ducks and dodges debate attacks

New York Posta day ago

Zohran Mamdani might or might not win the Dems' mayoral primary, but the first debate showed he's already won the argument.
The two-hour showdown turned into a bidding war to see who could promise to deliver more government giveaways than the 33-year-old Queens assemblyman.
It's a lost cause when the trend setter is an admitted socialist who promises free everything, from food to rent to bus service.
Free except, of course, for the evil top 1 percent, who would be taxed to pay for it all. Unless they pack up and join the huge exodus of people who already have given up on New York ever fixing itself.
The debate showed how deeply the rot runs and why pessimism about the city's future is the only sane response.
The sickening pandering to the left amounts to a race to the bottom, and re-affirmed for me why I don't have a candidate yet.
I didn't see anyone on that stage whom I can envision doing even an average job in City Hall, let alone turning around a declining city the way Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg did.
Democratic mayoral candidates Andrew Cuomo, left, shakes hands with Zohran Mamdani, center, as Whitney Tilson reacts after participating in a Democratic mayoral primary debate, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in New York.
AP
Mamdani is the flavor of the moment for many young voters, but his socialist ideas are dead-enders.
Is he really that ignorant about the history of the world and the countries that have gone full socialist?
Additionally, his refusal again to say Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state is disqualifying.
If it talks and walks like an antisemite, it's an antisemite.
Mayor Adams, whom I supported four years ago, is such a wounded incumbent that he saw no path forward in his party, so he's running as an independent.
Targeting Cuo
The other major theme of the evening was the gang-up on Andrew Cuomo. Polls have consistently shown him as the clear front-runner, with Mamdani running a solid second and most of the others stuck in single digits.
While I expected that Cuomo, the former governor who resigned in August of 2021 before he could be impeached and convicted over a slew of sexual harassment allegations, would be a target, I was surprised at how frequently even the also-rans found a way to attack him in their answers to most questions.
They clearly calculated that the only way to pull themselves up is to pull him down.
Even more surprising was that Cuomo often appeared unprepared for the onslaught. He hemmed and hawed, cleared his throat and seemed to be trying to run out the clock on the brief time moderators allotted for answers rather than give sharp, clear responses.
His hesitancy could be seen as playing it safe with his lead, but I believe it's also possible his heart is really not in the race. His low-energy is a sharp contrast to his past habits, when he was the consummate pugnacious pol.
Now he seems to be running on auto pilot, as if he'd rather be in Albany or running for president. Or maybe just home watching TV.
One sign I see is that, after all this time, he still doesn't have a clear, credible answer on the nursing home debacle he caused and can't bring himself to acknowledge mistakes.
When the topic turned to reports of a federal probe of whether Cuomo lied to Congress about his role in a state report downplaying the number of deaths, Mamdani seized the opening to say bluntly: 'Andrew Cuomo did lie to Congress.'
Comptroller Brad Lander seconded the point, saying Cuomo 'lied to nursing home families to get a $5 million book deal.'
Cuomo denied the charges, but seemed to get lost in the weeds of his answer. The bottom line is that the exchanges showed that the topic remains a major weak spot for him, as it should be.
Similarly, his claim, which he has made in an ad, that New York 'led during COVID' seems like a very dated pitch. While he did receive huge plaudits for his daily briefings during the pandemic, the events that followed and his forced resignation have overshadowed nearly everything that came before.
That he hasn't used his time out of office to at least try to repair that damage and express remorse reveals a heartlessness unbecoming of someone who aims to lead America's largest and most important city.
A dominant theme of the evening was how to handle the Trump administration, and the four moderators are to blame for making it a consistent, negative focus.
They made it their second round of rapid-fire questions and kept stirring the pot by essentially asking who had the toughest plan on how to resist.
They got what they asked for, and the answers grew increasingly bizarre. Scott Stringer, the former comptroller, claimed the president is 'hell bent on destroying the social safety net,' while Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman who is black, tried to milk a racial angle.
Council Speaker Adrienne Adams declared she would stop Trump, saying 'not in my New York.'
The competition to give the most radical answer grew so intense and bitter that some of the responses verged on the bizarre.
Two candidates actually suggested New York could withhold federal income taxes from the administration, with state Sen. Zellnor Myrie saying 'that gives us the tax base so we can be independent of the White House.'
None dared to suggest cooperation. This is malpractice. The president can be a great help to his hometown, as he has shown with a plan for a new Penn Station.
Or, he can be a huge problem to a mayor and governor who think they can hoodwink him.
The mayoral candidates uniformly decided that they would show how tough they are by resisting him, which is a fool's errand.
Unfortunately, it's becoming typical of the Democratic Party nationally and in deep blue states. Harboring of criminal migrants and refusing to crack down on ­antisemitism are just two elements of what they call resistance to a president they don't like.
The talk is so radical that it sometimes sounds like the beginnings of a secession movement.
They can't be that stupid — can they?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The spectacular end of Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance
The spectacular end of Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The spectacular end of Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance

During a press conference in the Oval Office last week, President Trump praised Elon Musk, his adviser and the outgoing head of the president's Department of Government Efficiency, for waging war on the federal workforce. 'Elon has worked tirelessly to lead the most sweeping and consequential government reform program in generations,' Trump said alongside Musk, who wore a black DOGE hat and 'DOGEfather' T-shirt while standing next to the president. For nearly an hour, Trump heaped effusive praise on the billionaire Tesla chief executive, SpaceX founder and owner of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, whose stint as a special government employee had come to an end. 'Elon's really not leaving,' the president added. 'He's gonna be back and forth I think.' What a difference a week makes. Trump and Musk's unlikely bromance unraveled in spectacular fashion on Thursday, with the president telling reporters in the Oval Office that he was 'very disappointed' with Musk's criticism of his 'one big beautiful' spending bill, and Musk railing at Trump in real time on X. "I'm very disappointed in Elon," Trump said before a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "I've helped Elon a lot." The president suggested that Musk, like many others before him, had become 'hostile' upon leaving his administration. "I'll be honest, I think he misses the place," Trump said. 'People leave my administration, and they love us, and then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile." "They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour is gone," the president added. "The whole world is different, and they become hostile. I don't know what it is." Trump also suggested that Musk was upset that the Republican-backed reconciliation bill did not include an electric vehicle mandate, which would have benefited EV manufacturers, including Tesla. 'He knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem when he found out we were going to cut the EV mandate." "False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk wrote on X. 'Whatever,' Musk continued. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.' 'In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that [is] both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!' Musk added. 'Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.' Musk, who was one of Trump's most fervent and visible supporters during the 2024 campaign, wasn't done. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk wrote. "Such ingratitude." Trump wasn't done either. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,'' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump added. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Musk tried to get the last word in, suggesting Trump's name is in unreleased FBI files on late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "Time to drop the really big bomb," Musk wrote. "@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" On Thursday night, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that 'this is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it does not include the policies he wanted. She added: "The president is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again.' The split capped a longtime partnership for the pair, with Musk stumping for Trump on the campaign trail, and the president, after installing Musk as the head of DOGE, boosting Tesla amid criticism of Musk with an unusual event at the White House. ("Trump turns the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom," NBC News proclaimed.) But in the last few months, there had been reports that Trump was privately growing tired of Musk. On May 27, three days before Musk's farewell press conference in the Oval Office, CBS aired a clip that showed him expressing disappointment that Trump's signature spending bill would undermine his DOGE work. Then on Tuesday, Musk went full blast on the spending package. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," he wrote on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." That brought us to Thursday, when Trump was asked about Musk's attacks during his Oval Office meeting with Merz. "Elon and I had a great relationship," Trump told reporters. "I don't know if we will anymore."

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Chicago Tribune

time18 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' Elon Musk's threat to withdraw Dragon capsule would leave NASA with 1 option: RussiaIf the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Race heats up to replace Connolly on powerful Oversight panel
Race heats up to replace Connolly on powerful Oversight panel

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Race heats up to replace Connolly on powerful Oversight panel

The race to become the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee is heating up — and getting crowded. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) this week threw her hat into the ring to replace the late-Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who died last month of esophageal cancer, making her the fourth member of the committee — and the second member of the Congressional Black Caucus — to vie for the seat. She joins Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who all announced their bids last week. Not only is the list unusually long for such a race, but it features two veteran septuagenarians and two congressional newcomers who are decades younger — setting the stage for another tense debate over the seniority system Democrats have favored for generations, but has come under increasing scrutiny in an era when the party's popularity is well underwater. 'It's usually two, every now and then three [candidates]. I'd have to go back a while to remember four horses trying to get out of the gate at the same time,' Mfume acknowledged. 'We've got some bright young members, some very distinguished and wise older members, and I think there's got to be a melding of those age groups and those thoughts and those priorities,' he continued. 'Because at the end of the day, we'll all either win together or we'll lose together.' At 76 years old, Mfume is the oldest candidate in the race, but not the most senior on the committee. That distinction goes to Lynch, 70, who has served as the interim ranking member since Connolly stepped back from the role in April. The elder statesmen are citing their long experience as an asset, while also vowing to tap the unique strengths of the newer members of the committee, who tend to have a better finger on the pulse of digital outreach and social media. 'I fully appreciate that the effectiveness of our Committee in presenting the truth to the American people is dependent on our ability to maximize and elevate the diversity of talent within our Democratic membership,' Lynch, a former ironworker and union leader, wrote recently to his fellow Democrats. Mfume, a former head of the NAACP, agreed, saying Democrats can't be effective without a united approach. 'It's important for the new ranking member to gather all the Democrats together on that committee, close the door and figure out what the agenda is going forward as a team,' he said. But the younger challengers see the Oversight vacancy as a rare opportunity to reimagine the Democratic brand and revive the party's image with new faces and fresh ideas. 'For me, it's about, how do we excite the base?' said Crockett, 44. 'And to be perfectly honest — while I can't put a poll in the field fast enough and get some answers — I can tell you that, tangentially, looking at the entire field, I am the type of member that potentially will inject a little bit of that energy that we're missing right now for our base. And I think that we have to take that into consideration.' Democratic leaders are well aware of the generational tensions, and are making clear their intent to stand aside and allow the process to play itself out ahead of a vote of the full caucus, which is scheduled for June 24. 'As we've said before, seniority and length of tenure is always a factor, but it is one of many factors that members consider,' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters this week. 'Our job is to just make sure that it's done in a fair way.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a prominent member of the CBC, downplayed the notion that the race — which features two CBC members in Mfume and Crockett — might lead to bad blood within the group. He noted that he had defeated former Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who had once headed the CBC, for the Caucus chair position in 2018, and she remains 'a great friend and colleague.' 'Leadership, of course, remains aggressively neutral,' Jeffries added. 'We don't put our thumb on the scale.' With subpoena power and broad jurisdiction over virtually every facet of the federal government, the Oversight Committee ranks among Capitol Hill's most potent panels, making the ranking member spot a highly coveted position for ambitious lawmakers seeking a new level of national prominence. That's especially the case for the minority Democrats this year, when they're scrambling for an effective strategy to combat the norm-smashing actions of President Trump, who has used the early months of his second administration to dismantle many of the federal institutions the Democrats hold dear. Connolly, 75, in seeking the spot after last November's elections, had run into the same questions about age, image and passing the torch that are being raised now. He dismissed those concerns, citing a track-record of fierce advocacy for democratic traditions and the federal workers Trump has sought to purge. And he easily won the closed-ballot contest despite facing a formidable challenger in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), 35, an icon of the left with a huge national following. Ocasio-Cortez has since left the Oversight Committee, jumping to the powerful Energy and Commerce panel in January, and declined a bid to replace Connolly. Garcia, 47, was among the Oversight members who had waited to learn Ocasio-Cortez's intentions before announcing his own. With her out of the race, he quickly jumped in, touting his experience as the former mayor of Long Beach and his position in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He's also vowing to help the party disseminate its message more effectively with modern-age tools. 'Democrats are the party of working families — but we must meet people where they are,' he wrote in his pitch to colleagues. 'Traditional media isn't enough — to drive real policy wins, we must break through the noise, capture public attention, and energize people to act.' Crockett delivered a similar pitch, stressing the need for Democrats to highlight wins and make information accessible to voters. But she also noted the role is more than just communications. 'At the end of the day, I am a trial lawyer,' she said, noting her years as a public defender and her familiarity in 'dealing with criminals.' At the mention of the word, her mind turned to Trump. 'To be perfectly honest, there's probably only one person that the president does not want to head up Oversight, and I can tell you that it's me,' Crockett said. 'That alone should actually — hopefully — get my colleagues to say that's probably the one that we want, because I am the one that he's afraid of.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store