Andrew Cuomo's new plan to punish New Yorkers: He's staying in the race
On Monday, the disgraced ex-gov announced he'll continue his quest for City Hall by running as an independent.
Apparently, it isn't enough that he was forced to step down as governor just a few years back by members of his own party.
Or that the was then he was soundly defeated in the mayoral primary — again, by members of his party.
You'd think maybe he'd get the message: Voters are just not that into you, Andrew.
Instead, Cuomo is insisting on making Gothamites put up with his preening and dissembling and waffling for the next four months, even as that forces them to recall all the pain he caused them as governor:
Skyrocketing crime rates, thanks to his disastrous criminal-justice reforms.
Soaring utility bills, thanks to an insane climate law he OK'd.
Congestion pricing, which socks folks who drive into mid-Manhattan, like those from the outer boroughs.
The COVID lockdowns and crazy rules (Cuomo chips, anyone?) and prolonged school closures that worsened learning loss among kids.
And, of course, his fatal order forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-positive patients that almost certainly led to hundreds of preventable deaths.
No wonder New York's share of the US population plunged during his years as governor, costing the state a congressional seat.
Now, Cuomo's insistence on staying in the race, along with Mayor Eric Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa, seems sure to deliver the election to socialist antisemite Zohran Mamdani. Thanks, again, Andrew.
Meanwhile, recent polls have found fully 70% of voters cite candidates other than Cuomo as their top choice.
Nor is he likely to recapture lefties by parroting the guy who beat him, Zohran Mamdani: In a new New York magazine column, Cuomo described himself as 'anti-billionaire.' (An aide denied that, arguing the ex-gov's words were taken out of context.)
Back in 1989, after Mayor Ed Koch lost his bid for reelection, he was asked if he'd ever run for office again. 'No,' he replied. 'The people have spoken … and they must be punished.'
Cuomo, by contrast, aims to punish the city by continuing to run.
New Yorkers should pray that at some point, he takes the hint.
Do us all a favor, Andrew: Just Cuo away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
New York joins multistate lawsuit after Trump administration's FEMA cuts
July 16 (UPI) -- The state of New York joined several other states Wednesday in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's closure of a protective arm of FEMA. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in a press release that her state has joined 19 others in litigation against Federal Emergency Management Agency chief David Richardson, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the federal government that seeks the restoration of FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, program. "I'm suing the federal government with a group of [Attorneys General] over its deadly decision to end FEMA's BRIC program and slash billions of dollars that protect communities from natural disasters," James wrote in an X post Wednesday. According to the release, BRIC had "supported critical infrastructure to protect communities from disasters before they happen" with the provision of billions of dollars to state and local governments in order for municipalities to prepare for natural disasters. In a press release that has since been deleted from the FEMA website, FEMA announced in April it was ending BRIC, and canceled all applications sent to BRIC from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, then canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity. Any grant funds that hadn't been distributed were reabsorbed and returned to either the U.S. Treasury or the Disaster Relief Fund. The dissolution of BRIC followed an Executive Order made in March that, among other decrees, ordered the Secretary of Homeland Security to "propose changes to the policies" related to "national preparedness and response policies and recommend to the President the revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to reformulate the process and metrics for Federal responsibility." The statement from James noted that the loss of the BRIC program could specifically affect New York, which is noted as being "among the states receiving the most BRIC funding" due to its coastal communities. New York currently has 38 BRIC projects that total over $380 million located across its boundaries, which would be jeopardized by the termination of BRIC. New York City alone was expected to receive BRIC funds for almost 20 different projects, including a $50 million mitigation action plan intended to provide protection from flash flooding of the Harlem River. "This administration's decision to slash billions of dollars that protect our communities from floods, wildfires, and other disasters puts millions of New Yorkers at risk," said Attorney General James in the Wednesday press release from her office. "New Yorkers depend on quality roads, floodwalls, and other vital infrastructure to keep them safe when disaster strikes," she continued. "This administration has no authority to cut this program that has helped save countless lives, and I will continue to fight to ensure New York gets the support we need to prepare for dangerous natural disasters."
Buzz Feed
23 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Speaker Mike Johnson Called Our Donald Trump Over The Epstein Files
Hot Topic 🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics After standing by President Donald Trump on everything from deploying Marines to quell protests to ramping up deportations, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is finally breaking with him... over the Jeffrey Epstein files. In an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson on Tuesday, the speaker called for 'transparency' regarding the Epstein investigation, adding that 'we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.' His statements come over a week after the Justice Department and FBI said they wouldn't be releasing any additional files about Epstein after concluding that there wasn't evidence the disgraced financier kept a so-called 'client list' to blackmail influential figures or that he had died by means other than suicide. In a post this past weekend, Trump doubled down on this stance, defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and calling for his followers to move on. On Tuesday, he softened his position somewhat, stating that Bondi should 'release whatever she thinks is credible.' Johnson, who also stated that he trusts Trump, has 'never broken so publicly with the president on an issue,' writes the Washington Post's Marianna Sotomayor. 'I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out here,' Johnson said, noting that Bondi should explain what she meant when she once referenced having the Epstein client list on her desk. 'She needs to come forward and explain that to everybody,' Johnson said. (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Bondi was referencing the 'entirety of all the paperwork' related to the Epstein case.) The speaker's position points to blowback Trump and his administration have received from his base over the handling of the Epstein files, and highlights how Republican lawmakers are trying to acknowledge the uproar while still backing the president. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) on Tuesday called for the appointment of a special counsel to uncover the 'truth about the Epstein Files,' tagging former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who previously resigned from Congress as the House was investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Johnson and other House Republicans were also widely criticized Tuesday for claiming to want transparency about the Epstein files, but stymying a Democratic effort to push for their release. On Tuesday, Republicans blocked a vote on a measure from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), which would have forced the release of documents related to the DOJ's Epstein investigation. 'Republicans spent years screaming for the Epstein Files to be released. Now Donald Trump wants to hide them. Today, every R can vote to release the files. Will they give the American people transparency or block the truth to protect Trump?' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. — Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) July 15, 2025 @danielsgoldman/X / Via Twitter: @danielsgoldman
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Do we really want churches to become more political?
Advertisement Last week, the IRS gave these groups what is widely being viewed as a win, Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian public policy organization, praised the decision, writing on X that the change was ' 'After years of education, agitation, and the efforts of many, churches will now be unshackled from the Johnson Amendment — free to speak biblically on cultural issues and candidates without fear of the IRS,' he Advertisement Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California questioned the legality of the update while visiting South Carolina churches last week, during a trip that some viewed as an attempt to increase his popularity with the state's voters heading into the 2028 presidential election. 'I don't know if it's healthy — I don't even know it's legal, but it's not surprising,' he 'It's called gaming the system — in every way,' Newsom added. In practice, this pivot is not as sharp of a turn as some proponents of the separation of church and state may believe, because, for better or worse, pastors have used their pulpits to make political stances for decades. This is in part because politicians often make decisions that can positively impact churches — including allowing them to receive federal dollars. In the last presidential election, former vice president Kamala Harris was often well-received at churches across the country, with some pastors sharing their beliefs about the role of the divine in her ascension to the highest political contest in the land. 'You were born to lead a nation,' Jamal Bryant, pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Donald Trump regularly included pastors and Christian nonprofit leaders as a part of his presidential campaigns and has welcomed former church leaders into his administration. But Trump, who was the leading candidate with conservative evangelicals in each of his presidential runs, was never a fan of the amendment and signed an executive order in 2017 directing the Treasury Department to ignore it. More recently, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to do away with it altogether. Advertisement 'Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or nonprofit employees and volunteers,' Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma If the bill that Republicans introduced becomes law, voters should expect more religious leaders to use their platforms to advocate for political positions, even beyond those that have dominated cultural conversations in communities of faith over the past few decades. But there are real consequences for that. Sermons on issues ranging from same-sex marriage, the ethics surrounding abortion, immigration rights, and other hot topics have been off-putting for many people who don't want their religious leaders to tell them how to vote. In the current deeply divided political moment, that could matter even more. The overwhelming majority of American adults — about 8 in 10 — do not agree with leaders of religious organizations publicly backing one political candidate over another during elections, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center Advertisement Pastors and the politicians they support should take notice. The economic and financial repercussions of a church becoming more political might be fading away, but the long-term ramifications of candidate endorsements by a community that relies on new and younger members to remain relevant are obvious. Leaning into a controversial practice might curry favor with some of that community's most faithful, but it won't likely change what has long been a high priority for pastors: making new converts.
