Elections

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyViolence May Delay U.S. Troop Withdrawal From AfghanistanThe new Biden administration is reviewing a deal between its predecessor and the Taliban for a May 1 deadline to pull all American troops out of the country.Afghan police at a checkpoint in Kabul earlier this month.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesAdam Nossiter and Jan. 29, 2021, 9:51 a.m. ETKABUL, Afghanistan — Both the Afghan government and its Taliban foes appear to be gearing up for a violent spring amid uncertainty over whether the Biden administration will meet a May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan.On Thursday, the Pentagon raised questions about whether the pullout — agreed to in a February 2020 U.S.-Taliban peace deal — would go ahead on schedule as the incoming Biden administration reviews the agreement made by its predecessor. That statement followed bellicose remarks by Taliban and Afghan government officials, amplified by waves of violence across the country.“Without them meeting their commitments to renounce terrorism and to stop the violent attacks against the Afghan National Security Forces, it’s very hard to see a specific way forward for the negotiated settlement,” Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said at a news briefing. “But we’re still committed to that.”Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said Friday on social media that Mr. Kirby’s assertions were “unfounded.”The agreement between the Taliban and the U.S. government started the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan in exchange for counterterrorism pledges from the Taliban and a promise to push the Afghan government to release 5,000 prisoners. The move amounted to the strongest attempt yet by the United States to extricate itself from its longest war and potentially paving the way for the Taliban’s future inclusion in the Afghan government.But the talks excluded the Afghan government and left it feeling sidelined and unheard, according to Afghan officials. Under former President Donald J. Trump, they said that U.S. diplomats frequently ignored concerns from Kabul in an attempt to expedite the negotiations.There are currently 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from 12,000 this time last year. And while the Afghan government is in favor of the withdrawal of Western forces, it wants a slower timetable than the one agreed to with the Taliban.Now, it faces the prospect that the uncertainty around meeting the troop withdrawal deadline could fuel even more violence.With the peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, at a standstill, Washington’s review will examine the Taliban’s commitments to severing ties with terrorist groups and reducing violence as agreed.U.S. officials have long insisted that the agreement was “conditions based,” and if the Taliban does not meet those terms it would extend the presence of U.S. forces in the country.The Taliban, gearing up for the spring fighting season, is already well positioned around several Afghan cities after making steady gains across the country in recent years.A member of the Taliban in March last year in an area controlled by the group in Laghman Province’s Alingar District.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesBut recent overtures from the Biden White House have sent a more reassuring message to Afghan President Ghani and other government officials, raising their hopes that they will no longer be sidelined and that the Americans will not leave any time soon.Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib unleashed a harsh diatribe against the Taliban last week while speaking to a group of Afghan commandos at an air base outside Kabul.“They have proved that they don’t have any desire for peace and that they are a terrorist group,” said Mr. Mohib, who has long history of spouting such sharp rhetoric. His latest remarks came on the heels of a phone call with his new U.S. counterpart, Jake Sullivan.Afghan officials have said privately that Mr. Sullivan’s hourlong call restored a certain level of trust between the Ghani administration and the White House and made them confident that their voices will be heard as the peace talks in Doha continue.On Thursday, the new secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, talked with Mr. Ghani and expressed “the U.S. desire for all Afghan leaders to support this historic opportunity for peace while preserving the progress made over the last 20 years.”Assurances from the White House that the Ghani administration will have ample lines of communication to Mr. Biden’s cabinet seem to have also assuaged the Afghan government’s concerns over the U.S. decision to retain Zalmay Khalilzad, the diplomat who spearheaded the U.S.-Taliban negotiations that excluded the Afghan government.President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan during a visit to Herat this month.Credit…Hoshang Hashimi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSome Afghan officials distrust Mr. Khalilzad and were hostile to his dialogue with the Taliban under the Trump administration, particularly his pressure on them to release the roughly 5,000 Taliban prisoners with hopes that a reduction in violence would follow.It didn’t. But it did open the way for talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban that began in Doha in September.Asfandyar Mir, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, said that an additional complication for the Biden administration is that the Afghan government is a “house divided” with rivalries throughout.Many Afghan officials say they believe that the Taliban have only a single interest: to seize power by force. And all sides in the conflict agree that missing the May troop withdrawal deadline would quickly change whatever equilibrium has been established on the country’s battlefields and could risk setting off a concerted Taliban effort to enter cities.In the meantime, regional powers, especially Iran and Pakistan, are biding their time and waiting to see what comes next under Mr. Biden.Iran, for instance, hosted Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s deputy leader, in Tehran on Wednesday, which could be perceived as demonstrating the country’s willingness to play a more active role in the talks.Iran’s involvement in the Afghan war has shifted since 2001, underscoring the changing geopolitical currents over the war’s duration. On one hand, Tehran’s official line has denounced the return of the Taliban as a direct threat to Iran. But on the other, Iranian operatives have made quiet overtures to the insurgent group, offering weapons and other equipment, in Afghanistan’s southwest, Afghan officials say.The Taliban does not “trust the United States and we will fight any group that is a mercenary for the United States,” Mr. Baradar was quoted as saying in the Iranian news media in an apparent reference to the Afghan government.But just a month earlier, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, all but offered up an Iran-trained Afghan Shiite militia to serve the Kabul government in “the fight against terrorism.” He was speaking in an interview with an Afghan news outlet.Officials here took that as a clear signal from its powerful neighbor that it intends to get further involved in the Afghan conflict.The Biden administration decided to retain Zalmay Khalilzad, the diplomat who spearheaded the U.S.-Taliban peace talks last year.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesEarlier this week, a Taliban delegation met with officials in Moscow, and on Friday, Abbas Stanekzai, a Taliban negotiator, told reporters that the Ghani’s administration is not “honest about peace.”Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of the Afghan government council leading the peace negotiations, sounded a pessimistic note in an interview with The New York Times on Thursday.“The Taliban have taken a sort of maximalist position,” Mr. Abdullah said. “Before the negotiations, we were led to believe there would be a significant reduction in violence,” he added.“The recent attitude of the Taliban has not been encouraging,” Mr. Abdullah said, noting that the group had yet to make a promised break with Al Qaeda, the terror group responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and the main reason U.S. forces invaded the country in 2001.A report from the U.S. Treasury Department earlier this month indicated that Al Qaeda had only gained strength in Afghanistan and continued its ties with the Taliban throughout 2020.Despite waves of targeted killings across the country — striking fear in some Afghanistan’s most populated cities, including Kabul, the Afghan Independent Human Rights commission found that the number of civilian deaths had decreased by more than 20 percent compared to 2019.The report also found that 8,500 civilians had been killed and wounded in Afghanistan in 2020.Najim Rahim and Fahim Abed contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNew York Schools Are Segregated. Will the Next Mayor Change That?By deferring decisions on desegregating schools, Mayor Bill de Blasio has pushed those choices onto his successor — and into the race to replace him.The admissions process for elite schools like Stuyvesant High School has become one of the most fraught political issues in New York City.Credit…Christopher Lee for The New York TimesJan. 29, 2021Updated 8:12 a.m. ETDuring a recent forum on education, a moderator asked the crowded field of Democrats running to be New York City’s next mayor a question they may not have wanted to answer: How would they approach the fraught issue of admissions into the city’s selective schools, where Black and Latino students are starkly underrepresented? A few of the candidates’ eyes widened when they heard the prompt, and some avoided furnishing a direct answer, resorting instead to vague language.“There are a lot of things we need to do in this direction,” said Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate. Raymond J. McGuire, a Wall Street executive, noted that the issue had “historic significance.” Those halting responses illustrate just how incendiary school integration still is in this proudly liberal city. But with the Democratic primary just five months away, the candidates have little choice but to confront school segregation, which has divided New Yorkers for a half-century. An influential activist movement led by city students is accelerating pressure on the candidates to make clear how integration would fit into their plans to reshape New York’s public school system, the nation’s largest. And a national reckoning over racism has forced the candidates to square the city’s self-image as a progressive bastion with its unequal school system. During the last few weeks alone, the candidates have been asked about their positions on radio and television interviews, in multiple forums, and in a series of New York Times interviews. Together, their responses revealed sharp differences in how they are approaching some of the most contentious integration policies.New York City is home to one of the most segregated school systems in America, in part because of the city’s labyrinth admissions process for selective schools. Housing segregation and school zone lines have produced a divided school system that has been compounded by competitive admissions that separate students by race and class as early as kindergarten.Mayor Bill de Blasio recently announced a sweeping set of changes to how hundreds of racially segregated selective schools admit their students — but left most of the details up to the next administration.Some of the mayoral hopefuls are in favor of addressing the extreme underrepresentation of Black and Latino students in selective schools by overhauling gifted and talented programs and changing admissions for competitive middle schools and elite high schools. Others are offering less sweeping approaches. And several candidates declined to say anything definitive about those proposals, or said they would mostly maintain the existing system.Scott Stringer, the city comptroller, with his son Max. Mr. Stringer had previously avoided integration debates, but has recently moved to the left along with his party.Credit…Kholood Eid for The New York TimesThe most progressive candidates, including Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, are hoping to differentiate themselves from the pack by declaring their intentions to push potentially disruptive change that could spur integration.There are subtle differences even within that lane: Maya Wiley, a former de Blasio administration official who has been a leading figure in the pro-integration movement, sometimes gave conspicuously broad answers to direct questions about the policies she would implement as mayor. Mr. Stringer, who had assiduously avoided integration debates even in his own neighborhood, has recently moved to the left along with his party. Shaun Donovan, the former secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has released the most detailed education policy plan so far, saying he would eliminate most academic prerequisites for middle school admissions and add weighted lotteries to further integrate those schools.More centrist hopefuls like Mr. McGuire, Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner, all promised to expand selective programs and schools, rather than fundamentally change them. That position is shared by Mr. Yang, the former head of a test preparation company, who declined an interview. Some education experts believe that desegregation is one of the few remaining levers available for improving academic outcomes for the city’s vulnerable students, many of whom have had little choice but to enroll in low-performing schools.“The plainest way to think of integration is that it is a proven and effective school improvement strategy,” said Matt Gonzales, the director of the Integration and Innovation Initiative at New York University’s Metro Center. Decades of research supports that view — not because there is alchemy found in diverse classrooms, but because integration redistributes resources, funding and power across schools. Mr. Gonzales said the candidates’ positions on this issue are not merely a signal of their progressive bona fides, but an essential way of understanding their approach to education. Mr. de Blasio’s education agenda has largely not included desegregation measures, and he has left major decisions related to integration to the next mayor. Dianne Morales, who is running to be the first Afro-Latina mayor, has among the strongest pro-integration positions of any of the candidates.Credit…Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesHe has largely ignored a recommendation, made by a school integration group he convened, that the city should replace gifted and talented programs with magnet schools and enrichment programs. The next administration will likely have to respond. Mr. de Blasio said this month that he would soon scrap the current gifted exam given to 4-year-olds against the advice of many experts, though the city’s educational panel may force him to end the test immediately. But most of the candidates had already committed to changing that test, and will now have to determine whether to alter the program itself. And last month, Mr. de Blasio paused the use of academic prerequisites for middle school admissions for at least a year because of the pandemic. That will leave it up to the next mayor to decide whether to make that policy permanent — or end it. Ms. Wiley, who helped craft that proposal as a leader of the mayor’s integration group, said she would end middle school screening, as did Ms. Morales. Some candidates tried to find a middle ground: Mr. Stringer and Mr. McGuire said they would consider this year a pilot program, and make a permanent decision next year. Ms. Garcia said she would look at changes on a district-by-district basis, and Mr. Yang expressed skepticism about eliminating middle school screening during a recent forum.Gifted education is a third-rail issue because the programs have long been seen as a way to keep white families in public schools, and have been embraced by some middle-class families of color as alternatives to low-performing neighborhood schools. But some experts have argued that gifted schools have created a two-tiered system that caters to families with the resources to navigate it. Roughly 75 percent of students in gifted classes are white or Asian-American. Mr. Stringer said that his own children, who are in gifted programs, had benefited from a flawed system because of their parents’ privilege. “I recognize as a parent, I’m going to do everything I can to do the best for my kid,” he said. “But as mayor, I have to do what’s best for every child.” Mr. Yang offered a starkly different message in a recent forum, arguing that some parents would flee the city without gifted classes. “Families are looking up and saying, ‘Is New York where my kids are going to flourish?’” Mr. Adams and Ms. Garcia said they would create more gifted classes in low-income neighborhoods, the favored policy position of many supporters of gifted programs. Activists have said that expanding gifted would only contribute to an inherently unfair system. Mr. McGuire said he would not “dismantle the programs, but I’d take a close look to make sure it’s fair and achieving its purpose.” Some candidates seemed eager to please all sides on the contentious if narrow issue of the entry exam for eight elite high schools, which is partially controlled by the State Legislature. In 2018, Mr. de Blasio started a campaign to eliminate the test. His effort failed after many low-income Asian-American families, whose children are overrepresented in the schools, mounted a massive effort to oppose the city’s plan. “I support efforts to desegregate the schools,” Raymond McGuire said in an interview. “This is basic equity, and it needs to happen.”Credit…Krista Schlueter for The New York TimesMr. Adams’ record on the issue demonstrates why so many politicians have tried to avoid staking out a position on the test. The borough president had long opposed the exam, and compared the specialized schools to “a Jim Crow school system.” But just a few weeks after he appeared at a news conference to trumpet the mayor’s plan, Mr. Adams reversed course following an outcry from some parents, particularly Asian Americans. Ms. Wiley has been a consistent critic of the exam, which she called discriminatory, but did not say exactly how she would approach the issue as mayor. Ms. Morales, Mr. Stringer and Brooklyn City Councilman Carlos Menchaca said that they would eliminate the exam.Ms. Morales graduated from Stuyvesant High School in the 1980s, and has watched with despair as the number of Black and Latino students at the school has dwindled. She said that going through the admissions process with her own children felt like an “obstacle course of barriers, targeted toward the people who are best positioned to overcome them.”Ms. Garcia, Mr. McGuire, Mr. Adams and Mr. Yang have said they would keep the exam in place, but promised to build additional specialized schools. That strategy was already tried by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, but has not led to greater diversity. The candidates have mostly not provided specifics for how their approach would differ.That came as no surprise to Christina Greer, a professor of political science at Fordham University, who expects the candidates to remain vague to avoid offending voters. “A lot of liberals like integration in theory, as long as it doesn’t touch their children at all,” she said. “For a lot of politicians, integration is a no-win.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyMarco Rubio Deserves Ivanka TrumpWill the senator’s sycophancy and shape-shifting come to naught?Opinion ColumnistJan. 29, 2021Credit…Ben WisemanIt’s a measure of the Republican Party’s current depravity that I think of the period when Marco Rubio was besmirching Donald Trump’s genitalia as the good old days.It was early 2016, Trump hadn’t yet locked down the Republican presidential nomination and Rubio, smarting from Trump’s nickname for him (“Little Marco’) and cracks about his overactive sweat glands, began pointing voters toward Trump’s private parts.“He’s, like, 6-2, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who’s 5-2,” Rubio told voters at a campaign rally in late February that year. “Have you seen his hands? And you know what they say about men with small hands.”In that age of innocence, we were talking and even laughing about the nether regions of Republican anatomy. Five years later, we’re talking and most certainly not laughing about the nether regions of Republican morality, which Rubio plumbs as shamelessly as his more exposed Senate colleagues Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton do.All four seem to have dreams of 2024 and don’t want to run afoul of Trump and his base, no matter how thoroughly that debases them. They’re vain weather vanes of his hold on the party, the strength and stubbornness of which are evident in the populous crowd of Trump-smooching presidential aspirants (these four, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, etc.) versus the sparse crew of Trump-spanking ones (Larry Hogan, Ben Sasse and that’s about it).As Trump’s impeachment trial looms, everything that these young or youngish senators say and do can be seen as an audition for his mantle, which Hawley and Cruz reached for with special cynicism when they joined six other senators in voting not to certify Joe Biden’s election. Rubio and Cotton didn’t go quite that far, but I’m sure Rubio was tempted. Ever since, he has mustered extra energy for showing what a fierce Trump loyalist he can be.On Fox News recently, he dismissed Trump’s upcoming Senate trial as “stupid,” seemingly daring Hawley, Cruz and Cotton to top his disdain and his adjective. He paired that exalted commentary with an inadequately punctuated, inelegantly worded and ineptly reasoned tweet: Five people died when a Trump-loving mob, whipped into a violent frenzy by his and his Republican enablers’ lies about election fraud, stormed and trashed the Capitol. But sure, Senator Rubio, Democrats’ upset is purely theatrical. Absolutely, the lesson here is the bloodthirst of “the radical left.”That’s no garden-variety misdirection. That’s pure derangement.Marco Rubio greeted Ivanka Trump at the Capitol in 2017.Credit…Erica Werner/Associated PressIt also smacks of desperation. “Little Marco,” you see, may have big trouble. It’s blond, it’s relentless, it has a new address in Florida and it’s spelled I-V-A-N-K-A. The shiniest Trump and her smug husband, pariahs now in New York City, have moved on, and there’s some speculation that their relocation presages a Senate candidacy for her in 2022, when Rubio is up for re-election.She’d potentially challenge him in the Florida Republican primary. Now there’s a reason to sweat. Rubio confronts what Republican lawmakers all over the country do, the prospect of being ousted, en route to their general elections, by rivals who are even Trumpier than they are. Only there’s no out-Trumping an actual Trump. And there’s no defaming this Trump progeny without inflaming the Trump patriarch.Ivanka would be Rubio’s worst nightmare. She’d also be his perfect comeuppance. He would have done all that shape-shifting, summoned all that sycophancy and sold out for naught.Maybe Ivanka would take pity on him and take a pass.Yes, that was a joke.As, at this point, is Marco Rubio.I can remember back to 2013, when, as a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” in the Senate, he helped to draft legislation for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for millions of people in this country illegally. He was then styling himself as a pragmatist determined to broaden the Republican Party’s tent.Now he rails against “amnesty.” He’s a Trump-style populist, content with a clownish part in the Republican Party’s circus.I remember how his parents’ flight to the United States from Cuba was the supposed cornerstone of his political convictions, the prompt for a hawkish foreign policy with no tolerance for autocrats at odds with our democratic values.But he just spent four years blowing kisses at an American president more autocratic and more contemptuous of those values than any in his lifetime.I remember how, for much of 2016, he pledged that he would not-not-not run for re-election to the Senate, framing that resolve as a point of honor. He said that it was an impotent institution and that lawmakers needed to limit their time in Congress, lest they become hacks. He expressed indignation at any suggestion that he would change his mind, tweeting: “I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January.”That was in mid-May of that year. Little more than a month later, he announced his re-election bid. So much for private citizenry.Rubio says whatever he feels that the moment demands, whatever keeps the wind in his sails, because he’s unfazed by the fact that he once said something completely different, by the possibility that he’ll contradict himself down the line or by the bald selectiveness of his self-righteousness.He’s a creature of Republican vogues, so he’s polishing his anti-elitist riffs, like a tweet with which he slammed the emerging Biden administration: Politeness! Order! The horror! But that’s not the best part. Biden stands out from his five immediate predecessors in the White House, including Trump, for not having the Ivy League degrees that they did. Where there’s fancy education aplenty is in Rubio’s ranks: Hawley has degrees from Stanford and Yale, Cruz from Princeton and Harvard and Cotton from Harvard two times over.Maybe Rubio was slyly knocking those potential 2024 competitors, too, and previewing a line of 2024 attack. His own degrees are from the University of Florida, the University of Miami and the School of Unchecked Opportunism.To his anti-elitism he has added overwrought, indiscriminate media bashing, as when he responded to the coronavirus’s rampage through America with a tweet last March that accused journalists of “glee & delight in reporting that the U.S. has more #CoronaVirus cases than #China” and called it “grotesque.”I don’t recall such glee. I’ll tell you what’s grotesque: training more of your fury about the pandemic’s devastation at the unelected people covering it than at the elected one minimizing and mismanaging it.He was preening for Trump. He was parroting him. He still is, and he’s proving that while Trump may be gone from the White House, he remains deeply present in Washington, because it’s lousy with minions who remade themselves in his image.Rubio’s fate was to become what Trump once called him, not just exuberantly but prophetically: a little man, at least by the yardstick of integrity, which is the only endowment that matters.I invite you to sign up for my free weekly email newsletter. You can follow me on Twitter (@FrankBruni).AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Barbara Kavovit, Entrepreneur and Occasional ‘Housewives’ Friend, Is Running for MayorMs. Kavovit, who struggled at times to win over her castmates on “The Real Housewives of New York City,” aims to have better luck with voters.Jan. 29, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETBarbara Kavovit, photographed in February 2019.Credit…George Etheredge for The New York TimesOn Wednesday, another New Yorker hurled her hat into the mayor’s race ring, where it currently rests alongside the chapeaux of some 30 other individuals: Democratic candidate Barbara Kavovit. Like Maya Wiley, the former MSNBC analyst, and Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, Ms. Kavovit can claim some level of prior national TV exposure. Unlike Ms. Wiley and Mr. Yang, though, hers had no connection to politics, or even news: Ms. Kavovit has appeared (as herself) in several episodes of Bravo’s “The Real Housewives of New York City.” (Most notably, she was a regular on the show’s eleventh season.)Ms. Kavovit, 55, currently lives on the Upper East Side of Manhattan with her son, Zachary Kavovit-Murphy, 23. Offscreen, she’s best known as the founder and C.E.O. of Evergreen Construction, a construction firm in midtown, and for creating tool kits designed for women. In a phone interview from her office, Ms. Kavovit said she waited to announce her candidacy until she “felt comfortable with my messaging” and “with the policies that were important to me.”The interview has been edited for length and clarity.How long have you lived in New York?I was born and raised in the Bronx. And then I have lived in New York City since college. Close to 30 years, I guess.Where did you go to school?SUNY Oswego.What is your life like in New York City now?My life revolves around my son, making sure that he’s safe. Making sure my employees are safe, making sure that they get to work safe, making sure our job sites are safe. And basically being home a lot. I’ve gotten into cooking.If people know you outside of the construction scene, it’s likely that they recognize you from the eleventh season of “The Real Housewives of New York.”I like to think that they read my book too — that they’ve read my latest novel. But, yeah, I guess “The Housewives” is the first thing, right? They’ll scream at me on the street as I’m crossing Park Avenue.Can you explain why you were a “friend of” as opposed to a full “Housewife” on your season?[A woman who appears in “The Real Housewives” but is not granted full cast member status may be designated a “friend of” the cast.]Well, obviously, I came on as a “Housewife” of the show, and I went through the whole season as a “Housewife.” I was in all the confessionals, I went to the cast trip, and you only do that if you’re a “Housewife.” And then I think at the end, we realized that maybe I wasn’t the type of “Housewife” that maybe Bravo wanted. So I wasn’t willing to do some of the things that they wanted me to do. I’m a business owner. I take pride in going to work every day. It wasn’t my primary job, and for most people on that show, it is their primary job. So it felt unnatural for me. And I think both the producers and I came to an agreement that this was the best course.Ms. Kavovit with her book at the East Hampton Library’s author’s night in 2019.Credit…Deidre Schoo for The New York TimesDo you think any of your conflicts with cast members on the show stemmed from political differences?No. I mean, I don’t think anybody on the show probably has the same values as I do as far as policies go. I don’t know if anybody from the show are Democrats, that I was involved with on the season. I don’t think so. We never discussed politics.[Online data from the Federal Election Commission’s individual contributor database indicates that four Season 11 “Housewives” — Bethenny Frankel, Dorinda Medley, Luann de Lesseps and Tinsley Mortimer — have donated a collective $151,700 to Democratic campaigns since 2006, while two cast members — Sonja Morgan and Ramona Singer — have donated a collective $2000 to Republican campaigns since 2008.]You’re comfortable saying you’re definitely more liberal?I’m definitely more liberal. I’m more for the people. I’m really about making sure that the city, the underserved get served. We need a comprehensive plan to deal with social problems, homeless families, emotionally disturbed people, people who are on our streets. Really, what I see is not the New York I want to see. I’m not in my fancy townhouse. If I’m mayor, this is not the New York that will exist, I can tell you that.Are you in an apartment building?I’m in a non-fancy apartment building.What percentage of 2020 did you spend in the city versus out of the city?I would say 70/30.For the 30 percent, where were you?In the Hamptons.Andrew Yang, who’s running, received backlash after he mentioned that he spent quite a bit of the pandemic outside the city. What is your response to people who criticize mayoral candidates who did not remain in the city for all of 2020?It’s not that I did this as a new thing. I’ve had a house in the Hamptons for the past 20 years, and I’ve always spent 30 percent of my time there.I don’t know what the reason was for Andrew Yang not being here, but if it has to do — maybe it’s children, or — but I did see something, I think, he had mentioned his children. I don’t have anything to say about him not being in the city. But what I can say is it’s nice of him to come back to run for mayor after trying to become president unsuccessfully. I mean, did he just come back to the city? I mean, I’ve been in the city for 30 years. I’ve built my business in the city. My son has grown up in the city. He’s gone to schools in the city. I was in the public school system growing up in the Bronx. I mean, I’m a born and bred New Yorker.[Mr. Yang, who was born and raised in upstate New York, has lived in New York City for 24 years.]What motivated you to run, and run now?My question is, to you: Why shouldn’t I run? New York City’s a mess, and we need to save it. And the city needs someone who really understands it, and not what the politicians think the city is. I’m someone who grew up in the Bronx in a middle class family. I want the same opportunities that I had for other people. I want women to be able to move up the economic ladder. I want to be able to revitalize our neighborhoods. Most importantly, I want streets that are safe and clean. I want to be able to go on to the subway, and not worry if I’m going to get thrown into the tracks.I’ve watched the city decline, and Covid has really pushed me over the edge. And it’s not because I’m enraged that people are getting Covid, which I am, but it’s the fact that the government in New York City hasn’t taken care of our people and the businesses that are here. It’s chaos. It’s crisis. Our city’s streets are overrun with trash, and homeless people who deserve better than to be on our streets. We are in financial trouble and the city is not managed properly. And you throw all that together, and you have a government that’s built on excuses by politicians.There’s a lot of empty office space right now in New York City. What do you see as the future of those spaces?People realized that they can work from home and they didn’t have to spend 100 percent of their time at the office to be efficient. So I think that people will realize that there are other ways to do business. I think that the city will come back bigger and better and stronger than ever. It is going to take some time. But I still think that there’s going to be a shift in who takes what office space.And I think the crux of everything with going back to the office space is that people don’t want to be here because the fundamental part of New York City that makes the city run, and the foundation of the city, is the transportation system, which is 25 percent of what it could be right now. I have a whole crew of people that refuse to take the subways right now. You mean they’re refusing because of Covid-19?No, well, Covid has just put it over the edge. The transportation — subways are not safe. Every day, there’s somebody else that’s getting mugged, getting thrown onto the subway tracks. Or walking in the streets getting knocked on the head. I mean, people are legitimately afraid of walking the streets of New York City, I can’t tell you. All of my employees are. And I’m sitting in my office right now on 45th Street, and all of my employees are taking either Ubers or I’m paying for their garages. And these are people that live in the boroughs: Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Staten Island. And it’s enraging. How does the government — the politicians that have been here for so long that have supposedly done such a good job — how are we in this type of trouble?Another candidate, Dianne Morales, advocates cutting the NYPD budget. What are your thoughts?I don’t think we should cut the budget of New York City’s police. I don’t believe that we should have less police on the streets. I think that we have to come to an equilibrium. And we have to stabilize New York City right now. So crime is up, murders are up, and we have a huge disparity between people wanting to have less police and more police. We can’t underprotect our population, we have to protect the people. So how do you do that, not demoralize the police, but make sure that people are safe and that the police do not harm anyone that they’re protecting?We have to put in some type of stringent program into the police that will allow us to feel comfortable with who is in the police department. It’s like a pilot; you can’t have any accidents. You can’t have one officer that is going to hurt the public. So you have to make sure. And how do you do that? You have to put the right policies in place for that.Who in your opinion, has been the best mayor of New York City?I would have to say Bloomberg.What did you like about the city under him?And I think Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani at some point in his career as well. I thought the city was the best version of itself. I thought that it was the cleanest. I thought it was the safest. I could remember riding the subways at 2:00 in the morning and not feeling vulnerable. My business was thriving under Bloomberg; I know that there was some other — people had some pushback back then, but my business was thriving. I think the whole foundation of New York City is about clean, safe streets, and education. I believe all people need the same education.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

Credit…Timo LenzenSkip to contentSkip to site indexOpinionThe First Post-Reagan PresidencySo far, Joe Biden has been surprisingly progressive.Credit…Timo LenzenSupported byContinue reading the main storyOpinion ColumnistJan. 28, 2021, 8:50 p.m. ETDuring Donald Trump’s presidency, I sometimes took comfort in the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s concept of “political time.”In Skowronek’s formulation, presidential history moves in 40- to 60-year cycles, or “regimes.” Each is inaugurated by transformative, “reconstructive” leaders who define the boundaries of political possibility for their successors.Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a figure. For decades following his presidency, Republicans and Democrats alike accepted many of the basic assumptions of the New Deal. Ronald Reagan was another. After him, even Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama feared deficit spending, inflation and anything that smacked of “big government.”I found Skowronek’s schema reassuring because of where Trump seemed to fit into it. Skowronek thought Trump was a “late regime affiliate” — a category that includes Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. Such figures, he’s written, are outsiders from the party of a dominant but decrepit regime.They use the “internal disarray and festering weakness of the establishment” to “seize the initiative.” Promising to save a faltering political order, they end up imploding and bringing the old regime down with them. No such leader, he wrote, has ever been re-elected.During Trump’s reign, Skowronek’s ideas gained some popular currency, offering a way to make sense of a presidency that seemed anomalous and bizarre. “We are still in the middle of Trump’s rendition of the type,” he wrote in an updated edition of his book “Presidential Leadership in Political Time,” “but we have seen this movie before, and it has always ended the same way.”Skowronek doesn’t present his theory as a skeleton key to history. It’s a way of understanding historical dynamics, not predicting the future. Still, if Trump represented the last gasps of Reaganism instead of the birth of something new, then after him, Skowronek suggests, a fresh regime could begin.When Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee, it seemed that the coming of a new era had been delayed. Reconstructive leaders, in Skowronek’s formulation, repudiate the doctrines of an establishment that no longer has answers for the existential challenges the country faces. Biden, Skowronek told me, is “a guy who’s made his way up through establishment Democratic politics.” Nothing about him seemed trailblazing.Yet as Biden’s administration begins, there are signs that a new politics is coalescing. When, in his inauguration speech, Biden touted “unity,” he framed it as a national rejection of the dark forces unleashed by his discredited predecessor, not stale Gang of Eight bipartisanship. He takes power at a time when what was once conventional wisdom about deficits, inflation and the proper size of government has fallen apart. That means Biden, who has been in national office since before Reagan’s presidency, has the potential to be our first truly post-Reagan president.“Biden has a huge opportunity to finally get our nation past the Reagan narrative that has still lingered,” said Representative Ro Khanna, who was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. “And the opportunity is to show that government, by getting the shots in every person’s arm of the vaccines, and building infrastructure, and helping working families, is going to be a force for good.” More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The New WashingtonliveLatest UpdatesBiden’s Climate AmbitionsBiden’s CabinetPandemic ResponseAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDemocrats Prepare to Move on Economic Aid, With or Without the G.O.P.President Biden is trying to persuade Republicans to back a $1.9 trillion spending package, but Democrats are pursuing another path to get the relief approved without bipartisan support.“We want it to be bipartisan always, but we can’t surrender if they are not going to be doing that,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesJim Tankersley and Jan. 28, 2021Updated 7:19 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Democrats are preparing to bypass Republican objections to speed President Biden’s $1.9 trillion economic aid package through Congress, rather than pare it back significantly to attract Republican votes, even as administration officials and congressional moderates hold out hopes of passing a bill with significant bipartisan support.On a day when new data from the Commerce Department showed that the economic recovery decelerated at the end of last year, Democratic leaders in Congress and administration officials said publicly and privately on Thursday that they were committed to a large-scale relief bill and would move next week to start a process that would allow it to pass with only Democratic votes, if necessary. Behind closed doors, congressional committees are already writing legislative text to turn Mr. Biden’s plans into law.Party leaders remain hopeful that Mr. Biden can sign his so-called American Rescue Plan into law by mid-March at the latest, even with the competing demands of a Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, which is set to begin the week of Feb. 8.“We want it to be bipartisan always, but we can’t surrender if they are not going to be doing that,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said at a news conference on Capitol Hill. “I do think that we have more leverage getting cooperation on the other side if they know we have an alternative as well,” she added.Officials across the administration are engaged in a whirlwind series of virtual conversations with key lawmakers, governors, mayors, civil rights leaders and a wide range of lobbying groups in an effort to build as much support as possible for the aid package. It includes $1,400 checks to many individual Americans, extensions of supplemental safety net benefits through the fall, and hundreds of billions of dollars for vaccine deployment and other efforts to curb the coronavirus pandemic.Yet there are early signs that Mr. Biden will need to at least partially trim his ambitions in order to secure even the full support of his party in the Senate — which he almost certainly needs to pass any bill.Some moderate Democrats have joined many Republicans in pushing the administration to narrow the scope of recipients for the direct checks to more directly target low- and middle-income Americans. Such a move would shave hundreds of billions of dollars off the proposal’s overall price tag. Officials privately concede that they would consider reducing the income threshold at which the size of the checks would begin phasing out for individuals and families.Mr. Biden did not announce thresholds for the checks in his proposal, but in December congressional Democrats proposed $2,000 individual checks that would slowly begin phasing out for those earning more than $75,000 a year — and allow some families earning as much as $430,000 a year to receive smaller payments.On a private caucus call with Senate Democrats and Brian Deese, the director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia pushed for the party to go forward with a sweeping package that included another round of stimulus checks, arguing that the issue helped Democrats win both of the state’s Senate seats and clinch the majority, according to two people familiar with the comments. Mr. Ossoff declined to comment on the call because it was private.Some moderate lawmakers have also pushed the administration to justify the need for nearly $2 trillion in additional relief, warning that money already approved by Congress in previous rounds of aid — including in the $900 billion package passed in December — has not yet been spent. Some Democrats also fear Mr. Biden would be forced by parliamentary rules to drop his call for a $15-an-hour minimum wage if the bill circumvented the filibuster via the so-called budget reconciliation process, though it is unclear whether Mr. Biden could get the votes for it even if it were, as some Democrats believe, eligible for inclusion.Mr. Biden has said repeatedly that he will work with Republicans to craft a bill that could earn bipartisan support, and moderate Republicans have warned that cutting their party out of the process would undermine Mr. Biden’s calls for unity and jeopardize future attempts at negotiations.But White House officials said on Thursday that Democrats could move quickly without sacrificing bipartisanship.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Jan. 28, 2021, 8:32 p.m. ETMatt Gaetz rallied against Liz Cheney in her own state.Representative Jim Jordan, a Trump loyalist, has decided not to run for an open Senate seat.Acting Capitol Police chief calls for permanent fencing and backup forces in wake of assault.“The president wants this to be a bipartisan package, regardless of the mechanisms,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters. “Republicans can still vote for a package, even if it goes through with reconciliation.”Mr. Biden recently called two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio, who are members of a bipartisan group intent on bridging the gap between the two parties. Ms. Psaki said the president would make more calls to Republicans and Democrats this week.Senator Rob Portman is among the Republican lawmakers whom President Biden called to try to bridge the gap between the two parties.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times“He hasn’t called me — he’s calling them and that’s good,” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, told reporters. “I’m not being critical at all. But, you know, I think there’s been direct personal outreach by the president to these Republicans in the hopes that we can do this on a bipartisan basis.”But several Republicans, including those in the bipartisan group who have professed a willingness to negotiate a small package, warned that pursuing the reconciliation process and bypassing their conference would hurt relations. (When Republicans controlled both chambers and the White House in 2017, they used the process twice.)“Covid relief presents the best avenue for bipartisanship right out of the gate,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia and a member of the bipartisan group. Ramming a bill through reconciliation, she added, “is a signal to every Republican that your ideas don’t matter, and I think — does that end it? No, but it certainly puts a color on it.”Administration officials have shown little willingness to push a significantly smaller bill than Mr. Biden has proposed. They worry privately that moving a package that includes only the provisions most likely to gain Republican support — the direct checks and money for vaccines — would risk stranding other elements of the plan they call critical for the recovery, like hundreds of billions of dollars in state and local aid.Mr. Deese pushed back on such suggestions during the call with Democrats and in a post on Twitter. “The needs of the American people aren’t partial; we can’t do this piecemeal,” he wrote.Many Democrats say privately that they see little hope of attracting the 10 Republican votes they would need to overcome a filibuster and avoid using the budget reconciliation process to advance the bill unless they significantly scale back Mr. Biden’s ambitions. Haunted by what Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, referred to as the “mistake” of 2009, when the Democratic Party was in control of both chambers and the White House but was “too timid and constrained in its response to the global financial crisis,” top Democrats are pushing to avoid settling for a small package.“If our Republican colleagues decide to oppose this urgent and necessary legislation, we will have to move forward without them,” Mr. Schumer said, adding that he planned to press ahead with a budget resolution as early as next week. The effort is complicated by Democrats’ tenuous grip on power in the Senate, which is split 50-50 but where Vice President Kamala Harris can break ties in her party’s favor. Those numbers give enormous sway to the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus, including Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. Any one of them could balk at the size of Mr. Biden’s demands and force a smaller package.Mr. Tester hinted at such possibilities on Thursday, in a nomination hearing for Cecilia Rouse, Mr. Biden’s pick to lead the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He raised concerns about federal borrowing and repeatedly pressed Ms. Rouse to commit to “targeted” spending programs to lift the economy.“They need to be targeted,” Ms. Rouse replied. “They need to be smart. They need to be in those areas where we know the economic benefit outweighs the cost.”Administration officials are juggling the rescue package with a broader proposal, which Mr. Biden refers to as a recovery plan, that would spend trillions more on infrastructure improvements, clean energy deployment and a series of other initiatives rooted in Mr. Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda from the presidential campaign. That plan will be financed, all or in part, by tax increases on corporations and high earners. Mr. Biden has promised to detail it publicly next month.Nicholas Fandos More

The Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has rejected a message of support from Ted Cruz, adding the Texas senator “almost had me murdered three weeks ago”.Cruz on Thursday had endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s call on Twitter for a congressional hearing about the decision by the online trading platform Robinhood to restrict trading in GameStop shares. But while welcoming the chance to work across party lines on the issue, Ocasio-Cortez had harsh words for Cruz.“I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.”“While you conveniently talk about ‘moving on’, a second Capitol police officer lost their life yesterday in the still-raging aftermath of the attacks you had a role in,” she said. “This isn’t a joke. We need accountability, and that includes a new senator from Texas.”I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out.Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign. https://t.co/4mVREbaqqm— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 28, 2021
Ocasio-Cortez is one of several prominent figures to publicly cast blame on Cruz for his role in fomenting the deadly violence on Capitol Hill on 6 January. Seven Democratic senators have filed a formal complaint, urging the Senate ethics committee to investigate Cruz, along with the Missouri senator Josh Hawley, because of their efforts to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election.Hawley and Cruz were prominent among 147 Republican representatives and senators to vote against certifying the election results, even after the Capitol attack.Five people, including a police officer, died in the unrest. At least oneof the people charged in the attack had posted death threats against Ocasio-Cortez online.Meanwhile, lawmakers have continued to express fears for their safety amid relentless partisan friction. The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, on Thursday said members of Congress face threats of violence from an “enemy” within and called for additional funds to protect lawmakers.Asked to clarify what she meant, Pelosi said, “It means that we have members of Congress who want to bring guns on the floor and have threatened violence on other members of Congress. Several lawmakers who voted for this month’s House impeachment of Trump have reported receiving threats, and initial moves to enhance safety procedures have taken on clear partisan undertones. Some Republicans have loudly objected to having to pass through newly installed metal detectors before entering the House chamber, while Pelosi has proposed fining lawmakers who bypass the devices.Cruz’s office did not immediately respond to Ocasio-Cortez’s second tweet. A Robinhood spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawmakers’ criticism.Several lawmakers on Wednesday expressed their concerns over Robinhood’s decision to restrict trading in several social media-driven stocks that had soared this week. The issue had pit hedge funds and other short sellers against retail buyers, many motivated by commentary on sites such as Reddit.Ro Khanna, the Democratic congressman representing the Silicon Valley region, said in a statement: “While retail trading in some cases, like on Robinhood, blocked the purchasing of GameStop, hedge funds were still allowed to trade the stock. We need more regulation and equality in the markets.”“We’re done letting hedge fund billionaires treat the stock market like their personal playground, then taking their ball home as soon as they lose.”The US representative Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat, called the restriction “beyond absurd”.Tlaib urged on Twitter that Congress “have a hearing on Robinhood’s market manipulation. They’re blocking the ability to trade to protect Wall St. hedge funds, stealing millions of dollars from their users to protect people who’ve used the stock market as a casino for decades.”Ocasio-Cortez said the House financial services committee investigation should not be limited to Robinhood but “should examine any retail services freezing stock purchases in the course of potential investigations – especially those allowing sales, but freezing purchases”. More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyMcCarthy Seeks Thaw With Trump as G.O.P. Rallies Behind Former PresidentThe top House Republican met with former President Donald J. Trump, working to mend fences after saying that Mr. Trump bore responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Representative Kevin McCarthy tempered his initial criticism, saying that while former President Donald J. Trump bore “some responsibility” for the Capitol assault, so did “everybody across this country.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 28, 2021Updated 6:15 p.m. ETTwo weeks after Representative Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican, enraged Donald J. Trump by saying that he considered the former president responsible for the violent mob attack at the Capitol, the two men met on Thursday for what aides described as a “good and cordial” meeting, and sought to present a united front.The meeting at Mr. Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., came two weeks after Mr. McCarthy, in a speech on the House floor, said that the former president “bears responsibility” for the events of Jan. 6, when a throng of his supporters stormed the Capitol after a rally in which Mr. Trump urged them to “fight like hell” against his election defeat.It was the latest evidence that top Republicans, many of whom harshly criticized Mr. Trump after the assault, have quickly swung back into line behind him and are courting his support as he faces a second impeachment trial.While Mr. McCarthy, Republican of California, voted against the impeachment article, Mr. Trump was infuriated by the speech that he delivered just before doing so, advisers said.Aides to both men have been trying to broker a thaw between the two ever since, even as Mr. Trump has targeted other Republicans who criticized him more harshly for his role in the Capitol breach and voted in favor of impeaching him. They included Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican, who joined nine others in the party who voted in support of impeaching Mr. Trump on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.”Mr. Trump’s advisers have been seeking to highlight his remaining popularity with Republican voters as the Senate trial is set to begin in less than two weeks. All but five Republicans voted on Tuesday to toss out the impeachment case against him as unconstitutional, reflecting how reluctant members of his party are to abandon Mr. Trump even after he has left office.On Thursday, aides released a photograph of Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Trump posing together in one of the ornate rooms at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club, and issued a statement calling the meeting a “very good and cordial one.” The statement bore the hallmarks of Mr. Trump’s bombastic and often false assertions about himself, incorrectly claiming that his “popularity has never been stronger than it is today.”“His endorsement means more than perhaps any endorsement at any time,” the statement, issued by Mr. Trump’s Save America political action committee, added, saying that Mr. Trump had agreed to work with Mr. McCarthy to try to take back the House majority in 2022.Mr. McCarthy’s own statement was noticeably less focused on Mr. Trump personally and more on the broader effort to win House Republican seats.“Today, President Trump committed to helping elect Republicans in the House and Senate in 2022,” Mr. McCarthy said, adding, “A united conservative movement will strengthen the bonds of our citizens and uphold the freedoms our country was founded on.”Their meeting took place shortly before an ally of Mr. Trump, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, made an appearance in Wyoming to attack Ms. Cheney for her vote in favor of impeaching Mr. Trump. Mr. McCarthy was already in Florida for a fund-raising trip, and the meeting was added to his schedule, officials said.Mr. McCarthy, people close to him said, has been under attack from nearly every side, as members of his caucus who are allied with Mr. Trump have pushed to fight harder to defend him. After the speech that angered Mr. Trump, Mr. McCarthy tempered his criticism, saying he did not believe that the former president “provoked” the Capitol attack, and that while Mr. Trump bore “some responsibility,” so did “everybody across this country.”Mr. McCarthy has made no secret of his desire to be the speaker, which could happen if Republicans reclaimed the House.And his party is now in the unstable position of having a de facto leader in Mr. Trump, whose approval rating among all Americans is low, but who remains popular with a majority of its voters.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More