Debates (Political)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Andrew Giuliani’s Vaccination Status Will Bar Him From Debate Studio

      by

      The Republican candidate for governor of New York is unvaccinated and says he has “natural immunity” to the coronavirus.ALBANY — With the first Republican debate in the governor’s race scheduled for Monday night on WCBS-TV, the roster of in-person candidates has shrunk by one, as Andrew Giuliani — proudly unvaccinated against the coronavirus — announced on Sunday that he will not be allowed to attend.Mr. Giuliani, the son of the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, said on Sunday that he had been informed late last week that the station would not permit him in the studio unless he sent proof of his vaccination status — something he said he would not do and suggested might be unconstitutional.“I chose very clearly that I was not going to get the shot,” said Mr. Giuliani, 36, in an impromptu news conference on Sunday outside CBS headquarters in Manhattan, saying he had “looked at the data” on the vaccination and decided against it.As of Sunday, according to a New York Times database, 91 percent of New Yorkers of all ages have received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, and 78 percent of residents are fully vaccinated.Mr. Giuliani preceded his news conference by releasing a letter he sent to WCBS, the CBS network’s flagship affiliate, arguing that their policy was “arbitrary” and “serves to discriminate against a political candidate and their access to equal opportunity and religious liberty.”In a statement, WCBS said that its broadcast center requires that visitors are vaccinated against the coronavirus, and that the policy — which dates to last year — was made “in consultation with health care experts, government officials and the many unions representing our employees.”“Any candidate who doesn’t meet this requirement is encouraged to participate in Monday’s debate remotely,” the station said, adding it hoped the debate would “allow Republican candidates to share their views on matters of importance to the residents of New York State.”The debate is scheduled to feature other Republican candidates for governor, including Representative Lee M. Zeldin, the party’s anointed nominee; Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive; and Harry Wilson, a corporate turnaround expert.At Sunday’s news conference, Mr. Giuliani said he had “natural immunity” to Covid-19, which has killed more than one million Americans, and that he had offered to take multiple tests to prove he was not infected, but that he had nonetheless been disinvited from the debate.Instead, Mr. Giuliani said he would, in fact, participate virtually, a prospect that was almost immediately criticized by Mr. Zeldin, who tweeted that “the remote option is a nonstarter,” while adding “the reason to have him virtual is ridiculous.”Mr. Astorino echoed this, saying that “all four candidates should be onstage,” and that “discriminatory and unscientific vaccine mandates” wouldn’t prevent transmission of the disease. (The vaccines have been proven to prevent most serious cases of the disease.)Mr. Giuliani, who is making his first run for public office and has been regularly campaigning with his father, has argued that the candidates should debate almost every day before the June 28 primary, while also railing against mandates for emergency medical workers and others, something he reiterated on Sunday.“I’m obviously seeing consequences in what I believe is my informed decision on this,” he said, adding that if elected, he will “throw all of these mandates in the dust bin of history.” More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Takeaways From the N.Y. Governor Debate

      by

      The Democratic rivals of Gov. Kathy Hochul sought to attack her on varied issues, from the funding of a Buffalo Bills stadium to a decade-old endorsement from the N.R.A.Gov. Kathy Hochul took center stage on Tuesday night, finally facing her Democratic challengers in a debate that mostly played out as expected.Her rivals, Representative Thomas R. Suozzi of Long Island and Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, attacked the governor at every opportunity, but failed to land an instantly memorable moment that could rattle the race.Mr. Williams, a standard-bearer of the party’s left wing, brandished his populist message while casting himself as the candidate who felt New Yorkers’ pain, occasionally attempting to link Ms. Hochul to her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo.Mr. Suozzi, a vocal centrist, reminded viewers of his years of experience in local government, and repeatedly sought opportunities to blame Ms. Hochul for failing to address crime, which he said was the most concerning issue for New Yorkers.And Ms. Hochul strove to project the equanimity of a leader: cool under fire, and already at work tackling the state’s many pressing issues.Ms. Hochul, who holds a commanding lead in public polls and in fund-raising, did not try to score points off her opponents, seeking mostly to leave the arena unscathed. In this, she emerged largely successful, taking the expected hits on her past support for gun rights and handling of the Buffalo Bills stadium deal, but holding her own under intense fire from the left and the right.The moderators quizzed candidates on a smorgasbord of topics, from congestion pricing and secondhand marijuana smoke to whether they believed in ghosts (in a rare moment of consensus, all vouched for some form of life after death).Here are some takeaways from the evening’s debate:Candidates try out their messages on public safetyMs. Hochul came into the debate ready for her opponents to attack her on crime, and the preparation paid off. She rattled off her projects — from the interstate gun task force, to violence disrupter programs, to the 10 gun bills she signed into law earlier in the week — that demonstrated the power of incumbency. And she took ownership over the tweaks to the state’s bail laws that she had pushed for, describing in detail the way in which changes would provide judges discretion to consider a defendant’s dangerousness, by using a specific set of criteria.“I think what we gave the judges is better than this vague term that can be subjective and many times used against the individual because of the color of their skin,” Ms. Hochul said.Her response helped dilute the line of attack from Mr. Suozzi, who has placed crime at the center of his platform. He still insisted that the governor had done “nothing to fix bail reform.” He later stressed the need for a comprehensive mental health plan and argued that the police and social workers should be able to remove mentally ill people from the streets to get humane care and treatment.Mr. Williams agreed that there was a need for mental health support, but said that the police need not be responding to mental health crises. In a personal moment, he described being nearly removed from a train because of his Tourette’s syndrome, saying that his experiences would position him best to tackle public safety and mental illness with humanity.“These things are not theoretical to me,” he said. “It’s not just things I read about in the paper or see on TV. These are things that I’ve dealt with, my family’s dealt with, my constituents have dealt with.”Scrutiny of the Buffalo Bills stadium dealThere was one glaring subject that Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Williams brought up repeatedly during the debate: the deal Ms. Hochul struck with the Buffalo Bills in late March to subsidize the construction of a new N.F.L. stadium using $850 million in state and local funds.Ms. Hochul’s rivals sought to cast the deal — which some recent polls show could be unpopular among voters — as wasteful spending of taxpayer money at a time the state has other pressing needs.The deal made for a digestible talking point that Ms. Hochul’s foes used to criticize her — not only for its large price tag, but also for the secretive nature of the negotiations that led to the deal.Mr. Suozzi relentlessly pivoted to his attack lines on the Buffalo Bills, forcibly inserting the topic even when asked a question about abortion rights or about the prospect of a casino in Manhattan.“When it came to the Buffalo Bills stadium, she got something done that nobody thought could be done,” Mr. Suozzi said. “It was the most lucrative deal in the history of the N.F.L.”Mr. Williams accused Ms. Hochul of prioritizing the wealthy owners of the Buffalo Bills over investments in violence prevention programs or reducing inequality, saying “people are suffering” in Buffalo.Ms. Hochul repeatedly defended the deal, which was aimed at ensuring that the football team did not abandon the state. She cited the construction jobs it would create and said it “was the best we could do for the taxpayers of New York.”“Every part of the state has regional priorities,” she said. “The Buffalo Bills are the identity of western New York the way Broadway is to New York City. It’s part of who they are. I made sure that they’re going to stay there for the next 30 years.”Hochul’s decade-old courtship of the N.R.A.In 2012, Ms. Hochul won the backing of the National Rifle Association, an endorsement she was once very proud of but has since come to regret.Still, neither the moderators nor her opponents were able to push Ms. Hochul to extrapolate beyond the position she’s taken in the past — namely that it was in the past, and that she previously represented a very conservative House district in Western New York.“Where’s the principle in that?” Mr. Suozzi said of Ms. Hochul’s reference to political necessity. “I don’t understand that.”“We are 10 years behind because people in Congress were doing the bidding of the N.R.A.,” Mr. Williams said.Ms. Hochul says that she has evolved, and hopes that voters will judge her by her recent actions — like the gun safety legislation she signed into law — rather than past ones.But if voters are looking to impose a purity test on guns, Mr. Suozzi suggested that Ms. Hochul would fail.“All three of us up here support the gun legislation that’s been passed. It’s great. It’s wonderful. It’s fantastic,” Mr. Suozzi said at one point. “Only one of us standing up here has ever been endorsed by the N.R.A.”Hochul remained noncommittal on several issuesSince taking office, Ms. Hochul has been adept at avoiding positions on some of the most divisive policy issues in Albany, whether to avoid creating a political maelstrom, alienating voters or disrupting her negotiations with legislative leaders.She continued to thread that needle on Tuesday night, remaining noncommittal on a number of topics du jour.She said she was still considering whether to sign a recently passed bill that would impose a two-year moratorium on cryptocurrency mining at fossil fuel plants, insisting that donations and support from the cryptocurrency industry would not influence her decision.Asked whether the state should compensate families whose loved ones died in nursing homes during the pandemic, Ms. Hochul said it was something she was looking into, but that she would put together a blue ribbon commission to investigate the pandemic response in nursing homes. (Mr. Suozzi did not directly answer the question, while Mr. Williams said he supported compensation.)In other instances, she leaned on a philosophy of governing she has emphasized before: her desire to empower and respect the autonomy of local governments.She said, for example, that she respected New York City’s decision to allow people with green cards to vote in local elections, but would leave any expansion to localities. Mr. Suozzi said voting should be reserved for citizens, while Mr. Williams said noncitizens should be “civically engaged.”Asked whether a casino should be built in Manhattan, Ms. Hochul, a Buffalo native, said she would not place her “finger on the scale,” and would be “open-minded” to different locations for a new casino in the downstate region, where they were not previously authorized.Mr. Williams, who is from Brooklyn, said he wasn’t sure Manhattan would be the best place for a casino, while Mr. Suozzi said he was not opposed to it but emphasized the need for public hearings around such a decision.Measuring the damage done by Brian Benjamin’s arrestWhen Ms. Hochul’s former lieutenant governor, Brian A. Benjamin, was arrested on federal bribery and fraud charges in April, many political analysts predicted that his arrest could upend and jeopardize the governor’s campaign and her comfortable lead in public polls.Ms. Hochul had handpicked Mr. Benjamin, a former state senator from Harlem, as her lieutenant governor and running mate last year. But her team’s flawed vetting process of Mr. Benjamin overlooked, and failed to uncover, ethical red flags that eventually led to his arrest.Ms. Hochul, however, has trudged on: She recently appointed Antonio Delgado, a former congressman from the Hudson Valley, as her new lieutenant governor, and successfully removed Mr. Benjamin’s name from the ballot.On Tuesday night, Mr. Benjamin’s name, and the corruption scandal that led to his demise, barely registered, even if Mr. Suozzi sporadically sought to link his arrest to what he described as Ms. Hochul’s failure to fully clean up corruption in Albany.Ms. Hochul described Mr. Benjamin’s arrest and subsequent resignation as a disappointment.“I promised the voters of New York and the people of the state that I would do everything I can to restore their faith in government,” she said. “That was a setback.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch For in NY Governor Debate Between Hochul and Top Rivals

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul will be a target for Rep. Tom Suozzi and Jumaane Williams in the first of two debates featuring the three leading Democrats.ALBANY, N.Y. — The first official debate in the Democratic primary for governor of New York took place last week with little attention or fanfare, and perhaps for good reason: The favorite in the race, Gov. Kathy Hochul, was not in attendance.That will change on Tuesday, with the first of two debates scheduled among Ms. Hochul and her two main party rivals, Representative Thomas R. Suozzi of Long Island and Jumaane D. Williams, New York City’s public advocate.The one-hour debate, which will be hosted and broadcast by WCBS-TV, will provide the candidates a chance to introduce themselves to voters and to road-test their arguments against Ms. Hochul, who, with the June 28 primary only three weeks away, carries a commanding lead in the polls.But the same polls show areas of concern among voters — including fears about crime and disapproval of the hefty government subsidy going to a new Buffalo Bills stadium — that could hint at potential weak spots in the governor’s armor.The two-man debate last week was more of a shared opportunity for Mr. Williams and Mr. Suozzi to lace into Ms. Hochul, offering a glimpse at the attack lines they are likely to use in the debate on Tuesday and on the campaign trail.How will Ms. Hochul fend off the attacks she has now seen previewed? Will the nonaggression pact between Mr. Suozzi and Mr. Williams on display last week hold? Is there still time for a breakthrough moment that could change the shape of the race?Here’s a look at the candidates, and some of the main issues they will grapple over.A focus on crimeEven before the mass shootings in Buffalo, Tulsa and Uvalde, Texas,, addressing gun violence was a priority for New York politicians, and it has now taken on even greater urgency.Mr. Suozzi has placed fighting crime at the center of his platform, releasing a 15-point plan and repeatedly demanding rollbacks to changes made in recent years to New York’s bail laws that were meant to reduce the number of people incarcerated over a lack of bail money. One feature of Mr. Suozzi’s plan involves giving judges discretion in assessing a defendant’s “dangerousness” when setting bail.Ms. Hochul made similar proposals during the most recent legislative session, securing a few changes but finding opposition to others in the left-leaning Legislature. She is likely to trumpet these modifications, as well as the package of gun-safety bills she recently signed into law, as evidence that her administration has made progress in containing gun violence.On the other side of the issue is Mr. Williams, who has argued against rolling back the bail reforms and has said state agencies and community groups can “co-create” public safety, if provided with the appropriate funding.Suozzi will cast himself as the experienced executiveFor much of the campaign, Mr. Suozzi has rarely missed an opportunity to question Ms. Hochul’s capability, and to imply that New Yorkers are unsafe under her leadership.This tactic has the potential to both help and hurt Mr. Suozzi, political observers say. On one hand, he is well positioned to point out Ms. Hochul’s inconsistencies, such as criticizing Washington for doing little on gun safety when she was hardly a gun-reform advocate during her time in Congress, even earning an N.R.A. endorsement at one point.But by striking too hard, Mr. Suozzi could risk coming across as bullying or dismissive, analysts said — particularly dangerous given the makeup of New York’s Democratic primary electorate.“Look, 58 to 60 percent of the primary voters in this election are going to be female,” said Bruce Gyory, a Democratic political consultant, adding that “an awful lot of them are highly educated, professional women who really bristle at the mansplaining.”Mr. Suozzi has emphasized his background as Nassau County executive and mayor of Glen Cove, suggesting that he is best equipped to lead the state as an experienced executive.In addition to his focus on making changes to the bail laws, Mr. Suozzi has said he would push to lower property taxes and to make state government to do what it can to make New York more attractive to business.Those stances place him in ideological territory that is very similar to Ms. Hochul’s. Perhaps that is why Mr. Suozzi has struggled to make headway in polls or in fund-raising thus far, raising $3.5 million in the latest reporting period, compared with Ms. Hochul’s more than $10 million.Williams has the progressive lane to himselfAs the only far-left candidate in an increasingly progressive state, Mr. Williams has a clear path before him. He also has experience running against Ms. Hochul: In 2018, he lost to her in a competitive race for lieutenant governor.Yet his campaign for governor has failed thus far to build momentum, raising just $250,000 in the last filing period.At last week’s debate, Mr. Williams refrained from taking swipes at Mr. Suozzi, saving his barbs for the governor. He repeatedly suggested that Ms. Hochul’s six years as lieutenant governor to Andrew M. Cuomo, who resigned last year amid allegations of sexual misconduct, had made her complicit in some of his more unpopular policies.Mr. Williams has also said Ms. Hochul should have more to show from her time in office, citing the lack of access to food and transit options in the mostly Black Buffalo neighborhood where last month’s mass shooting took place as proof that she had done little for constituents in her hometown.In the debate on Tuesday, political analysts suggested, Mr. Williams will need to attack without overreaching. But more than that, he will be hoping for a breakthrough moment that could put his candidacy and ideas — like public power, free public college and an approach to public safety that is based on community building, rather than policing — into the conversation.But that is easier said than done, said Steve Israel, a former congressman from Long Island who once ran the House Democrats’ campaign arm and has endorsed Ms. Hochul.“Unless you have a grenade with a pin pulled halfway out, it’s hard to break through,” he said.Hochul will practice risk managementThe calculus for Ms. Hochul is the opposite. Armed with the power of incumbency, a slate of endorsements from powerful unions and an $18.6 million campaign war chest, she will be doing all she can to maintain the race’s current dynamics.Ms. Hochul is likely to seek to highlight the wins she earned in the most recent legislative session, including gun-safety and abortion rights legislation and a gas tax holiday, while trying to steer the debate away from controversy.It will not be easy. Her first lieutenant governor, Brian Benjamin, resigned after being indicted on federal bribery charges; the Bills stadium deal was heavily criticized; and the fund-raising records she has set in her first year in office have raised questions about her relationship with big donors.The debate will provide her opponents a chance to press for answers to difficult questions on live television. Still, if she is able to fend off attacks from the left and right, strategists said, she will be well positioned to claim a middle ground.“Her best-case scenario is status quo,” said Evan Stavisky, the president of the Parkside Group, a political consulting firm.“She needs to forcefully defend herself because she’s likely to be the focus of contrast from her opponents,” he said. “She needs to talk about her successes, and to get out of there without changing the fundamental dynamics of the race.”Bolstering New York’s economyAnother crucial question for candidates is how to breathe life into the state’s economy, especially as New York continues to recover from the worst effects of the coronavirus pandemic and some residents leave for other states.Each candidate has different explanations for why people have flowed out. Mr. Suozzi blames crime and taxes. Mr. Williams points to an overall rise in prices and to employers that force workers back to offices. He suggests the state should embrace a “new normal.”Ms. Hochul has tried to thread the needle, pledging to make New York the most “business-friendly and worker-friendly state in the nation.” How successful she has been will no doubt be a subject of much debate. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      A Potential Loosening of New York’s Gun Restrictions Looms

      by

      The Supreme Court is poised to rule on a law that gives local officials discretion over who can carry a handgun in the state.Good morning. It’s Tuesday. We’ll look at why gun restrictions in New York could be loosened if the Supreme Court strikes down a state law that gives officials discretion over permits for handguns. We’ll also look at tonight’s debate in the Democratic race for governor.Dakota Santiago for The New York TimesYesterday we looked at a state gun law that allows the authorities to remove weapons from the home of someone who has made a threat.Today our focus is on a different gun law in New York State, one that gives local officials discretion over who can carry a handgun. Officials are bracing for the U. S. Supreme Court to strike it down — and for the consequences in cities like New York, where a jump in gun crimes accompanied the pandemic.My colleague Jonah E. Bromwich writes that if the court invalidates the New York law, obtaining a handgun legally could become far easier.“A lot more people are going to now want to go out and get guns — and for all the wrong reasons,” Richard Aborn, the president of the nonprofit Citizens Crime Commission, told Jonah. “I have people telling me they decided to get a gun that I never dreamed would go out and get a gun. They’re not going to use it illegally, but they’re feeling this need to arm themselves in a way that I’ve not seen before.”Aborn also warned that minor confrontations could turn deadly if more New Yorkers arm themselves.The case before the court was brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The case involves two men from upstate New York who sought unrestricted licenses to carry handguns.They were given restricted licenses, allowing them to carry guns for hunting and target shooting; one of them was also allowed to carry a gun to and from work. But they were denied unrestricted licenses because they did not show “proper cause” as defined by the law, which says that someone seeking such a permit must demonstrate a heightened need to carry a gun.Lawyers for the rifle and pistol association challenged the process, arguing that the denial was unconstitutional under recent decisions by the court involving the Second Amendment.Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun lobbying group, echoed the argument that the law gives local officials too much latitude last week as he told Jonah, “New York’s concerns are unfounded and violate our rights and leave New Yorkers disarmed in the face of evil.”The court could rule that New York’s current standard is too strict or too vague. Either way, New York officials would probably respond by drafting a new law that met the ruling’s specifications. Gov. Kathy Hochul has already said she would consider calling a special session of the State Legislature if the court were to invalidate the statute.WeatherThe day will start out mostly sunny with temperatures near the high 70s. Then expect a chance of showers and thunderstorms late at night, with temps dropping to the high 60s.ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKINGIn effect until June 20 (Juneteenth).Three Democratic candidates, one debateTonight’s one-hour debate, originating from WCBS-TV (Channel 2 in New York), will give Gov. Kathy Hochul and her two main party rivals — Representative Thomas Suozzi of Long Island and Jumaane Williams, New York City’s public advocate — an opportunity to introduce themselves. It will also give Suozzi and Williams a chance to try out their arguments against Hochul.With the June 28 primary only three weeks away, she has a commanding lead in the polls.[What to Watch for as Hochul Faces Rivals in N.Y. Governor’s Debate]My colleague Grace Ashford says one issue that’s sure to come up is crime. Even before the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and elsewhere, dealing with gun violence was a priority for New York politicians. Suozzi has demanded a rollback of recent changes to New York’s bail laws. His 15-point plan for fighting crime includes giving judges discretion in assessing a defendant’s “dangerousness” when setting bail.Hochul made similar proposals during the most recent legislative session, winning some changes but encountering opposition to others in the left-leaning Legislature.Williams has argued for keeping the changes to the bail law, saying that state agencies and community groups can “co-create” public safety if provided with the appropriate funding.The latest New York storiesJingyu Lin for The New York TimesThe Tony AwardsPortraits of the nominees: As Broadway embarked on its road to recovery, these 45 theater artists helped pave the way.The decades-long journey of a musical: Vulture traces the “countless loop the loops” of the Pulitzer Prize-winning musical, “A Strange Loop.”More Arts & CultureA life in rock ’n’ roll: The “Lou Reed: Caught Between the Twisted Stars” exhibit offers glimpses of a life in rock ’n’ roll and tracks the evolution of one of music’s polarizing legends.100 tips on eating in the city: Grub Street’s diner-at-large, Tammie Teclemariam, aims to visit as many restaurants as possible within a year. Five months in and 200 food spots down, she shares 100 things she’s learned, Grub Street reports.Making “Fire Island”: The writer and star of “Fire Island,” Joel Kim Booster, reflects on making the rare romantic comedy that puts gay Asian American men at its center.Miles walked: 7,024. Bagel shops reviewed: 202.via Mike VarleyMike Varley’s plan was to walk 7,000 miles in New York City — 26.2 miles a day, five days a week, for a year. Rating bagel shops along the way was an afterthought.Off he went in June 2020 with Jessi Highet, a clothing designer who dyes her own textiles. More about her later.They trudged. They strutted. They tiptoed.“Pretty early on, I recognized that we were going to be in every neighborhood in New York City,” he said, “and I was going to have to eat.”He figured that every neighborhood had a bagel store and that he could work off the calories.“The only way it’s appropriate for somebody to be eating three bagels a week is if you’re walking five marathons a week,” he said.They tramped. They traipsed. They strolled.The idea to do five marathon walks a week in New York came up while they were on vacation, walking from the Pacific Ocean to Olympia, Wash. He proposed the idea.“She said, predictably, ‘You’re crazy,’” he recalled. This was not what she said when he proposed something else. More about that later, too.Back home in Bushwick, they spent 18 months mapping out a year’s worth of walks. He quit his job as a producer at a video-game company in February 2020, expecting to start looping around the city in March. The pandemic shutdown postponed the first step 90 days.They ambled. They rambled. They shambled.He developed his own system for rating bagels. “My credentials as a food person are limited to an enthusiasm for bagels, really,” he said. “I have no culinary diplomas or anything like that.”After 7,024 miles, he had reviews in on 155 bagel stores — not enough, he decided. “It wasn’t that we didn’t hit the neighborhoods,” he said, “it was that we didn’t necessarily hit the bagel stores.” He set out on a second marathon that he called “a gorge-fest,” visiting 55 more bagel shops. The highest score went to P & C Bagels in Middle Village, Queens. Here is how Varley described the bagel he had there: “The outside was crusty. The inside was doughy. The topping coverage was dense. The salt ratio was excellent.”But he acknowledged that it might not necessarily be everybody’s favorite. “Bagels are so good in New York City that anything above a 4 in my system has a possibility of being the best for you if it’s the place where they know your name,” he said.They plodded. They pranced. And, on the last day of their walkathon, they got married, in Marine Park in Brooklyn, after going the usual distance on foot. They planned stops along the way where guests could join them — including one at a bar in Bushwick where bagels were catered from P & C.METROPOLITAN diaryEmpty seatDear Diary:Rushing wearily onto a packed 6 train after a long day, I spotted an empty seat across from the door. I beelined toward it, hoping no one else would get there first.Feeling smug, I sat down and began to look around. Glancing at the man sitting next to me, I saw that he had what appeared to be an albino snake wrapped around his neck. Its head was resting on one of the man’s arms and facing me.I stared in disbelief, wondering if it was a real snake because it wasn’t moving.Just then, it flicked its tongue out at me.You have never seen anyone jump up so fast and move as far as possible.No wonder no one had taken the seat.— Anna SanidadIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Candidates Try to Outdo One Another on ‘Woke Mob’ in Schools

      by

      Georgia’s race for governor perfectly captures the degree to which the classroom has become a conservative battleground.On Sunday, the Republican candidates gathered for their third and final debate before the May 24 primary. Some promoted the lie that Donald Trump had won in 2020 and called for tighter election security (another way of articulating a desire to suppress votes). Several railed against Covid mandates (especially masks) and stoked fears of rising crime.There were the obligatory mentions of the “woke mob” and random mentions of George Soros. There was even a reference to “the communist, liberal, leftist agenda of the Green New Deal.” (One candidate suggested that the government was pushing Chinese solar panels on Georgia farmers as part of its “communist” agenda.)But, more than anything else, the supposed indoctrination of children in schools took center stage.I’m not sure that liberals and Democrats fully appreciate the degree to which Republicans are promoting parental rights as a way of wooing back some of the suburban white women who strayed from the party during the Trump years.Democrats wave their list of policies at voters like a self-satisfied child waves their homework. But instead of being met with praise and stickers, they are met by an electorate in which an alarming number frowns on fact and is electrified by emotions — fear, anger and envy.There were five candidates onstage during the debate, and four of the five — including the sitting governor, Brian Kemp, and his chief competitor, former Senator David Perdue — rattled on about classroom indoctrination.As Kemp put it: “We’re going to make sure that we pass a bill this year that our kids aren’t indoctrinated in the classroom. That we protect them from obscene materials and a lot of the other things.”Perdue followed up by going even further: “Right now, the No. 1 thing we can do for our teachers and our parents and most of all our children is to get the woke mob out of our schools in Georgia. I mean, that’s what’s happening right now. We have a war for the minds of our children. When they’re trying to teach first graders about gender choice, that’s the thing that we’ve got to stand up to.”On the debate stage, from left, Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, former Senator David Perdue and Kandiss Taylor.Pool photo by Brynn AndersonAnother candidate, Kandiss Taylor, an educator herself, went further still. “We not only have C.R.T. and S.E.L. and comprehensive sex education teaching transgender perversion to our children,” she said, referring to critical race theory and social-emotional learning, “we also have anti-white racism that has not been addressed by the current administration. It has taken over our schools, and it’s ruining the students. It’s ruining the environment.”S.E.L. is a teaching technique that, research suggests, can boost academic performance. But it is a practice that conservatives view with suspicion, thinking it could abet lessons about race and gender. God forbid children should become more emotionally intelligent. Their empathy might grow, and with it a better understanding of others. In that way, I can understand why it would unnerve oppressors.In her closing comments, Taylor ratcheted up her inflammatory language: “We’re going to ensure that boys aren’t in our girls’ bathrooms and girls aren’t in our boys’ bathrooms, and people aren’t being raped. And we’re going to get rid of kindergarten teachers — men with beards and lipstick and high heels — teaching our children. We’re going to get back to being moral in Georgia.”As a white woman, and mother of three, Taylor is in the demographic that Republicans are trying to attract. But she is also a near-perfect encapsulation of the party’s fringe.During the debate, she chastised Kemp for not contesting the 2020 results in Georgia, saying: “Donald Trump won. He won. We have a fraudulent pedophile in the White House because Governor Kemp failed.” The idea that Satan-worshiping pedophiles are running the country is a central belief of QAnon.The day after the debate, Taylor tweeted a video with a caption that read in part: “I am the ONLY candidate bold enough to stand up to the Luciferian Cabal. Elect me governor of Georgia, and I will bring the Satanic Regime to its knees.”As ominous music plays in the background, she shifts from satanic cabals to human sacrifice, saying: “Back in biblical times, human sacrifice was a form of demonic worship. We’re still doing it, in present day, by killing our unborn. It’s the same demons. It’s the same sacrifice. It’s the same sin. It’s just a different time.”She is endorsed by Mike Lindell, the Trump-supporting MyPillow C.E.O., and L. Lin Wood, the Trump lawyer who spun ludicrous conspiracies about the 2020 election being stolen from Trump.It might be tempting to laugh off people like Taylor as fringe candidates and thinkers, but Republicans have a way of folding those people’s ideas — scrubbed of the originators’ taint — into the mainstream. Even when the messenger is wrong, the party often views the message as right.Maybe the fact that the Supreme Court seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade will dramatically alter the outcome of this year’s elections, pushing women — including many of the suburban white women Republicans are so desperate to win over — to vote against the Republicans in protest. Maybe.It could affect not only party alignments, but also turnout.But Republicans are more than a year into this parental rights campaign, so I doubt their strategy will be much altered. The question will be whether the oppression of women’s rights will outweigh what the Republicans are pushing: oppression as a parental right.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Overnight, Midterms Get a White-Hot New Focus: Abortion

      by

      Exultant Republicans planned new bans. Democrats, who have struggled to rally around abortion rights, hoped a bruising Supreme Court loss could jolt their voters into action.A leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade instantly propelled the debate over abortion into the white-hot center of American politics, emboldening Republicans across the country and leaving Democrats scrambling to jolt their voters into action six months before the midterm elections.Although the Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed that the draft opinion was not final, the prospect that the nation’s highest court was on the cusp of invalidating the constitutional right to abortion was a crowning moment for Republicans who are already enjoying momentum in the fight for control of Congress, statehouses and governor’s offices. Republican state leaders on Tuesday announced plans to further tighten restrictions on the procedure — or outlaw it outright — once the final ruling lands in the coming months.Democrats, reeling from the blow and divided over whom to blame, hoped the news would serve as a painful reality check for voters who have often taken abortion rights for granted and struggled to mobilize on the issue with the passion of abortion rights opponents. They said they planned to drive home the stakes in the fall, particularly in state races, putting abortion rights on the November ballot in key contests in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and other battlegrounds.“People were concerned about the lack of energy for voters in the midterms and not coming out to vote — well, the Supreme Court has just handed us a reason for people to vote,” said Representative Susan Wild, a Pennsylvania Democrat who faces a competitive re-election.“At one time I would have said they’re never going to take away right to contraception. But I don’t believe that anymore,” she said.Independent voters have overwhelmingly soured on President Biden, and many core Democratic constituencies have shown signs of trouble. Some party strategists privately cautioned against the idea that even something as seismic as overturning Roe would surpass the importance of the economy and inflation with many voters, something Republicans argued publicly.“Conventional wisdom right now is this helps Democrats because it will spur turnout, but it also could certainly spur turnout for base Republicans,” said Glen Bolger, a Republican strategist. “Generally most voters focus on the economy, for instance, and right now of course, inflation is dominant.”A woman writing a message supporting abortion rights before a protest on Tuesday in Manhattan.Caitlin Ochs for The New York TimesAn anti-abortion protester on Tuesday outside the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Jackson, Miss.Rory Doyle for The New York TimesBut polling also shows that Americans strongly oppose completely overturning Roe v. Wade — 54 percent of Americans think the Roe decision should be upheld while 28 percent believe it should be overturned, a new Washington Post-ABC poll found. Democrats argue that many voters have long believed it was not truly in danger of being gutted. The draft opinion may change their calculus in meaningful ways, especially with suburban women and disillusioned base voters, those strategists say.“It hasn’t ever been that voters don’t care about it,” said Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster and strategist, and the president of Impact Research. “It’s been concluded that it’s less effective because voters don’t believe that it could actually go away. And so with what the Supreme Court is signaling they’re about to do, is completely change and eliminate that sort of theory of the mobilizing power of abortion.”Understand the Challenge to Roe v. WadeThe Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could be the most consequential to women’s access to abortion since 1973.The Arguments: After hearing arguments in December, the court appeared poised to uphold the Mississippi law at the center of the case that could overturn Roe v. Wade.Under Scrutiny: In overturning Roe v. Wade, would the justices be following their oath to uphold the Constitution or be engaging in political activism? Here is what legal scholars think.An America Without Roe: The changes created by the end of abortion rights at the federal level would mostly be felt by poor women in Republican states.An Extraordinary Breach: The leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade suggests an internal disarray at odds with the decorum prized by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.Familiar Arguments: The draft opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., draws on two decades-old conservative critiques of the Roe v. Wade decision.Legislative Activity: Some Republican-led state legislatures have already moved to advance abortion restrictions ahead of the court’s decision. Here is a look at those efforts.Without the court’s protection for abortion rights, states would be free to enforce their own restrictions or protections. That patchwork system is likely to shift the focus to governor’s races, where a state’s executive could have an outsize role in determining whether abortion is legal.Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general and a candidate for governor, said he would veto any legislation restricting access to abortions.Matt Rourke/Associated PressIn Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, the state attorney general and Democratic candidate for governor, signaled that he planned to seize on the looming threat to Roe to cast himself as a one-man firewall against abortion rights opponents in his state. On Tuesday, he pledged to veto any legislation from the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature that would restrict abortion access.“Every Pennsylvanian should be able to raise a family on their own terms,” Mr. Shapiro said. “And that means deciding if and when and how they want to do that.”But for all the talk from Democrats about abortion being on the ballot this fall, Mr. Shapiro’s race is the exception. Far more states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin, all have laws on the books effectively banning abortion that would go into effect once Roe is invalidated. The November elections are unlikely to give Democrats the numbers to reverse those.In Wisconsin, for example, an 1849 law made performing an abortion a felony unless the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother. That law remains on the books, though several of the state’s Republican candidates for governor have endorsed proposals to eliminate any exceptions to the ban.On Tuesday afternoon, Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin sent a letter, signed by 15 fellow Democratic governors, urging Congress to enact federal abortion protections — a plea that is almost certain to go unmet.Although Mr. Evers won’t be able to make the case that he can save abortion protections in Wisconsin, he will argue that he can make other key decisions about how much the machinery of the state is used toward investigations and prosecutions of abortions, said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia played up a 2019 law that bans abortions in the state after six weeks.Alyssa Pointer/ReutersRepublicans were celebrating as they appeared on the cusp of victory. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican facing stiff primary and general election challenges, took a victory lap Tuesday, playing up a 2019 state law that bans abortion in the state after six weeks. The law has been held up in a federal appeals court awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision.“We are the voice of all those people that are out there and have been in the trenches for decades doing this and we’re glad to be in the fight with them,” Mr. Kemp said during a radio interview Tuesday.In South Dakota, Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican believed to have presidential ambitions, said Tuesday that she would immediately call for a special session to outlaw abortion in her state. Attorney General Eric Schmitt of Missouri said a broad ban on abortions in the state was just a signature away from enactment if Roe is in fact overturned. The speaker of the Nebraska Legislature told colleagues to expect a special session on abortion following the Supreme Court’s decision.Democrats running for Senate renewed calls to put Roe’s abortion protections into federal law and change the Senate rules, if necessary, to do it. Although Democrats currently control the Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote, they do not appear to have the votes to codify a woman’s right to an abortion, a major point of contention and blame-shifting among Democrats.Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia said Tuesday that he was still opposed to any changes to the filibuster, effectively ending any Democratic hopes of passing an abortion bill.Still, Democratic candidates signaled they planned to continue to promise to fight to codify Roe.“Democrats have to act quickly and get rid of the filibuster,” said Lt. Gov. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who is running for Senate, to “finally codify Roe into law. We cannot afford to wait.”Kina Collins, a Democrat in a primary for a House seat in Chicago, called on the party’s leaders to “fight like our lives depend on it.”“There is no place in this party for Democrats who will not,” she said.Sensing the potential harm of yet another intraparty skirmish, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, the chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, warned against blaming fellow Democrats.“Focusing on what’s wrong with Democrats in the Senate or elsewhere is (another) circular firing squad,” Mr. Maloney wrote on Twitter. “We can only end the filibuster, pass real protections for choice IF WE WIN more power.”Trip Gabriel contributed reporting. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Front-Runners in G.O.P. Pennsylvania Senate Race Are Put on Spot at Debate

      by

      Dr. Mehmet Oz and David McCormick, when not sparring with each other, faced attacks from three other challengers.When the leading Republican candidates for Senate in Pennsylvania — the Trump-endorsed celebrity surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz and David McCormick, a former hedge fund executive — shared a debate stage for the first time on Monday night, they faced sharp attacks not only from each other but also from three other candidates vying to chip away at their polling lead.With few substantive policy disagreements among the five candidates, attacks instead addressed how long each had lived in Pennsylvania (for Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick, not much, recently); past commitments to other countries; and Dr. Oz’s statements during the early months of the coronavirus pandemic encouraging people to wear masks — now a verboten position among the Republican faithful.Dr. Oz rarely failed to remind viewers that he had won an endorsement from former President Donald J. Trump, a victory he used to proclaim himself the true “America First” candidate in the race. His rivals disputed the designation.“The reason Mehmet keeps talking about President Trump’s endorsement is because he can’t run on his own positions and his own record,” Mr. McCormick said. “The problem, doctor, is there’s no miracle cure for flip-flopping, and Pennsylvanians are seeing right through your phoniness and that’s what you’re dealing with and that’s why you’re not taking off in the polls.”The latest public polls of the race, when taken together, show Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick locked in a near tie for the lead ahead of the May 17 primary, a fact that was close to the minds of their rivals Monday.The three others on stage — Kathy Barnette, a political commentator who has written a book about being Black and conservative; Jeff Bartos, a real estate developer; and Carla Sands, who was Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Denmark — sought to attack the front-runners both individually and as a pair of carpetbaggers trying to buy a Senate seat.“The two out-of-staters, the two tourists who moved here to run, they don’t know Main Street Pennsylvania,” Mr. Bartos said. “They haven’t cared to spend time there until they decided to run for office.”The Cleveland-born Dr. Oz, a son of Turkish immigrants who attended the University of Pennsylvania for business and medical schools and who has spent most of his adult life living in New York and New Jersey, recently changed his voting address to his in-laws’ home in the Philadelphia suburbs.Mr. McCormick, who was born and raised in western Pennsylvania, moved back to the state from Connecticut, where he served as chief executive of Bridgewater Associates, a hedge fund.The debate also reflected the efforts of the second-tier candidates to make jingoistic appeals while painting Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick as having loyalties to other nations ahead of the United States. Ms. Sands, who also moved back to Pennsylvania ahead of the Senate race, said neither could be trusted to place America first.She said that Dr. Oz was “Turkey first,” adding, “He served in the Turkish military, not the U.S. military, and he chose to do that. He chose to put Turkey first.” She said that Mr. McCormick “is China first. He made his fortune in China, and he is China first.”Dr. Oz defended his stint in the Turkish military as compulsory to maintain his Turkish citizenship, which he said he needed in order to visit his mother in the country. Mr. McCormick said his international business career would be a benefit to decision-making in the Senate.The Republicans vying for the Senate in Pennsylvania, clockwise from top left: Kathy Barnette, Jeff Bartos, Dave McCormick, Carla Sands and Mehmet Oz. Matt Rourke/Associated PressAnd Ms. Barnette reflected the other candidates’ attempts to appeal to Trump voters. She even included a rare — for Republican primary circles — critique of the former president.“MAGA does not belong to President Trump,” she said, using the acronym for Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan, Make America Great Again. “Our values never, never shifted to President Trump’s values. It was President Trump who shifted and aligned with our values.”The debate demonstrated how a commitment to Mr. Trump serves as the centerpiece for the Oz campaign. He mentioned the former president’s endorsement in nearly all of his responses, and, while Mr. McCormick dodged a question about whether Republicans should “move off 2020” and stop discussing Mr. Trump’s defeat, Dr. Oz said the party must lean into the false claims surrounding the 2020 election.“We cannot move on,” Dr. Oz said. “There were draconian changes made to our voting laws by Democratic leadership, and they have blocked appropriate reviews of some of those decisions. We have to be serious about what happened in 2020, and we won’t be able to address that until we can really look under the hood.”Monday’s debate was the first to feature the race’s two front-runners after Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick skipped a televised debate in February. Both entered the race after the previous Trump-endorsed candidate, Sean Parnell, a former Army Ranger who received the Purple Heart for his service in Afghanistan, dropped out in November after losing a child custody dispute with his estranged wife. Both Dr. Oz and Mr. McCormick have primarily funded their campaigns themselves. According to the most recent campaign finance reports, $11 million of the $13.4 million Dr. Oz has raised has come from his own pocket. Mr. McCormick has given his campaign $7 million of the $11.3 million he has raised.For months the two engaged in fierce public and private campaigns to win the affection of Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump this month chose Dr. Oz, playing up his success as a television show host while also being wary of Mr. McCormick’s past business dealings in China.Pennsylvania Democrats have their own contested primary between John Fetterman, the lieutenant governor and the front-runner; Representative Conor Lamb; and Malcolm Kenyatta, a state representative from Philadelphia. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Kemp and Perdue Debate, Looking Back at 2020 and Ahead to Abrams

      by

      Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and his Republican primary opponent, former Senator David Perdue, bickered over the previous election — and over who would be more likely to defeat Stacey Abrams in November. ATLANTA — Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and former Senator David Perdue, a former ally who is challenging him in the Republican primary next month, met in an explosive first debate on Sunday night that was marked by a lengthy rehashing of the 2020 election’s outcome and testy attacks each other’s veracity.During the hourlong exchange, the candidates sparred over their conservative bona fides, a handful of policy issues popular on the right and who would ultimately be the stronger candidate against Stacey Abrams in November.Mr. Perdue, who was defeated in a runoff last year by Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, repeatedly echoed former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 election had been “stolen and rigged” against the two of them, though multiple ballot recounts confirmed they had lost fair and square. Mr. Perdue, who was endorsed by Mr. Trump to challenge Mr. Kemp in the May 24 primary, assailed Mr. Kemp for refusing to call a special Georgia legislative session to try to overturn the election’s results.Mr. Perdue insisted he would still be a sitting United States senator if Mr. Kemp hadn’t “caved.”But when Mr. Perdue claimed that he had repeatedly asked Mr. Kemp to call such a special session, the governor pushed back forcefully, reminding voters of the many days he and his family had spent on Mr. Perdue’s campaign bus, trying in vain to help him win a second term. “Folks, he never asked me,” Mr. Kemp said. And when Mr. Perdue repeatedly accused the governor of lying, Mr. Kemp challenged him to produce witnesses to back up his claims.Each man portrayed the other unfavorably in light of 2020: Mr. Perdue said Mr. Kemp had betrayed Republican voters by failing to overturn the election, and Mr. Kemp pointed to Mr. Perdue’s loss to Mr. Ossoff as proof that he is too weak to defeat Ms. Abrams, the Democrat who narrowly lost to Mr. Kemp in 2018 and is making a second run for governor this year.Ms. Abrams’s candidacy loomed large over the entire evening, as both men underlined the danger they said she posed to Georgia if she wound up in the governor’s mansion. While Mr. Kemp holds a double-digit lead over Mr. Perdue in several polls, Mr. Perdue sought to remind voters of Mr. Kemp’s 1.4-percentage-point victory margin in 2018.“He barely beat Stacey Abrams in ’18, when I helped him secure President Trump’s endorsement, which he still today doesn’t think helped him at all,” Mr. Perdue said. The slugfest never let up, as a focus on Georgia policy issues in the debate’s second half-hour devolved into a fight over who was more authentically conservative, each candidate seeking to outflank the other from the right on education, public safety and jobs. Mr. Kemp doubled down on his support for a bill that prohibits teaching of “divisive concepts” on race and history, saying that Republicans in the state “passed this piece of legislation to make sure that our kids are not going to be indoctrinated in our schools,” and that curriculums should focus on “the facts, not somebody’s ideology.”But Mr. Perdue accused Mr. Kemp of abrogating his responsibility to protect students, parents and teachers alike. “They need to make sure that the woke mob’s not taking over the schools, and you’ve left them high and dry,” he said, asserting that the Atlanta schools were “teaching kids that voter ID is racist.”Answering a question about Latino voters, Mr. Perdue criticized Mr. Kemp’s record on immigration, recalling a 2018 campaign ad in which Mr. Kemp promised to use his own pickup truck to “round up illegals.” “Governor, what happened? Your pickup break down?” Mr. Perdue asked.Mr. Kemp said that the Covid-19 pandemic had intervened, saying that “picking up” people would only have helped spread infection in the state — and then reminded voters, for the umpteenth time, of Mr. Perdue’s defeat last year.“The fact is, if you hadn’t lost your race to Jon Ossoff, we wouldn’t have lost control of the Senate, and we wouldn’t have the disaster that we have in Washington right now,” Mr. Kemp said.A few clear-cut policy rifts did come into view over Georgia-specific issues.The two took opposite views of a new factory to produce electric trucks that is being built by Rivian Automotive in the state. Mr. Kemp exalted the project for the thousands of jobs it is expected to create, while Mr. Perdue cited an investment by the Democratic megadonor George Soros to dismiss Rivian as a “woke company,” saying that the project would redirect Georgians’ tax dollars into Mr. Soros’s pocket.Mr. Perdue attacked Mr. Kemp from several angles over rising crime in Atlanta, saying the governor had shrunk the size of the Georgia State Patrol and faulting him for failing to get behind an effort by some residents of Atlanta’s wealthy Buckhead neighborhood, alarmed about the surge in violent crime, to secede from the city. He accused the governor of staying out of the fray over the Buckhead secession movement for the sake of the “big company cronies downtown that are his big donors, that are desperate to not let that happen.”Mr. Kemp said he had raised troopers’ salaries, enhanced their training, created a crime suppression unit and deployed more troopers in metro Atlanta. And he pointed to his signing this month of a law allowing Georgians to carry concealed firearms without a permit.That was another way of fighting crime, he said.“The bad people already have the guns,” Mr. Kemp said. “We’re trying to give law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves, their family and their property.”Right to the end, both candidates were on message, and the message was largely a dim view of each other.In his closing, Mr. Perdue called Mr. Kemp a “weak governor trying to cover up a bad record.”Mr. Kemp, in his own summation, said Mr. Perdue was attacking his record in office “because he has none of his own, which is why he didn’t win his Senate race.” More