Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Kathy Hochul’s Rise to the Governorship of New York

      by

      A western New Yorker with centrist Democratic roots, she is described as both tough and disarming. She is also relatively untested.As Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo barreled into the 2018 primary season, buffeted by criticisms from the increasingly powerful left wing of the Democratic Party, his team privately worried that he needed a more progressive running mate or a person of color with deeper ties downstate.Publicly, he suggested that Kathy Hochul, his moderate lieutenant from Buffalo, might be better suited running for Congress. His camp floated potential replacements, including the current state attorney general, Letitia James.Those efforts were not lost on Ms. Hochul — indeed, his allies asked her multiple times if she would consider pulling out of the race, an adviser to Ms. Hochul said. But she ran and won re-election anyway, giving no public indication of any daylight with the governor.Three years later, it is Mr. Cuomo who is being replaced by Ms. Hochul, as she moves to become New York’s first female governor after he resigned in disgrace. But the tensions over the 2018 Democratic ticket remain a revealing episode, illustrating both Ms. Hochul’s strengths and vulnerabilities as she takes on one of the most consequential and challenging jobs in American politics.Behind her mild-mannered style, zeal for meeting voters and earnest tweets in support of “#BicycleDay” and “#NationalCerealDay,” she is a shrewd politician who has been underestimated at pivotal moments, her allies say.“No one will ever describe my administration as a toxic work environment,” Ms. Hochul said during her first news conference after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo resigned.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York TimesBut when she takes office on Aug. 24, she will also be the first governor in more than a century to have deep roots in western New York, in a state where the political center of gravity is the more liberal environs of New York City. Cognizant of that, Ms. Hochul on Sunday said she wants her lieutenant governor to be from New York City.And while she championed the Cuomo administration’s record — which included some major progressive achievements despite Mr. Cuomo’s frequent clashes with the left — earlier in her career she was a relatively conservative Democrat. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      How Andrew Cuomo’s Exit Tarnished a Legacy and Dimmed a Dynasty

      by

      Andrew M. Cuomo always cared about his place in history.And so, early in his governorship, he invited Robert Caro, the Pulitzer-prize winning biographer and historian of power, for a private audience in Albany. The pitch had been for Mr. Caro to share lessons from the legacy of Robert Moses, the master builder who ruthlessly rolled over his opponents to remake New York in the past century.But over cookies at the Capitol, it quickly became clear that Mr. Cuomo would be doing most of the talking. For close to two hours, he spoke admiringly about Mr. Moses, outlined his own governing philosophy and regaled Mr. Caro with his ambitions to build big — overhauling bridges, airports and more. Then, the governor politely declared the meeting over.“It was an arrogant and angering thing to do,” Mr. Caro, now 85, recalled in an interview. “To think I had given a day of my life to have him lecture me.”Imposing his will on others to accommodate his agenda and ambitions has been a hallmark of Mr. Cuomo’s career, from his role as chief enforcer for his father, the three-term governor Mario Cuomo, through his own decade-plus reign as New York’s unrelenting chief executive. He trampled lawmakers, lashed his own staff and browbeat political officials — in both parties, but often fellow Democrats — throughout a steady rise that saw him accumulate power and enemies in almost equal measure.His strong-arming often worked. Mr. Cuomo pushed through some of the very infrastructure projects he foretold in his talk with Mr. Caro, including replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge and overhauling La Guardia Airport.For more than 40 years, the Cuomo name has been almost synonymous with Democratic governance in New York, with a Cuomo running for statewide office in every election but one since 1974.Now, suddenly, it stands for something else.The first accusation of sexual harassment against Mr. Cuomo came in December, then another in late February, and then another, and then calls for investigations and resignations and ultimately, an independent investigation from the office of the state attorney general. The damning final report on Aug. 3 corroborated or lent credence to the accounts of 11 women alleging various degrees of harassment and misconduct by Mr. Cuomo, including one accusation of groping.Facing almost certain impeachment, Mr. Cuomo announced his resignation on Tuesday, even as he denied the harassment claims and any inappropriate touching.“It’s a stain that’s always going to be there,” said Robert Abrams, who served as New York attorney general while Mr. Cuomo’s father was governor. The accusations and his stepping down, Mr. Abrams said, would surely be etched into the opening lines of Mr. Cuomo’s eventual obituary.Andrew Cuomo, far right, was preparing to run for a fourth term, which would have surpassed his father, the three-term New York governor Mario Cuomo.Keith Meyers/The New York TimesIt was a fall so swift that observers could be forgiven for alternating between calling it a Greek and a Shakespearean tragedy. An upscale sweater shop that a year ago had hawked “Cuomosexual” and “Cuomo for president” wares was now offering free embroidery to remove that stitching and replace it with “Believe survivors” (or any other phrase).Mr. Cuomo will no longer equal the 12-year tenure served by his late father, whose reputation as an orator and icon of liberalism has forever shadowed his son’s career. The younger Mr. Cuomo wore a pair of his late father’s shoes for his own third inauguration, and in recent days his aspiration for a fourth term — to be the longest-serving Cuomo — evaporated.“I love New York,” Mr. Cuomo said in his resignation speech on Tuesday. “Everything I have ever done has been motivated by that love.”Mr. Cuomo and his allies have argued that his methods were in service of taming a notoriously unruly state apparatus. Most prominently, he quarterbacked same-sex marriage through the divided Legislature in his first six months as governor, corralling conservative Democrats and recalcitrant Republicans alike to make New York then the largest state to allow it.There would be more: a gun-safety package and timely balanced budgets, a phased-in $15 minimum wage and other crucial infrastructure investments, including the new Moynihan Train Hall and the Second Avenue subway.“Historians are going to have to be honest about the accomplishments that he notched,” said Harold Holzer, who worked for Mr. Cuomo’s father and drove Mr. Caro to the meeting in Albany. Now the director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, Mr. Holzer summed up the younger Mr. Cuomo’s legacy as: “Flawed human being and a great governor.”But where exactly Mr. Cuomo’s love of the state ended, and his pursuit of power and control began, has long been a blurry line. Former advisers have grappled with that question in recent therapy sessions, text chains and over drinks.“Toxic, hostile, abusive,” Joon H. Kim, one of the lawyers who led the inquiry, quoted witnesses describing the Cuomo office culture. “Fear, intimidation, bullying, vindictive.”Mr. Cuomo announced his resignation at his Manhattan office, attributing his behavior with women to generational differences. Benjamin Norman for The New York TimesAmong Mr. Cuomo’s former closest confidantes, there has been a recent reconsideration of how necessary his tactics truly were. “Did we all create a patina around the governor that gave him more latitude than he deserved?” said Christine Quinn, the former New York City Council speaker and a former Cuomo ally.Mr. Cuomo has been characteristically unrepentant about his style. In his first post-resignation interview, with New York Magazine, he said: “You can’t charm the nail into a board. It has to be hit with a hammer.”Still, that heavy-handedness had a crucial side effect: The governor was fatally isolated at his time of political need.In resigning, Mr. Cuomo said he “didn’t realize the extent to which the line has been redrawn” on sexual harassment. He left out that, as governor, he had done some of the redrawing as he signed legislation to impose new protections against sexual harassment. A day after the bill-signing, Mr. Cuomo asked a female state trooper why she did not wear a dress, according to the report.Now the 63-year-old governor is days away from unemployment and still facing criminal investigations into his conduct with women. Federal authorities also have been examining his administration’s handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic, and the state attorney general is looking into the use of state resources for Mr. Cuomo’s memoir last year.“I am sure he feels like he has enormous unfinished business left to do,” said Charlie King, Mr. Cuomo’s running mate for lieutenant governor in 2002 and one of the few people who counseled Mr. Cuomo to the end. “And that, more than anything, will stick with him as he closes the gates at Eagle Street and says goodbye to the governor’s mansion.”Eyeing the history booksAndrew Cuomo in 1988, when he was president of Help Inc., a nonprofit agency that helped provide housing to the homeless.Suzanne DeChillo/The New York TimesFrom the start, Andrew Mark Cuomo had a knack for vivid political imagery and a flair for exuding his dominance. He conducted interviews while lighting cigarettes in his office in the 1980s and puffing cigars in a Manhattan park in the early 2000s. Behind the scenes, he was known to shape stories with off-the-record chats.His first run for office, in 2002, was a flop, when he dropped out of the primary even before getting a chance to match up against the Republican, Gov. George Pataki, who had ousted his father in 1994.But he quickly spun a comeback narrative of contrition that propelled him to become attorney general four years later. Successive implosions of Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Gov. David Paterson in scandal put him on a glide path to the governor’s mansion by 2010.Even before he had won, Mr. Cuomo was eyeing the history books — sending copies of a biography of former Gov. Hugh L. Carey to labor leaders that October. He said he had learned from the hard-charging Mr. Spitzer’s mistakes, too.“Lesson 1 from Spitzer,” Mr. Cuomo said then. “Don’t alienate the Legislature on Day 1.”“It’s a stain that’s always going to be there,” Robert Abrams, who served as attorney general during Mario Cuomo’s governorship, said of Andrew Cuomo’s legacy. Nathaniel Brooks for The New York TimesIt took Mr. Cuomo a little longer, but by this year, he had precious few friends in Albany.His winner-take-all approach to politics — with the executive always winning — grew wearisome for legislators as they saw their ideas either repeatedly stomped on or co-opted (and sometimes both).A centrist, especially on fiscal policy, Mr. Cuomo triangulated between the parties to curb the most progressive elements of his party.For years, he had tacitly backed a division among Democrats in Albany, when a breakaway faction of Senate Democrats formed a power-sharing agreement with the Republicans. Mr. Cuomo long claimed he was powerless to reunite the party — until he helped broker an accord to do just that in 2018.The Path to Governor Cuomo’s ResignationCard 1 of 6Plans to resign. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Here Are the Democrats Who May Run to Replace Cuomo

      by

      Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul is preparing to take the reins of state government, and, like other New York Democrats, already looking toward 2022.On Wednesday, a day after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced his resignation, New York woke up to the prospect of a future without him for the first time in more than a decade. Across the state, Democrats moved urgently to fill the vacuum created by the absence of a man who spent years seeking to exert total control over their party.At the State Capitol in Albany, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul held her first news conference as governor-in-waiting, sending a message about the importance of maintaining government continuity. Democrats buzzed in private conversations about whom she might appoint to her team, as she promised “turnover” from Mr. Cuomo’s administration after he resigned in disgrace.Many people expressed hope for a stronger working relationship between the executive and legislative branches, following a period during which Mr. Cuomo — who never shied away from using intimidation as a tactic — often had toxic or nonexistent relationships with state lawmakers and sought to govern on his own terms instead.“This is a moment of great opportunity for the executive branch and, frankly, state government to reset,” said State Senator Shelley B. Mayer, a Yonkers Democrat. “Culturally, it’s an opportunity to reset.”But along with a chance for new beginnings once Mr. Cuomo officially departs in less than two weeks, many Democrats were already focusing much deeper into the calendar.In New York City, on Long Island and around the state, conversations among donors, activists and party strategists about the governor’s race next year have accelerated, now that it is clear the contest will not involve challenging Mr. Cuomo and his daunting war chest in a primary.The race begins with Ms. Hochul very likely to seek a full term, and doing so with the notable advantages of incumbency.She has already brought on two political strategists with significant New York and national experience: Meredith Kelly, who has worked for the state’s two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and has held other high-ranking national political roles; and Trey Nix, a veteran campaign operative who has also served as an official at the Democratic Governors Association. Their hiring underscores Ms. Hochul’s seriousness about running for governor next year.She is a capable fund-raiser and is certain to attract many new donors as she moves up. She has spent years traveling the state. And now, with Ms. Hochul on the cusp of becoming New York’s first female governor, many Democrats are inclined to give her time to get comfortable in the job, eager to find ways to collaborate and move forward after the chaotic final months of Mr. Cuomo’s tenure.That hardly means she will clear the field before the primary next year.“I would suspect that she will take some time to get her footing in the new job, and that other prospective Democratic candidates will not pounce immediately,” said Kathryn Wylde, the head of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group. “My guess is there will be a big field of potential candidates, and how many actually pull the trigger will depend on how she appears to be doing in the next few months.”Ms. Hochul, who is generally perceived as a relative moderate, is likely to be scrutinized by potential candidates to both the left and right of her politically, gauging not only her fund-raising strength and accomplishments in office, but also whether, in their view, she is politically in step with the Democratic Party’s base.There is a long list of politicians who are thought to be considering a run for governor, a group that could ultimately include local, state and federal lawmakers with varying degrees of name recognition and fund-raising prowess.Some Democrats have suggested that candidates in this year’s New York City mayoral race, including Kathryn Garcia, the runner-up in the party’s primary, and even the city’s current mayor, Bill de Blasio, could explore a run, too. (For his part, Mr. Cuomo strained to protect his legacy and future standing in his resignation speech.)At the moment, the most significant question in the minds of strategists, donors, political observers and even some potential candidates is whether Letitia James, the attorney general, will run.Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. Her office released the damning report that forced Mr. Cuomo’s departure, and she is considered a potential candidate for governor next year.Dave Sanders for The New York Times“She and now Kathy will be the two people that everyone else is watching, to see how they’re doing and what they’re going to do,” Ms. Wylde said.Ms. James, whose office issued the searing report that documented allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Cuomo and ended his governorship, has given no indication that she is planning to run for anything other than re-election. And she has not been known as a prolific fund-raiser.But her allies believe that given her stature as the first woman of color in New York to hold statewide office — and her ability to appeal to Black voters across the ideological spectrum as well as some white progressives — she has time to assess the landscape and make a decision.“It’s considered an open seat,” said State Senator John C. Liu, a Queens Democrat. “Obviously that will coalesce at some point, and a great deal depends on what our beloved attorney general wants to do. I hope she runs for governor.”In the meantime, her supporters are working to keep her options open.L. Joy Williams, a Democratic strategist and an ally of Ms. James’s, noted that a number of governors, including Mr. Cuomo, had ascended to the job from the attorney general’s office.“It’s naïve to think she couldn’t do the same, if not with a broader coalition and energy behind her campaign, if she decides to run,” Ms. Williams said.On the left, Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate who ran an unsuccessful primary against Ms. Hochul in 2018, has had multiple conversations this year about a possible bid for higher office.He is thought to be exploring a run for governor and could make an announcement about his intentions in the coming weeks, according to a political adviser to Mr. Williams, who stressed that Mr. Williams was most focused now on a smooth transition for Ms. Hochul.If Mr. Williams has been open about his belief that Mr. Cuomo needed a primary challenger, there are many other Democrats who were less likely to have challenged the incumbent governor. They may now view the race differently, even as the prospect of running against New York’s first female governor could introduce a new complicating factor.Jumaane D. Williams, New York City public advocate, challenged Ms. Hochul unsuccessfully in the 2018 primary. He may soon announce whether he plans to seek higher office.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesSeveral Democratic politicians with deep ties to Long Island, an area that Mr. Cuomo won overwhelmingly in his 2018 primary, are thought to be open to a run.Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller, has not ruled out a bid. Representative Thomas Suozzi has had calls and meetings about the possibility of a run, though he is focused now on negotiations in Congress over the federal deduction for state and local taxes.Steven Bellone, the Suffolk County executive, is strongly considering a run for governor next year, according to a person close to him who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. This person noted that Mr. Bellone had recently hired a high-dollar fund-raiser. Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, recently gave $50,000 to Mr. Bellone’s executive campaign, campaign finance records show.Richard Ravitch, a former lieutenant governor, said he anticipated that Ms. Hochul would offer a significant break from Mr. Cuomo’s often-truculent style, and that whether she succeeds in moving the state forward would be a vital factor in shaping the landscape of the 2022 race.“Whether or not any other candidate emerges is going to be solely a function of whether or not Kathy Hochul can make a dent in the governance and change the image from what Cuomo created,” he said, adding that he had long believed one of Mr. Cuomo’s challenges was a lack of allies.“It’s very tough to succeed when you’re in trouble and you have no friends,’’ Mr. Ravitch said. “I think Kathy Hochul will have friends.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Begins Budget Political Theater With $3.5 Trillion at Stake

      by

      Once again, the Senate will begin a marathon “vote-a-rama,” dealing with dozens of nonbinding amendments before the one vote that counts, passage of a $3.5 trillion budget blueprint.WASHINGTON — Some senators have tried to ban the process. Others simply say it’s the worst part of their jobs.Even Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat who created and fortified some of the chamber’s most complex rules before his death, warned the so-called vote-a-rama process could “send some old men to their deaths.”Still on Tuesday, as the Senate turned to a $3.5 trillion budget blueprint that begins the Democrats’ push to expand the social safety net, the tradition of considering hours upon hours of nonbinding budget amendments will once again get underway — with senators forcing politically sensitive votes on their rivals as campaign operatives compile a record for possible attack ads.Only one vote really matters: If all 50 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents give final approval to the blueprint, Senate committees can begin work this fall on the most significant expansion of the safety net since the 1960s, knowing that legislation cannot be filibustered under the Senate’s complicated budget rules.But before that final vote, which looked set to come either late Tuesday or early Wednesday, senators were having to deal with a blizzard of advisory amendments, and like every vote-a-rama that preceded it, it was painful.“It’s a little bit like an extended visit to a dentist,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. “The whole process is an exercise in ‘gotchas.’”The Budget Act limits Senate debate to 50 hours on a budget resolution, but over time the Senate has developed its vote-a-rama custom, which allows for an accelerated voting procedure on amendments even after the 50 hours have expired. In recent years, the practice has allowed just minutes of debate for each amendment followed by a short vote.In practice, any senator can prolong the process by offering new amendments for votes until he or she runs out of steam. The result is a procedural food fight with a silly name that does little other than keep Capitol denizens up past their bedtimes and cause twinges of political pain. (Vote-a-RAHM-a? Vote-a-RAM-a? Depends on the senator.)The amendments can range from the serious to the absurd. During a debate over health care in 2010, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, forced a vote banning coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted sex offenders as a way to try to embarrass Democrats who supported the legislation. That prompted Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, to condemn the amendment as a “mockery of this Senate.”But the power of the political “gotcha” is diminishing with overuse. This is the third vote-a-rama this year alone. During the last episode in March — the longest open vote in modern Senate history — the Senate entertained 37 votes on amendments. During February’s vote-a-rama, there were 41.Should Democrats successfully pass the blueprint and draft a multi-trillion-dollar package, a fourth vote-a-rama is expected in the fall.“The budget resolution is usually the platform for political theater, and both sides having votes that are designed to make a statement because none of it is binding,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, who plans to retire next year.Both parties have historically lamented the vote-a-rama process, but neither wants to give it up. Typically, the party in the minority — in this case, the Republicans — revels in the uncomfortable votes it can force upon the majority party that typically controls the chamber, its floor time and what gets voted on.Republicans hammered Democrats on Tuesday over the size of the spending package, the planned tax increases to pay for it and liberal proposals to rein in climate change, which they deride as part of the “Green New Deal.”Senator Bernie Sanders, who is in charge of the Senate Budget Committee, said his plan was simply “to defeat all of the poison pill amendments.”T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesSenators filed hundreds of amendments, including a list from Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, setting up votes to, among other things, add to the budget 100,000 police officers and promote a “patriotic education in K-12 schools” that teaches “students to love America.”Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, had previously vowed “to ferociously attack” the Democrats’ plans. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said on Tuesday that Senate staff members had processed hundreds of amendments and pledged that “every single senator will be going on the record over and over and over.”Democrats largely appeared sanguine before the whole exercise. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent in charge of the Senate Budget Committee, said his plan was simply “to defeat all of the poison pill amendments.”“That’s the whole point,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts. “They want to try to make us take what they think will be votes that they can use in television ads. This isn’t about legislating. This is just about jockeying for political advantage.”“We’ll have to endure a certain amount of that,” she added, “but we’ll get the budget resolution passed.”Even Republicans acknowledged that, at least with the budget blueprint, it would ultimately be a fruitless endeavor to derail a proposal that Democrats said they had the votes for.“We just continue to have conversations with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, encourage them not to support it, but I just think we’re going to get rolled,” said Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa. “They’ll wipe the slate clean at the end of the process.”Occasionally, though, a binding vote can take place. Republicans, for instance, could try to insist the Judiciary Committee be cut out of the budget reconciliation process, thus blocking the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. (But the committee’s inclusion also meant a wider array of amendments could be considered under Senate rules, given the committee’s expansive jurisdiction.)The votes also occasionally produce a moment of truth for politicians. After many Democrats hemmed and hawed over stating their views on a $15 minimum wage this year, a forced vote on an amendment during the vote-a-rama in March revealed seven of the chamber’s more centrist Democrats opposed the increase.Despite the political risks, Mr. Baker said the votes during a vote-a-rama did not typically end up substantially hurting political candidates. Constituents tend to judge their senators on major policy issues, not votes that fly by, often after midnight.“Those kinds of votes can prove to be problematic but in a torrent of amendments, I think it becomes part of the noise,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they’re not going to be scared about it.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Cheri Bustos Has Some Advice for Swing-District Democrats

      by

      Message discipline. Focus on local issues. Find ways to work with Republicans. And show up. Everywhere.That is some of the advice offered to swing-district Democrats for winning in conservative areas in a new report written by Representative Cheri Bustos of Illinois, a former leader of the House Democrats’ campaign arm.The report comes as Democrats in competitive districts are growing increasingly anxious about holding onto their seats. Many point to falling polling numbers and argue that the party must sharpen its economic and public health messaging around the pandemic.Ms. Bustos interviewed 25 national and local Democratic lawmakers who won areas carried by former President Donald J. Trump in 2020. She had help from a longtime adviser — Robin Johnson, a political scientist at Monmouth College, which is in Ms. Bustos’s district.Democrats who won districts where Mr. Trump got a majority of votes are a distinct minority in Congress: There are only seven in the House.Most of the advice in the report revolves around an intense focus on local issues, as a way of aggressively differentiating the political profile of members representing redder areas from the Democrats’ national brand, which Ms. Bustos argues can be “toxic” among rural and working-class voters.Representative Cindy Axne became the first Democrat to win her seat in southwestern Iowa in 2018, beating out David Young, and then she won a rematch last year.“Even when every ounce of you wants to stray from the messaging, especially when you’re in a safe Democratic room, DON’T,” Ms. Axne advised. “Everything is on the record and can be used against you by the other side.”Some of the advice is based on the Democrats’ experiences in 2020, an election that started with confident predictions of increasing their ranks but ended with the loss of 13 House seats and the slimmest majority in decades.Ms. Bustos blames the losses on the constraints of the pandemic, which prompted most Democrats to abstain from door-to-door campaigning out of concern about public safety. That hampered the ability of swing-district Democrats to counter messaging from the progressive wing of the party — slogans like “defund the police” — that remain unpopular in conservative areas, Ms. Bustos argues.“We were responsible from a health perspective but from a political perspective it hurt us,” she said. “Some of these attacks that were thrown up there, they took hold and we were not able to fight back.”The defeats were an embarrassment for Ms. Bustos, who had been considered particularly skilled at devising strategies for Democrats running in conservative-leaning districts, and kicked off a round of recrimination between the moderates and progressives in the party.“Take any of us away and the majority is shot,” said Ms. Bustos. “I do not want to pick an intraparty fight but it has to be a whole party approach to serving in the majority.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Call for Cuomo's Resignation, but Who Will Replace Him?

      by

      Potential successors are in the wings. But the longer it takes for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s fate to be resolved, the greater the headache for Democrats.When an independent report declared last week that one of the nation’s most prominent Democratic leaders had sexually harassed 11 women, even some of his closest friends and oldest allies had finally run out of patience with Andrew M. Cuomo.One by one, they dropped him. President Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the highest-ranking members of Congress from New York issued a message that left no room for interpretation: The governor had to go.The rapidity with which Mr. Cuomo has been cast out reflects not only how completely he alienated virtually every ally he once had, but also the possibility of political peril for a party that yoked its brand to the #MeToo movement during the Trump era, staking its reputation on a commitment to social equality and female empowerment.Already, New York Democratic officials, activists and strategists have begun privately discussing around a half-dozen politicians capable of succeeding Mr. Cuomo, with some potential candidates or their allies starting to gauge interest and identify possible sources of support. They include several who national Democrats believe would easily win a general election in the lopsidedly Democratic state — among them women and people of color whose ascension to the governor’s office in Albany could burnish the party’s image for inclusiveness.The turnabout in a few days’ time was whipsawing. Only a year ago a pillar of his party and the star of daily pandemic briefings, and still presumed by many to be the front-runner for a fourth term in 2022, Mr. Cuomo suddenly seemed eminently beatable, should he survive and persist with a campaign. And the political conversation crackled with the excitement and guesswork of an open race — with the guessing largely focused for the moment on whether Attorney General Letitia James, whose office released the independent report substantiating Mr. Cuomo’s misdeeds, would run for governor herself.The longer it takes for Mr. Cuomo’s fate to be resolved, the greater the headache for Democrats.Some Republicans have already used Mr. Cuomo’s situation to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy: In Virginia, the state G.O.P. called on Gov. Ralph Northam and the Democratic nominee to succeed him, Terry McAuliffe, to renounce Mr. Cuomo, saying “their silence is complicity.” In Congress, Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, introduced a “Cuomo amendment” to prohibit federal infrastructure funding from being allocated to states led by governors who have sexually harassed their employees.And Representative Lee Zeldin of Long Island, a prominent Republican contender for governor and an avid Trump supporter, has been able to focus his early campaigning on Mr. Cuomo rather than having to defend his fealty to the former president, an enormous liability in a state that Mr. Trump lost to Mr. Biden by 20 percentage points.Representative Grace Meng of Queens, who served until January as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, suggested that party leaders had no patience for allowing the situation to fester, particularly as they continue to grapple with the challenges of the pandemic.“We have midterm elections coming up, and we need to make sure that we are focused on maintaining the House and the Senate,” Ms. Meng said. “There’s just no room for distractions right now.”Although Mr. Cuomo has given no indication that he plans to resign, dispatching his lawyers to mount an aggressive televised defense of his conduct, the State Assembly is moving quickly through an impeachment inquiry, raising hopes within the party that the governor’s future will be determined long before the midterm elections. Prosecutors from Long Island to Albany are pursuing criminal investigations into the allegations of sexual harassment, raising the pressure on Mr. Cuomo to step down.His top aide, Melissa DeRosa, said late Sunday that she had resigned, leaving Mr. Cuomo facing the impeachment process without one of his most trusted strategists. And Brittany Commisso, the executive assistant who accused Mr. Cuomo of groping her and filed a criminal complaint against him, gave a televised interview forcefully pushing back on claims made by the governor and his lawyers questioning her recollection of events.The Rev. Al Sharpton, whom Mr. Cuomo featured in a video montage as he sought to defend himself last week, offered an unsparing assessment of the governor’s political hopes. “I don’t see how he does survive this,” he said.But Mr. Cuomo, who has come back from less challenging predicaments before, may not go quickly or quietly. An impeachment proceeding would be uncharted territory for the State Assembly in the modern era, and many Democrats expect Mr. Cuomo to mount an aggressive defense, which could draw out the proceedings, fuel Republican attacks and keep potential challengers in political limbo.A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo did not respond to questions about his future or his standing in the Democratic Party.With little public polling yet available, it also remains unclear whether early signs that Democratic voters want Mr. Cuomo to resign will harden. Earlier this year, after allegations of groping and sexual harassment by Mr. Cuomo first became public, many Democratic voters expressed reluctance to insist on his resignation, worrying that the party was imposing damaging purity tests on its leaders. Aside from Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, who resigned after being accused of groping and forcibly kissing women, only a handful of prominent Democratic politicians have lost their jobs because of allegations of sexual harassment or assault.Yet, by initially backing the independent investigation himself, which was spearheaded by two outside investigators, Mr. Cuomo ultimately armed Democrats with well-documented evidence of his alleged misdeeds, creating a process that many Democrats hope will be perceived as fairer by the public.“With Franken, there was so much pressure for him to resign before there was even a process, and that was wrong,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, and another longtime Cuomo ally who now believes he should resign. “But there’s a difference between an accusation that should be seriously treated versus a report that basically corroborates the accusations.”Attorney General Letitia James has yet to give any indication that she is planning a run for governor in 2022, though she is seen by some inside the Democratic Party as having potential to excite a broad array of voters.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesThe handicapping of the potential Democratic field to succeed Mr. Cuomo begins with Ms. James, who is viewed by many as the most formidable contender, capable of appealing to both Black voters across the ideological spectrum and white progressives who see her as having held Mr. Cuomo to account.Ms. James has yet to give any indication that she is planning a run for anything but re-election as attorney general, and she is often described as risk-averse. But the possibility of a vacancy has set off intense speculation about whether she would turn her sights to the governor’s office.Whatever Ms. James decides, if Mr. Cuomo exits before the end of his term, New York will immediately get its first female governor: Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a former congresswoman from Buffalo, would succeed him, and would very likely seek a full term in 2022.An official close to Ms. Hochul said her team was already thinking through how to balance bringing the state together and moving forward with what they expect could be a prolonged period of recrimination toward the Cuomo administration. The official also said Ms. Hochul is having conversations about personnel should she assume the governorship. And multiple lawmakers have met with her in recent weeks and gotten the impression that she is preparing for the chief executive position.Ms. Hochul would enjoy not only the advantages of incumbency in a governor’s race, but also a considerable head start: She has not had a close working relationship with Mr. Cuomo, but that has freed her to spend much of her six-year tenure traipsing across the state, holding economic-development events, championing Democratic candidates and quietly building a statewide network of political donors.Mr. Sharpton, whose Harlem headquarters is a mandatory way station for Democratic aspirants, said that political associates of Ms. James, Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Representative Thomas Suozzi of Long Island and Mayor Bill de Blasio had all approached him to sound him out about the 2022 governor’s race.“It’s going to be very difficult for the governor to stay in, and I think it’s going to open up the primary season early,” Mr. Sharpton said.Others said to be considering a run include Jumaane D. Williams, the left-wing New York City public advocate, who lost to Ms. Hochul in the 2018 primary for lieutenant governor, and Steven Bellone, the Suffolk County executive.Mr. de Blasio has declined to rule out a bid. Similarly, a campaign adviser to Mr. DiNapoli, Doug Forand, said Mr. DiNapoli was happy in his current job but acknowledged “the unpredictable nature of the governor’s situation.”The list of possible Democratic contenders will almost certainly increase, and could include other members of Congress, depending on the results of the redistricting process. It also could include the names of more prominent women: Some in party circles have expressed hope that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand or even Hillary Clinton might become interested in the job.Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul would assume the governorship should Mr. Cuomo resign or be impeached.Caitlin Ochs/ReutersCelinda Lake, a veteran Democratic pollster, said this was to be expected.“When something this visible happens,” she said of the Cuomo scandal, “and then it continues to happen after people thought it had been dealt with, it really gives you an appetite for women candidates.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden, Congress and the Eroding Separation of Powers

      by

      A curious constitutional drama unfolded in the nation’s capital last week. Having failed to pass a moratorium on evictions, members of Congress took to the steps of the U.S. Capitol to demand that President Biden impose one.For his part, Mr. Biden strode into the White House briefing room and suggested that the prerogative to make policy on the issue lay with Congress.Soon enough, though, Mr. Biden relented, and Democrats celebrated. As policy, it was a progressive victory. Constitutionally, it was both troubling and bizarre.The issue was not simply whether the moratorium was constitutional, though the federal courts have questioned the statutory authority the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed. The underlying constitutional derangement pertained to the way members of Congress and the president were eager to endorse each other’s authority without exercising their own.Democrats might protest that they had no choice but to turn to the White House because Republicans would not support a legislative moratorium. That may be, but the framers would have expected the defense of legislative power to take precedence over a policy dispute.The framers assumed that each branch of government would maintain the separation of powers by jealously guarding its authority from encroachments by the others. The evictions episode was less tug of war than hot potato: Congress wanted the president to use executive authority, and the president wanted the legislature to legislate.Democrats are not the only ones refusing to defend legislative authority. Republicans denigrating the House investigation into the insurrection of Jan. 6 — a physical assault on one branch of government incited by another — are unwilling even to defend the institution bodily.The acid test of separation of powers is whether members of Congress are willing to assert their authority against a president of their own party. Democrats failed that on evictions, just as Republicans did by handing off authority to Donald Trump. Given this bipartisan consensus for presidential authority, it may be time to acknowledge reality: The concept of the separation of powers — which depends on members of Congress unifying to protect legislative power — has collapsed in the United States. We have become a de facto parliamentary system in which competing parties battle for executive power. The problem is that we have acquired all the vices of such a system but none of its virtues.A parliamentary system typically has the effects of discouraging demagogues and ensuring competence, by seasoning leaders on the journey from the backbenches to the ones at the front. By contrast, three presidents who served before Joe Biden — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Mr. Trump — arrived in the White House as either newcomers or latecomers to national office. Parliamentary systems also feature vigorous debates with real consequences. Governments rise and fall on the basis of their legislative agendas. Debates in Congress are largely stagecraft, with actual governing being relegated to a vast executive branch empowered to turn vague laws into detailed policy.The primary vice of parliamentary systems is their incompatibility with the separation of powers. James Madison felt this separation was so important that the lack of it was “the very definition of tyranny,” even if concentrated powers were exercised benignly. Montesquieu warned that when executive and legislative power are mixed, “there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically.”The separation of powers should not be romanticized. The only president to rise fully above party was the first one, and George Washington took office before parties solidified. But even after that, the fact that presidents and members of Congress were elected by different means, with different institutional loyalties, still enabled them to curb each other’s abuses.There are almost no curbs now. One might say elections control presidents, but Mr. Trump’s efforts to undo the 2020 presidential contest, which culminated in Jan. 6, showed that check is fragile. In addition, a single official who can marshal the direct power of his or supporters may be particularly dangerous, as Mr. Trump’s incitement leading up to and on Jan. 6 also demonstrated.These are palpable risks today. Between elections, presidents essentially run American government. Republicans and Democrats in Congress play the auxiliary part of either supporting or opposing whoever occupies the White House. Congress generally cedes the initiative on legislation to the executive branch, reserving for itself the role of merely reacting to the president.This obsession with the presidency also crowds out other advantages the separation of powers should provide. Legislators are chosen geographically in the United States, which ought to mean they reflect not only local interests but also the nuances of diverse views about national politics. Instead, many elections at all levels are proxies for national issues that are increasingly seen as civilizational battles. When Americans vote for members of Congress today, they are largely voting for parties that increasingly operate in lock step. In 2020, 16 out of 435 congressional districts voted for different parties for the White House and House of Representatives. That is less than 4 percent of congressional districts, down from as much as 40 percent in the 1970s and 1980s.Also lost in the collapse of geographic representation is Madison’s definition of the representative’s role: to “refine and enlarge the public views.” That presumes both acquaintance with those views and the judgment required to align them with the public’s true interest.Legislative debates now rotate around the president, often because the presidency is seen as an instrument for defending or capturing a legislative majority. That is characteristic of a parliamentary system. But because one is either for or against the president, a system that orbits the White House strips legislators of their ability to exercise independent judgment from issue to issue.If legislative issues are simply symbols of presidential fortunes, we should expect partisan gridlock: Alliances will solidify around the presidency or the majority rather than shifting from issue to issue. Democrats and Republicans may be able to push a president slightly in one direction or another, or block him or her altogether, but the presidency remains the center of attention. The bipartisan infrastructure deal, for example, originated in negotiations not between members of Congress but between them and the White House.Finally, by empowering all three branches of government to check one another, the separation of powers forces the nation to look at issues from different angles: the immediate and parochial perspectives of representatives, the national view of presidents and the constitutional outlook of the courts.The problems with abandoning the separation of powers may be difficult to see if one supports the current president, but it should not take much imagination to contemplate why you wouldn’t like having the bulk of national powers being exercised by a president with whom you disagree. Presidents now sit atop vast administrative apparatuses. They could easily abuse this power, such as by rewarding friends and punishing adversaries. The point for Montesquieu and Madison was not whether they actually did, but whether they could. And the ability to abuse power often leads to the abuse itself.The deliberate adoption of a parliamentary system would still entail these risks. But it might at least have conferred some of that system’s benefits. As it stands — with Congress unwilling to unite against even a physical assault incited by the president — we have maintained the empty shell of the separation of powers around the core of a partisan system. The result is a system capable of abusing citizens but not governing them. It would be difficult to conjure a worse combination.Greg Weiner (@GregWeiner1) is a political scientist at Assumption University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Political Constitution: The Case Against Judicial Supremacy.”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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Be Fooled By Mitch McConnell’s Sudden Bout of Bipartisanship

      by

      Are we entering a new era of bipartisanship? On the surface, the news from Washington seems remarkably encouraging. The Senate is close to passing a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, with $550 billion in new spending on everything from transit to highways to broadband to climate change mitigation. Political insiders are hailing the bill as a breakthrough, with the Senate poised, at last, to overcome the partisan gridlock that has ground its legislative machinery to a halt. Many thought that President Biden’s belief that he could get Republican votes was naïve, but he delivered. In a surprise, even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, voted to move the compromise to a vote.Of course, this is the same Mitch McConnell who said of Mr. Biden, “100 percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration.” The same Mr. McConnell who made sure Donald Trump’s impeachment did not result in conviction, who filibustered the bipartisan plan for a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 violent insurrection until it died, who kept all of his Republican senators in line against the American Rescue Plan early in the Biden presidency. And the same Mr. McConnell who said that he would not confirm a Biden nominee to the Supreme Court if Republicans recaptured the Senate in 2022.So why the reversal on infrastructure? Why dare the brickbats of Donald Trump after the former president bashed the effort and tried to kill it? Mr. McConnell has one overriding goal: regaining a majority in the Senate in 2022. Republicans must defend 20 of the 34 Senate seats up for grabs next year; there are open seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina; and Senator Ron Johnson, if he runs again, could easily lose his seat in Wisconsin. Attempting to block a popular infrastructure bill that later gets enacted by Democrats alone would give them all the credit. Republicans would be left with the lame defense of crowing about projects they had voted against and tried to block, something that did not work at all with the popular American Rescue Plan.You don’t have to be a Machiavellian to understand another reason Mr. McConnell was willing to hand Mr. Biden a victory on infrastructure: By looking reasonable on this popular plan, claiming a mantle of the kind of bipartisanship that pleases Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and that mollifies suburban moderate Republicans in key states, Mr. McConnell can more easily rally his troops behind their goal of obstruction and delay for every other important Democratic priority, including the blockbuster reconciliation bill, as well as voting rights and election reform.For Mr. Biden, this bill is a political victory; the fact that he worked across party lines distinguishes him from his Republican predecessor, which should give the president a powerful appeal among independents and moderate Republicans. But for congressional Democrats, despite the true achievement of persuading 10 Republicans to sign on to an ambitious infrastructure plan, the road ahead is bumpy, winding and complicated.If this bill is signed into law, the Democrats will still need to face hard reality: This will be their last major bipartisan piece of legislation.Of course, there may be other issues below the partisan radar, like criminal justice reform and mental health reform, that can secure significant Republican support. But thanks to Mr. McConnell, everything else will face a wall of obstruction. Since the midterms will take all the focus off policymaking in Congress, the Democrats need to achieve democracy reforms and move on with the rest of their agenda using reconciliation. (The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, will also be navigating another confrontation over the debt ceiling, but he might be able to include eliminating the ceiling within reconciliation, taking it off the table as a hostage once and for all.)The two key words are discipline and filibuster. Overcoming Mr. McConnell’s obstruction will require all 50 Senate Democrats to stick together, to swallow hard with necessary compromises — and of course, the same is true for House Democrats, who cannot afford to lose the votes of even four of their members. To achieve anything else will require a change in the Senate rules. It does not have to be elimination of the filibuster, or what Senator Manchin would define as a “weakening” of the rule. It will require a way to put the burden on Mr. McConnell and the minority instead of where it is now, entirely on Mr. Schumer and the majority.Norman J. Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) is an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, which he wrote with E.J. Dionne and Thomas E. Mann, is “One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate and the Not-Yet Deported.”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, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More