Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Did Candidates Flee to Vacation Homes? 5 Highlights From the Mayor’s Race

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDid Candidates Flee to Vacation Homes? 5 Highlights From the Mayor’s RaceQuestions surrounding candidates’ second homes, ranked-choice voting and ties to casino interests arose in New York’s mayoral contest.Maya Wiley, center, and other candidates shared their whereabouts during the first several months of the pandemic. She spent 10 days outside of the city on Long Island in July.Credit…Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesEmma G. Fitzsimmons, Jeffery C. Mays, Dana Rubinstein and Jan. 25, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETOne of the main unanswered questions in this year’s mayoral race is how the introduction of ranked-choice voting will change the nature of the election.The first taste of how things will change came on Sunday, with an endorsement of two candidates, in ranked order.Other questions were also addressed last week, including how much time candidates spent outside of New York City during the pandemic, and how they view the long-term job prospects of the current police commissioner, Dermot F. Shea. (Hint: Count on a job opening in January.)Here are some key developments in the race:A double endorsement?For months, New York mayoral campaigns, political strategists and officials have quietly grappled with one of the biggest uncertainties in the race: how to approach the new ranked-choice voting system in the June Democratic primary, for which New Yorkers will be asked to rank as many as five choices. Can a candidate draw contrasts without alienating a rival’s supporters? Are alliances in order? Do voters even understand the process?On Sunday, some of those private calculations were placed on public display in what was billed as the “first of its kind” ranked-choice endorsement in the race: State Senator Gustavo Rivera named Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, as his first choice, and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, as his second.Both of those contenders are seeking to emerge as the standard-bearers for progressive voters in the party, in competition with candidates including Maya Wiley, who out-raised Ms. Morales but trails Mr. Stringer in the money race. Mr. Rivera stressed their New Yorker bona fides at a time when Andrew Yang — another leading candidate in the race — has faced scrutiny over his political ties to the city.The joint campaign event with Mr. Rivera was not a cross-endorsement, Mr. Stringer assured.“Obviously I don’t want her to be mayor,” Mr. Stringer cracked as he appeared with Ms. Morales, and they stressed their interest in educating New Yorkers about ranked-choice voting.But the moment offered an early glimpse of how the new system may shape coalitions and highlight rivalries — and how elected officials with endorsements to dole out may seek to wield their influence.Yang pitches a casino on Governors IslandAdd Mr. Yang to the list of gambling and real estate executives eager to bring a full-fledged casino to New York City.Mr. Yang spent much of last week doubling down on his assertion that what New York City needs right now is a casino.During a discussion about the city’s grave fiscal needs and the imperative to draw tourists back, Mr. Yang argued that New York City should put a casino on Governors Island — to make the city money and to make it “more fun.”“That casino would generate so much money, it’d be bananas,” Mr. Yang said during the Jan. 14 interview.Andrew Yang has proposed putting a casino on Governors Island: “That casino would generate so much money, it’d be bananas.”Credit…Andrew Seng for The New York TimesCasinos are currently prohibited on the island, but Mr. Yang’s endorsement of a city casino raised some eyebrows among political types because Bradley Tusk, who is advising Mr. Yang’s campaign, is also chairman of IG Acquisition. The company, which seeks to acquire businesses in the leisure, gaming and hospitality industries, recently raised $300 million in an initial public offering.Via text message, Mr. Tusk acknowledged discussing the idea of a Governors Island casino with Mr. Yang, but said the idea is for the city to own the casino — the opposite of the industry’s preference.He argued that because he and Mr. Yang are proposing a city-controlled casino, rather than a private operation, there is no possible conflict of interest. A city-owned casino might still benefit from a casino consulting firm, but Mr. Tusk said that his company is interested in finding ways for people to bet on video games like Fortnite or League of Legends.“The point of saying public owned was to both maximize revenue for the city and remove it as anything that involves me,” Mr. Tusk said.Three weeks in the HamptonsWhen Mr. Yang told The New York Times that he had spent “more time upstate than in the city over the last number of months,” his fellow mayoral candidates saw an opening and highlighted how they stayed put.One candidate who did not throw any shade at Mr. Yang was Raymond J. McGuire, a wealthy former Wall Street executive who, with his wife, owns a second home in the Hamptons. Speculation rose that Mr. McGuire’s campaign was silent because perhaps he had spent much of the pandemic outside of the city as well.After reviewing his calendar, Mr. McGuire’s campaign said that he spent the first three months of the pandemic in Manhattan, and then a total of three weeks in the Hamptons with his family from June to August.His campaign staff shared a schedule that indicated that Mr. McGuire worked and took meetings in both Manhattan and the Hamptons during the summer; The Times confirmed that several of those meetings — with future staff members and an influential Black activist, Kirsten John Foy — did take place.“It’s pretty clear from the exhaustive and transparent accounting of Ray’s whereabouts that he was not living in the Hamptons during Covid,” said Mr. McGuire’s spokeswoman Lupé Todd-Medina.Ray McGuire’s campaign staff shared a schedule that indicated he worked and took meetings in both Manhattan and the Hamptons during the summer.Credit…Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesThe Times asked other candidates about their whereabouts from March to September. Ms. Wiley’s campaign said she spent 10 days outside of the city on Long Island in July, while Mr. Stringer said he spent three days in Connecticut with his wife’s family in August.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, said he did not spend a full 24 hours outside of the city during that period. Mr. Adams, who slept at Brooklyn Borough Hall during the height of the pandemic, said he would spend eight to 12 hours visiting with his partner and family in New Jersey.Carlos Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn, said he spent a total of 14 days outside the city, mostly hiking and meditating but still working remotely. Ms. Morales said she spent two days in upstate New York in July, and one of those days was with her campaign team.Shaun Donovan, the former federal housing secretary, spent two weeks with his family in Washington, D.C., as they were in the process of moving to join him in Brooklyn, according to his campaign. Zach Iscol said he spent a total of 50 days outside of New York with his family in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in between working as deputy director at the Covid-19 field hospital at the Jacob Javits Center.Paperboy Prince raps about universal basic incomeIf there is one candidate in the crowded mayoral field who is most likely to be impersonated on “Saturday Night Live,” it is probably Paperboy Prince, a rapper from Brooklyn.At an online mayoral forum last week, Paperboy performed a rap in support of universal basic income, took two actual pies to the face and expressed concern about waking up a roommate.Paperboy, who ran to be the first nonbinary member of Congress, wore large bedazzled sunglasses indoors and easily had the most colorful backdrop. The rapper won about 14,000 votes in the Democratic primary against Representative Nydia Velazquez last year.Paperboy’s platform includes canceling rent, legalizing marijuana and psychedelics, abolishing the police and issuing reparations to “Black and brown people for the Drug War.”Other unorthodox candidates have garnered attention over the years — if not many votes. Jimmy McMillan ran for governor and mayor on the “Rent is Too Damn High” platform. He released a music video and was played by Kenan Thompson on “S.N.L.” in 2010.The forum, held by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, featured other lesser known candidates: Joycelyn Taylor, the head of a general contracting firm who talked about growing up in public housing; Aaron Foldenauer, a lawyer who bristled at not being featured on the same panel as the leading candidates; and Quanda Francis, an accountant who said she dropped out of high school, which she said was an example of the failures of the city’s education system.A different kind of police commissionerWhen Mayor Bill de Blasio made a major announcement last week about stricter disciplinary rules for officers, he did so without Commissioner Shea.The mayor said that the police commissioner was still recovering from the coronavirus. Yet the commissioner apparently felt well enough to conduct interviews with reporters earlier in the week, raising questions about his support of the new rules and of the mayor.Mr. Yang said he wants to hire a “civilian police commissioner.” Credit…James Estrin/The New York TimesWhat seems clear is that Commissioner Shea does not have the support of most of the mayoral candidates. Ms. Wiley, a former counsel to Mr. de Blasio, even called on the mayor to fire him.Several candidates have talked recently about what they want to see in the next police commissioner. Mr. Yang said he wants to hire a “civilian police commissioner” who was not a police officer and who is “independent from the culture of the Police Department.”Mr. Adams, a former police officer, said he would hire a female police commissioner.At the Brooklyn mayoral forum, Ms. Wiley and Mr. Stringer, the city comptroller, would not commit to hiring a person of color as police commissioner, but pledged that their administrations would be diverse. Mr. de Blasio picked three Irish-American leaders, and the Police Department has not had a Black commissioner since Lee P. Brown resigned in 1992.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats, Assuming Power, Face Recalcitrant Republicans

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNews AnalysisDemocrats, Assuming Power, Face Recalcitrant RepublicansThe looming impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate also presents a complication for Democrats hoping for a fast start in the Biden era.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is set to realize his goal of becoming majority leader Wednesday after the presidential inauguration.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 19, 2021, 7:55 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Democrats will take control of both the White House and Congress on Wednesday for the first time in a decade, but they have already discovered the difficulties of governing with so little room to maneuver around Republicans who appear in no mood to cooperate.Even before President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. was sworn in as the new president, a Republican senator put up a roadblock on Tuesday to one of his cabinet nominees, helping deny Mr. Biden the Day 1 confirmation of national security officials that other incoming presidents have taken for granted for decades. And Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who is set to become majority leader, found himself in difficult negotiations with Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and incoming minority leader, over plans for running an evenly split Senate.On top of those hardly trifling issues, the looming impeachment trial of President Trump presents an extraordinary complication for a party that would no doubt prefer to focus on a bold Democratic agenda out of the gate. However it is eventually structured, the trial is certain to sap time, energy and momentum from the opening days of the new Democratic era in Washington.“It does put a wrinkle in the road,” conceded Christopher J. Dodd, a former Democratic senator from Connecticut and a close adviser to Mr. Biden. “I know Joe is disappointed that it will take some time. But the fact of the matter is, what occurred that day was of such significance that to ignore it or treat it in a casual way would only be an invitation for it to happen again.”The Republican resistance comes as Mr. Biden has made clear that he wants to work with both parties to achieve his legislative ambitions and still sees an opportunity for bipartisan consensus in a Senate that has become much more polarized since he left in 2009 after 36 years.Mr. Schumer is set to become majority leader by the narrowest possible margin on Wednesday afternoon after the inauguration of Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and the seating of three new Democratic senators, setting the margin at 50 to 50 with Ms. Harris empowered to cast tiebreaking votes.Dismissing concerns about the implications of the Senate trial for the Biden agenda, Mr. Schumer and his colleagues have said they can manage to do two things at once, conducting the proceeding while advancing Mr. Biden’s nominees and his other priorities.But the Senate has struggled in recent years to do even one thing at once, and experience has shown that presidential impeachments consume a lot of oxygen.Still, Democrats say they have no choice and few reservations about plunging ahead with a trial they see as a crucial element of a national reckoning after the violent Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and attempt to disrupt the counting of the presidential Electoral College ballots.“We have to send a very strong message that it is unacceptable for a president of the United States to incite a violent mob for the purposes of overturning a democratic election,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “I think we can make clear that this conduct has to be held accountable while we can work to open a new chapter.”Mr. Schumer, Mr. Van Hollen and other Democrats insist that the trial of Mr. Trump for inciting the attack can be conducted quickly if Republicans cooperate. They were buoyed on Tuesday by a strong statement from Mr. McConnell, who made clear that he held the president responsible for the violence and said Mr. Trump had “provoked” the mob.Senator Josh Hawley, center, said he would block quick confirmation of the homeland security secretary nominee, an early blow to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s hopes of working with both parties.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesBut even as Mr. McConnell has indicated an openness to allowing the trial to move forward, he was playing hardball in talks with Mr. Schumer on a so-called power sharing arrangement for managing the Senate in the longer term. In a memo to Republican colleagues and in talks with Mr. Schumer, Mr. McConnell said he wanted Democrats to agree not to weaken the filibuster in exchange for his cooperation in cutting a deal that would let Senate committees get down to business.That created a dilemma for Mr. Schumer, who, along with Democratic activists, wants to hold out the idea of eliminating the 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation — which in recent years has allowed the minority party to block most major initiatives — if Republicans uniformly line up against Mr. Biden’s agenda. The Democratic leader’s office urged Mr. McConnell to drop his demand and instead implement a plan developed 20 years ago, when the Senate was evenly divided and the two parties split committees down the middle.“Leader Schumer expressed that the fairest, most reasonable and easiest path forward is to adopt the 2001 bipartisan agreement without extraneous changes from either side,” said Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer.Regardless of how the negotiations go, Mr. McConnell made it clear Tuesday that Republicans had no intention of clearing the way for Democrats’ most cherished progressive priorities.“Certainly November’s elections did not hand any side a mandate for sweeping ideological change,” he said. “Americans elected a closely divided Senate, a closely divided House and a presidential candidate who said he’d represent everyone.”Mr. Biden’s push to have the Senate confirm some of his key nominees as soon as he took the oath Wednesday encountered an obstacle when Senator Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican who led the challenge to the Electoral College vote, said he would block quick confirmation of Mr. Biden’s secretary of homeland security nominee, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, over immigration concerns.“Mr. Mayorkas has not adequately explained how he will enforce federal law and secure the southern border given President-elect Biden’s promise to roll back major enforcement and security measures,” Mr. Hawley said.His move infuriated Democrats, many of whom blame Mr. Hawley for the Jan. 6 riot that prompted the heightened security concerns that they say require the position to be filled immediately.“I think it really would be disgraceful, and shameful, but unfortunately, Senator Hawley is marching to his own drummer,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, about the delay.The contours of the impeachment trial remain unclear, and even the start date is unknown since Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet presented the Senate with the sole charge. Democrats would like to operate on two tracks and conduct Senate business for part of the day while holding the trial during the remainder — an approach that would require discipline and long hours.But Republicans, some of whom say Democrats have boxed themselves in by insisting on the trial during the crucial opening days of Mr. Biden’s tenure, offered a reminder and a warning Tuesday that impeachment takes center stage in the Senate once a trial begins.“Once she sends the articles of impeachment over, it displaces all other business,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, told reporters on Capitol Hill.While the Senate obviously has its hands full and the new era is not off to the smoothest start, Mr. Schumer, rising to a position he has coveted for years, said Democrats had big plans for their majority.“The next several months will be very busy,” he said, “and a very consequential period for the United States Senate.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Joe Did It. But How?

      by

      Opinion Video features innovative video journalism commentary — argued essays, Op-Ed videos, documentaries, and fact-based explanation of current affairs. The videos are produced by both outside video makers and The Times’s Opinion Video team.Opinion Video features innovative video journalism commentary — argued essays, Op-Ed videos, documentaries, and fact-based explanation of current affairs. The videos are produced by both outside video makers and The Times’s Opinion Video team. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Cash Is Pouring Into the N.Y.C. Mayoral Race. Here’s Who Has the Most.

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCash Is Pouring Into the N.Y.C. Mayoral Race. Here’s Who Has the Most.Eric Adams and Scott Stringer, two of the best-known candidates, continue to far outpace the rest of the Democratic field in raising money.Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, left, has raised the most money so far in the New York City mayor’s race.Credit…Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesJan. 15, 2021Updated 8:58 p.m. ETFor several months, the New York City mayor’s race seemed to revolve around two presumed front-runners: Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller.The two Democrats had name recognition, ties to party leaders and established bases of political and financial support. They had far outpaced the rest of the field in raising money, and were the only two candidates who had raised enough to qualify for public matching funds.Another Democratic candidate, Maya Wiley, may have qualified for the matching-funds program on Friday by meeting the criteria of raising at least $250,000 from at least 1,000 donors, according to her campaign.The contours of the race changed this week with a double jolt of news from two other Democrats: Raymond J. McGuire, a former Citigroup executive, reported raising $5 million in three months, and Andrew Yang, a 2020 presidential candidate, officially joined the race.But the fund-raising numbers, which the city’s Campaign Finance Board released late Friday, offered even more shape to the crowded race, which has more than a dozen candidates.Mr. Adams has raised the most money overall so far, $8.6 million, and will have just over $8 million on hand once matching funds are distributed, his campaign said. He raised $438,000 in the most recent period, with $123,000 of it matchable, and expects a $1 million matching funds payment.Mr. Stringer was expected to have raised at least $8.3 million overall, and to have $7.5 million on hand after raising $458,000 in the latest period, keeping pace with Mr. Adams. Mr. Stringer’s campaign said it expects $1.57 million in matching funds. Ms. Wiley a former MSNBC analyst who served as counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, may have solidified her status as a contender by meeting the matching-funds threshold with her latest fund-raising figures. Ms. Wiley raised $715,000, $280,000 of it matchable, qualifying her for $2.2 million in public money, and bringing the total she has raised to almost $3 million, her campaign said.Ms. Wiley’s campaign flooded email inboxes and social media before this week’s deadline with desperate pleas for donations of as little as $10, offering “Maya for Mayor” bumper stickers to contributors and raising questions about whether she would qualify for matching funds.In a message to her supporters, Ms. Wiley celebrated meeting the threshold and said the fund-raising support she received showed that “we gon’ win this race.”.Mr. McGuire, the only mayoral candidate who is not participating in the matching-funds program, raised much of his money from the business community. At least 20 billionaires — including the hedge fund founder John Griffin and Howard Schultz, the former chief executive of Starbucks — appear on Mr. McGuire’s donor list, which also includes people who have been big contributors to Republican candidates. Mr. McGuire had $3.7 million on hand.Because Mr. McGuire has raised so much money, the spending cap for the June primary will probably be increased to $10.9 million from $7.3 million, meaning candidates like Mr. Adams and Mr. Stringer who were close to the spending limit can continue to raise money.The city’s public campaign-finance system is built to withstand that sort of shock because of the emphasis it places on small-dollar donors, said Matthew Sollars, a Campaign Finance Board spokesman.Democratic candidates who failed to meet the matching-funds threshold included Zach Iscol, a nonprofit entrepreneur and former Marine; Shaun Donovan, a former federal housing secretary under President Barack Obama; and Dianne Morales, a nonprofit executive.Mr. Donovan reported raising a total of $1.6 million and had $913,000 on hand. Mr. Iscol reported falling just short of qualifying for matching funds. Ms. Morales said she had missed the threshold by about $70,000. Ms. Morales told supporters that her campaign had raised $340,000 overall and had 4,100 contributors from the city who gave an average of $50. About 30 percent of Ms. Morales’s donors described themselves as unemployed, her campaign said. Ms. Morales’s campaign, which is focused on working-class and poor New Yorkers, expects to qualify for matching funds at the next deadline after a strong showing in raising money in the past week.“If we keep making money the standard for viability then you have to be connected to wealthy networks,” Ify Ike, a senior adviser for Ms. Morales, said. “We are not going to have a billionaire donate to our campaign.”Several other candidates, including Carlos Menchaca, a councilman from Brooklyn; Kathryn Garcia, a former sanitation commissioner; and Loree Sutton, a former veteran affairs commissioner, also failed to qualify for matching funds. Ms. Sutton’s campaign reported a $4,400 deficit.Mr. Yang, who entered the race officially on Thursday, is expected to be competitive with other leading candidates in raising funds. He had 21,000 donors from New York City during his presidential run, giving him a list of potential contributors that he is expected to tap into quickly.Before the pandemic, fund-raising had proceeded at a rapid pace, and face to face. Before he dropped out of the race in November, the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson, held 55 house parties from March 2019 to March 2020. Mr. Stringer held 65 house parties over the same period, including six events in January and February last year.Now, most candidates are holding virtual fund-raisers. Mr. McGuire’s son, Cole Anthony, who plays for the N.B.A.’s Orlando Magic, held a fund-raiser with a teammate, Mo Bamba. Mr. McGuire has had 41 fund-raising events in three months, his campaign said.The Campaign Finance Board could issue almost $5 million in taxpayer money to the three candidates who are accepting, and have qualified for, public funds, according to estimates from the candidates.The board must audit the donations before distributing any money, which it is scheduled to do next month based on the latest filings. Those filings covered money raised from July 12, 2020 to Jan. 11. That would bring the total of public funds to be distributed in the race to close to $14 million. Ioanna Niejelow, Mr. Donovan’s finance director, said was “very different” to be campaigning through a pandemic. Mr. Donovan has been holding hourlong virtual fund-raisers with 50 to 75 people to allow him to interact with attendees.“I know all about grip and grin, and there’s a real beauty to that,” said Ms. Niejelow, a veteran fund-raiser who has worked on campaigns for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. “But given this environment, virtual has been remarkable in terms of getting out there and having great conversations.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Juicio a Donald Trump: un colofón digno de un mandato presidencial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedRepublican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnálisis de noticiasLa conclusión predestinada de una presidenciaEl segundo proceso de destitución al presidente Trump —en un Capitolio rodeado de tropas— parecía la culminación inevitable de cuatro años que dejan a una nación fracturada, molesta y sin sentido claro de identidad.Integrantes de la Guardia Nacional durante un descanso en el Capitolio cuando resguardaban por turnos la Cámara de Representantes, que se preparaba para votar una moción para someter al presidente Trump a un proceso de destitución.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times15 de enero de 2021 a las 05:00 ETRead in EnglishWASHINGTON — Desde los lóbregos días de la Guerra de Secesión y sus repercusiones no se había visto en Estados Unidos un día como el del miércoles.En un Capitolio lleno de soldados fuertemente armados y de detectores de metal recién instalados, tras haber despejado el desastre físico del ataque de la semana pasada, pero con el desastre político y emocional aún a la vista, el presidente de Estados Unidos fue sometido a un proceso de destitución por intentar destruir la democracia estadounidense.De algún modo, parecía el colofón predestinado de una presidencia que en repetidas ocasiones rebasó todos los límites y tensó las relaciones de la clase política. A menos de una semana de que finalice, el periodo del presidente Donald Trump está llegando a su fin con una sacudida de violencia y recriminaciones en un momento en que el país se ha fracturado de manera profunda y ha perdido el sentido de identidad. Los conceptos de verdad y realidad se han pulverizado. La confianza en el sistema se ha erosionado. La ira es el común denominador.Como si no fuera suficiente que Trump es ahora el único presidente que ha sido sometido en dos ocasiones a un proceso de destitución o que los legisladores intentaran retirarlo del cargo a solo una semana del fin de su mandato, Washington se transformó en una miasma de suspicacia y conflicto. Un congresista demócrata acusó a sus colegas republicanos de ayudar a que integrantes de la turba la semana pasada exploraran de antemano el edificio. Algunos congresistas republicanos evadieron los magnetómetros de seguridad utilizados para vigilar que no entren armas al recinto o siguieron avanzando incluso después de activarlos.Todo esto estaba ocurriendo en el contexto de una pandemia que, aunque concita menos atención, ha aumentado de una manera catastrófica en las últimas semanas de la presidencia de Trump.Más de 4400 personas en Estados Unidos fallecieron por el coronavirus el día anterior a las votaciones de la Cámara de Representantes, más personas murieron en un solo día que todas las que fallecierno en Pearl Harbor, el 11 de septiembre de 2001 o durante la batalla de Antietam. Solo después de que varios congresistas se contagiaron durante el ataque al Capitolio y se implementaron nuevas reglas, finalmente usaron cubrebocas de manera constante durante el debate del miércoles.Los historiadores no han podido definir este momento. Lo comparan con otros periodos de enormes desafíos como la Gran Depresión, la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la Guerra de Secesión, la era de McCarthy y Watergate. Rememoran la paliza a Charles Sumner en el pleno del Senado y la maniobra para, por temor a un ataque, introducir furtivamente a Abraham Lincoln a Washington para su toma de posesión.Hacen referencia al espantoso año de 1968 en que el pastor Martin Luther King Jr. y Robert F. Kennedy fueron asesinados mientras que había alborotos en los recintos de las universidades y los centros de las ciudades por la guerra de Vietnam y los derechos civiles. Y piensan en las secuelas de los ataques del 11-S, cuando parecían inevitables más muertes violentas a gran escala. Sin embargo, nada es como estos acontecimientos.“Quisiera poder brindarles una analogía inteligente, pero sinceramente no creo que nada como esto haya sucedido antes”, dijo Geoffrey C. Ward, uno de los historiadores más respetados del país. “Si me hubieran dicho que un presidente de Estados Unidos iba a alentar a una turba delirante a marchar hacia nuestro Capitolio en busca de sangre, yo les habría dicho que estaban equivocados”.De igual manera, Jay Winik, un cronista destacado de la Guerra de Secesión y de otros periodos de conflicto, señaló que no había nada equivalente. “Es un momento insólito, prácticamente sin paralelo en la historia”, comentó. “Es difícil encontrar otro momento en el que la estructura que nos mantiene unidos se viniera abajo de la manera en que lo está haciendo ahora”.Todo esto deja por los suelos la reputación de Estados Unidos dentro de la escena mundial y convierte lo que al presidente Ronald Reagan le gustaba llamar “la ciudad brillante sobre la colina” en un apaleado caso de estudio de los desafíos a los que se puede enfrentar incluso una potencia demócrata madura.“Prácticamente se ha terminado el momento histórico en que éramos un ejemplo”, afirmó Timothy Snyder, historiador especialista en autoritarismo de la Universidad de Yale. “Ahora tenemos que volver a ganarnos nuestra credibilidad, lo cual quizás no sea algo tan malo”.Las escenas del miércoles en el Capitolio nos recordaron a la Zona Verde de Bagdad durante la Guerra de Irak. Por primera vez desde que los confederados amenazaron con cruzar el río Potomac, los soldados tuvieron que acampar por la noche en el Capitolio al aire libre.El debate para decidir el destino de Trump tuvo lugar en la misma sala de la Cámara Baja donde tan solo una semana antes los oficiales de seguridad desenfundaron sus armas y pusieron barricadas en las puertas al tiempo que los legisladores se lanzaban al suelo o escapaban por la puerta trasera para huir de la turba transgresora partidaria de Trump. Todavía flotaba en el aire la indignación por el asalto. También el miedo.No obstante, hasta cierto punto la conmoción ya había pasado y a veces el debate se sentía tan soporífero como de costumbre. La mayoría de los legisladores pronto se retiraron a sus esquinas partidarias.Cuando los demócratas exigieron rendición de cuentas, muchos republicanos se opusieron y los acusaron de precipitarse a una resolución sin audiencias ni pruebas y sin ni siquiera debatir lo suficiente. Los adversarios de Trump hicieron referencia a su discurso provocador durante un mitin justo antes del asalto. Sus defensores citaron las palabras provocadoras de la presidenta de la Cámara Baja, Nancy Pelosi; de la representante Maxine Waters, e incluso de Robert De Niro y de Madonna para argumentar que había un doble rasero.Daba igual que se comparan peras con manzanas. Importaba más la perspectiva. Trump buscó anular una elección democrática que perdió denunciando falsamente un fraude generalizado, presionando a otros republicanos e incluso a su vicepresidente a apoyarlo y envió a una multitud de seguidores revoltosos al Capitolio a “luchar como el demonio”. Sus aliados, no obstante, dijeron que Trump hacía tiempo era blanco de lo que consideraban ataques e investigaciones injustas y partidistas.“Donald Trump es el hombre más peligroso en ocupar el Despacho Oval”, declaró el congresista Joaquin Castro, demócrata por Texas.“La izquierda en Estados Unidos hasta ahora ha incitado más violencia política que la derecha”, declaró Matt Gaetz, congresista republicano por Florida.En la era de Trump, los puntos de vista radicalmente distintos encapsularon a Estados Unidos. En algún momento, el representante por Maryland Steny Hoyer, líder de la mayoría demócrata, se mostró irritado por la descripción de los hechos del partido contrario. “Ustedes no viven en el mismo país que yo”, exclamó. Y, al menos en eso, todos pudieron estar de acuerdo.Después de alentar a una multitud de sus partidarios a marchar hacia el Capitolio la semana pasada, Trump no ha mostrado arrepentimiento por su papel al incitar los disturbios.Credit…Oliver Contreras para The New York TimesTrump no se defendió y optó por dejar de lado los acontecimientos históricos. Después de las votaciones, publicó un mensaje en video de cinco minutos en el que censuró de manera más amplia la violencia de la semana pasada y repudió a quienes la perpetraron. “Cuando hacen algo así, no están apoyando nuestro movimiento, lo están atacando”, afirmó.Sin embargo, no manifestó pesar ni mostró darse cuenta de que hubiera tenido alguna responsabilidad por nada de esto cuando favoreció la política de la división no solo la semana pasada, sino durante cuatro años. Y aunque no mencionó de manera explícita el proceso de destitución, se quejó de “el ataque sin precedentes a la libertad de expresión” al referirse, al parecer, a la suspensión indefinida de su cuenta de Twitter y a las acciones contra sus aliados que trataron de ayudarle a impedir la certificación de los resultados de las elecciones.A diferencia del primer proceso de destitución de Trump, motivado por presionar a Ucrania para que le ayudara a desprestigiar a los demócratas, esta vez lo abandonaron algunas personas de su partido. Al final, diez republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes se unieron a todos los demócratas para aprobar el único artículo de juicio político, liderados por la representante por Wyoming, Liz Cheney, la tercera republicana en jerarquía. El hecho de que la familia Cheney, quienes solían considerarse provocadores ideológicos, aparecieran en este momento como defensores del republicanismo tradicional fue una prueba de cuánto ha cambiado el partido bajo el mandato de Trump..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›From Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and at the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by Mr. Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Los diez republicanos disidentes no fueron tantos en comparación con los 197 miembros del partido que votaron contra el proceso de destitución. Por otro lado, fueron diez más de los que votaron para destituir a Trump en diciembre de 2019. También fueron el mayor número de miembros del propio partido del presidente en apoyar un proceso de destitución en la historia de Estados Unidos.Otros republicanos intentaron ser más sutiles al aceptar que Trump tenía responsabilidad por haber incitado a la muchedumbre y al mismo tiempo sostuvieron que eso no representaba un delito que amerita iniciar un proceso de destitución, o que resultaba insensato, innecesario y divisorio justo días antes de que Joe Biden, el presidente electo, tomara posesión del cargo.“Eso no significa que el presidente esté libre de culpa”, señaló el representante por California, Kevin McCarthy, líder de la minoría republicana y uno de los aliados más fieles de Trump, cuando se pronunció contra el juicio político. “El presidente tiene responsabilidad por el ataque del miércoles al Congreso por parte de los alborotadores. Debió haber reprendido de inmediato a la turba cuando vio lo que estaba sucediendo”.No obstante, era asombrosa la fidelidad que tantos republicanos de la Cámara Baja mostraron por un presidente que perdió su reelección y que ha hecho tanto daño a su propio partido. “Si la abrumadora mayoría de los representantes electos de uno de los dos partidos estadounidenses no puede rechazar la influencia de un demagogo ni siquiera después de que abiertamente conspiró para anular unas elecciones y al hacerlo amenazara sus vidas mismas, pues entonces tenemos un largo camino por delante”, señaló Frank Bowman, especialista en procesos de destitución de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Misuri.Brenda Wineapple, autora de The Impeachers, un libro sobre el juicio al presidente Andrew Johnson en 1868, dijo que identificó en el debate del miércoles algunos de los argumentos que se hicieron en aquel entonces en contra de la convicción: que sería un mal precedente, que solo dividiría aún más al país.También encontró otro eco, un deseo de superar al polarizante Johnson en favor de su esperado sucesor, Ulysses S. Grant, quien, como Biden, era visto como una figura conciliadora. “Me da esperanza”, dijo. “Debemos tener esperanza”.Pero la extensión de la reconciliación que necesita Estados Unidos es un proyecto que podría resultar abrumador para cualquier presidente sin un consenso bipartidista más amplio. Es posible que a Trump se le someta al proceso de destitución pero casi con certeza terminará la última semana de su mandato y no tiene planes de marcharse discretamente con vergüenza o en la ignominia como otros presidentes que perdieron la reelección han hecho, lo que lo convertiría en una fuerza residual de la vida nacional, incluso desmejorada.Lo que es más, las personas que ven su derrota como un llamado a las armas siguen siendo una fuerza. Los funcionarios de seguridad refuerzan las tropas en Washington para la toma de mando de Biden de la próxima semana, preocupados de que se repita la invasión al Capitolio. Luego de que Trump le dijo falsamente a sus seguidores una y otra vez que la elección había sido robada, las encuestas sugieren que millones de estadounidenses le creen.“La víspera de la elección de 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt dijo que la democracia es más que una palabra: ‘Es una cosa viva —una cosa humana—de cerebros y músculos y alma y corazón’”, dijo Susan Dunn, historiadora de Williams College y biógrafa del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt.Ahora, dijo, tras los eventos de los últimos días y años, “sabemos que las democracias son frágiles y que los cerebros y el alma de nuestra democracia corren un grave riesgo”.Peter Baker es el corresponsal principal de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto las gestiones de los últimos cuatro presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. También es autor de seis libros, el más reciente de ellos se titula The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III. @peterbakernyt • FacebookAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Yang’s Rivals in the Mayoral Race Co-opt His Signature Idea

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyYang’s Rivals in the Mayoral Race Co-opt His Signature IdeaAndrew Yang favors a modified version of universal basic income that would provide payments of about $2,000 to a half million of the poorest New Yorkers. Andrew Yang officially announced his bid for mayor of New York City on Wednesday.Credit…James Estrin/The New York TimesJan. 14, 2021Updated 9:50 p.m. ETUniversal basic income was Andrew Yang’s signature issue in his 2020 presidential run, and it will be a centerpiece of his New York City mayoral campaign, which he officially began Wednesday night with a launch video.But during the months Mr. Yang spent contemplating a run for mayor, his competitors preemptively made his issue their own.Carlos Menchaca, a progressive city councilman, is planning to introduce legislation that would create a targeted universal basic income program in New York City. Eric Adams, Brooklyn’s more centrist borough president, wants to explore universal basic income, too. So does Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive running to the far left.In a race of more than a dozen Democratic candidates, with many trying to out-progressive one another, pushing for a guaranteed income program could be viewed as a form of virtue signaling to the left.But it also shows how an issue that was Mr. Yang’s signature talking point on the 2020 campaign trail has gained enough acceptance to be co-opted by other candidates — a development that threatens to undermine Mr. Yang’s central argument for running.The candidates’ embrace of guaranteed income doesn’t mean that a broad-based program is a particularly viable idea for New York City, given the battering its economy has taken in the pandemic, its yawning budgetary needs and the amount of money needed to guarantee income to the city’s adult population of roughly 6.6 million.Mr. Yang acknowledged as much in his campaign rollout. His proposal for the “largest basic income program in the country” is by no means universal. He would target annual cash payments of about $2,000 to a half million of the poorest New Yorkers, in a city of 8.4 million.Mr. Yang said his proposal would cost the city $1 billion a year — a daunting sum given that the city faces budget deficits in the billions of dollars in coming years. He says further expansion of the program would be dependent upon “more funding from public and philanthropic organizations, with the vision of eventually ending poverty in New York City altogether.”His plan for the country was more far-reaching: He had envisioned giving every American citizen over 18 years of age $1,000 a month in guaranteed federal income, or $12,000 a year, a no-strings-attached dispensation he said was made necessary by the increasingly widespread automation of jobs.“I’m identified with universal basic income for a reason,” he said in a recent interview. “I think it’s the most direct and effective thing we could do to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans who are struggling right now, and anything I do in public life will be advancing the goal of eradicating poverty in our society.”In the interview, Mr. Yang swatted away the notion that his future opponents were trying to steal his signature issue from him. He adopted a more-the-merrier posture.“Frankly, any mayoral candidate who is not making it part of their platform is missing the boat,” Mr. Yang said.Critics argue that a guaranteed income could discourage people from working. Still, the fact that several of the candidates vying to run the economic and cultural capital of the United States are exploring the notion of a guaranteed income does suggest that the concept has gained some momentum.There are now guaranteed income demonstration projects underway in Jackson, Miss.; Santa Clara County, Calif.; and St. Paul, Minn. The terms “universal basic income” and “guaranteed income” are sometimes used interchangeably, but they differ. Many pilot programs are not universal but, like Mr. Yang’s proposal, instead would supply income only to the poorest members of society. Unlike many existing social assistance programs, they would not dictate how recipients spend the money.Natalie Foster, a co-chair of the Economic Security Project, which advocates a guaranteed income, said she has had conversations with more than one New York City mayoral candidate on the topic.“It’s exciting to see it being an issue in the race and not surprising at all, given the momentum across the country,” Ms. Foster said.As a presidential candidate, Mr. Yang advocated giving people a guaranteed basic income of $1,000 a month.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe other candidates touting universal basic income in the mayoral race are largely doing so in less specific terms.Mr. Menchaca said he hopes to include a pilot program in this year’s budget that targets cash grants to low-income New Yorkers. The details of that program have yet to be hammered out.In a recent radio interview, Ms. Morales called for a “universal basic income for people who need it,” and like Mr. Menchaca, suggested the question of how to fund it was something of a red herring, one that often gets asked “when we start talking about prioritizing the needs of the neediest New Yorkers.”She said she would take a look at some of the city’s budgetary “bloating,” including at the New York Police Department, and expressed hope for state aid. In a subsequent email, her spokesman said Ms. Morales thinks a “local basic income” should be funded through a wealth and luxury tax on the “superrich that phases out and does not sacrifice the safety net.”At a recent mayoral forum, Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, said universal basic income could be an important tool “to get people over this very difficult time, particularly low-income New Yorkers.”Asked for specifics, a spokesman declined to provide further details.Other candidates, including Scott M. Stringer, the city’s comptroller, and Kathryn Garcia, its former sanitation commissioner, said they would prefer to see some version of the idea implemented at the federal level instead.Mr. Yang quit the presidential race in February after failing to gain ground in the New Hampshire primary, but he succeeded in making himself a political celebrity — and casting a klieg light on universal basic income. In various forms, the concept has been implemented in small pilot programs around the country, one of which his nonprofit organization, Humanity Forward, is helping to fund in the Columbia County city of Hudson, N.Y.The general idea of a guaranteed income goes back centuries. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent, and early, proponent of the idea in the 20th century, and his son, Martin Luther King III, has continued pushing for it in his father’s stead.“It’s really immoral for us to have people living on the streets in the United States,” said Mr. King, the co-chair of Mr. Yang’s campaign.A new group, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, is pushing for a federal guaranteed income and counts more than two dozen mayors as members, including Ras Baraka of Newark, N.J., Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles and Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta.By Ms. Foster’s count, there are more than 10 pieces of legislation in Congress that would guarantee an income for families until the current economic crisis is over.“And that is political warp speed,” she said.One of the most prominent universal basic income pilots in the United States — the first program spearheaded by a mayor — is now wrapping up in Stockton, Calif. Since February 2019, the privately funded program has given 125 Stockton residents $500 a month. Recipients like Tomas Vargas Jr. will receive their last payments on Jan. 15.Before he joined the program, Mr. Vargas was working as a U.P.S. supervisor. The monthly checks gave him enough financial security and confidence to start looking for a better job. Now he works as a case manager at a Stockton nonprofit. Instead of living paycheck to paycheck and constantly looking for additional ways to make ends meet, he has time to read stories to his young children at bedtime.The no-strings-attached approach is “the beauty” of the program, he said. “It treats you like a human.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More