Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Impeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol Riot

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyImpeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol RiotThe House managers cited the Constitution’s framers in urging that Donald J. Trump be convicted and disqualified from holding office. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the Senate had no jurisdiction.“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,”  Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos and Feb. 2, 2021Updated 8:35 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers on Tuesday laid out their case against Donald J. Trump, asserting that he was “singularly responsible” for the deadly assault on the Capitol last month and must be convicted and barred from holding public office.In an 80-page brief filed on Tuesday, the managers outlined the arguments they planned to make when the Senate opens Mr. Trump’s trial next week, contending that the former president whipped his supporters into a “frenzy” as part of a concerted campaign to cling to power. Spinning a vivid narrative of a harrowing day when lawmakers were forced to flee as a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol, the prosecutors also reached back centuries to bolster their case, invoking George Washington and the Constitutional Convention.“The framers of the Constitution feared a president who would corrupt his office by sparing ‘no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected,’” wrote the nine House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, quoting directly from the 1787 debate in Philadelphia. “If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be.”In Mr. Trump’s own shorter filing, specked with typos and stripped of the former president’s usual bombast, his lawyers flatly denied that he had incited the attack and repeatedly argued that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try a former president. They repeatedly urged an immediate dismissal of the single charge against him, “incitement of insurrection.”“The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th president because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, rendering the article of impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question,” the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wrote in their 14-page response to the charge.Their other broad argument was that Mr. Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 and in the weeks before were constitutionally protected. While they did not argue explicitly that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, as some said he wanted his legal team to do, the lawyers sought to shroud his false claims of widespread voter fraud in free-speech arguments.They effectively argued that Mr. Trump believed he “won it by a landslide,” and therefore was within his First Amendment rights to “express his belief that the election results were suspect.” His claims could not be disproved, they added, because there was “insufficient evidence.”President Biden won the election by about seven million votes, according to results certified by every state. Dozens of cases Mr. Trump brought alleging voting fraud or improprieties were tossed out or decided against him, many times by Republican-appointed judges, for lack of evidence.The impeachment filings provided the clearest preview yet of the legal strategies that are likely to shape a politically fraught impeachment trial of Mr. Trump — his second in just over a year — that is scheduled to begin in earnest in the Senate on Tuesday. They indicated that both sides expected drawn-out debates over the constitutionality of a trial, as much as Mr. Trump’s culpability for what took place.Despite their initial criticisms, a majority of Republican senators now appear to be lining up once again to acquit Mr. Trump. But the arguments could determine the difference between a near-party-line verdict like the one that capped the former president’s first trial in 2020 or a more bipartisan rebuke that could constrain any future political ambition he harbors.Though senators have yet to agree to a final set of rules to govern the proceeding, both parties appear to share an interest in an exceedingly swift trial, without new witnesses or fact-finding, that could conclude as soon as Saturday, Feb. 13. That would be far shorter than any presidential impeachment trial in history. But Republicans are eager to turn a page on a divisive former president, and Democrats are impatient to turn to advancing the agenda of the current one.The House impeachment managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, right, submitted an 80-page brief blaming Mr. Trump for the violent attack.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIf Mr. Trump’s lawyers were trying to reassure Republican senators that they could dismiss the case without confronting its merits, the House managers were aiming instead to force them to confront the terror of the Capitol riot with an unusually visceral prosecution. They have compiled hours of footage from Parler, Twitter and elsewhere that they plan to play from the well of the Senate next week to compel Republicans to face Mr. Trump’s conduct head on, rather than retreating behind arguments around the process.The approach was evident in their legal brief, which was more dramatic in parts than a typical courtroom filing. It follows Mr. Trump from his early-summer warnings about a “rigged” election up to his last, futile attempts to target Congress’s Jan. 6 counting session to snatch victory away from President Biden.All the while, the managers argued, Mr. Trump was issuing a “call to mobilize” to his supporters to “stop the steal.” He invited them to come to Washington in early January. Then used a speech on the Ellipse outside the White House just before the attack to urge them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to confront members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence.The calls incited the mob to action, they argued, citing videos posted on social media in which supporters of Mr. Trump can be heard yelling “invade the Capitol building” after he urges them to “show strength.”“He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the managers wrote.Unlike the first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, which centered on his pressure campaign on Ukraine, this one has bipartisan support and the prosecutors appear poised to make frequent use of Republicans’ own criticisms of Mr. Trump. Their brief quoted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach, as well as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, who said publicly that Mr. Trump “provoked” the mob.In making constitutional arguments in favor of Mr. Trump’s conviction, though, they reached hundreds of years further back, arguing that Mr. Trump had not only prompted violence but threatened the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power begun by Washington. They also cited debates by the founders about who would be subject to impeachment and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial of a former war secretary, to assert that the Senate clearly had a right to try Mr. Trump even after he left office.“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the managers wrote. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.”They also insisted that the First Amendment right to free speech could not shield Mr. Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to do harm to the Constitution, undermining all the rights enshrined there, including free speech.The president’s filing was narrower by design, with a lengthier, more detailed brief due from his lawyers early next week. Still, the contours of their defense were becoming clear.The lawyers said Democrats had misinterpreted Mr. Trump’s actions and his intent, denying that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s win. They said his words to supporters on Jan. 6 — “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” — were not meant as a call to violent action, but were “about the need to fight for election security in general.”“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” they wrote. In another section, they denied that Mr. Trump had “threatened” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state or “acted improperly” when he demanded during a January phone call that the official “find” the votes needed to overturn his loss in that state and vaguely warned of a “criminal offense.”The lawyers reprised an argument against the constitutionality of the trial popular with Republican senators. They asserted that a plain reading of the Constitution — which does not explicitly discuss what to do with an official impeached but not tried before he leaves office — does not permit the Senate to try a former president.But they also said that Mr. Trump “denies the allegation” that his claims that he won the election were false. If that argument plays a central role in the trial, Republican senators could quickly find themselves painfully wedged between a conspiracy theory they fear could do lasting damage to their party and millions of their own voters who believe it.Mr. Trump’s response appeared to be somewhat hastily assembled after the former president shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the brief was due; the response, for example, was addressed to the “Unites States Senate.”In an interview later, Mr. Schoen pointed to another potential argument that could help Mr. Trump: that at least some of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol planned their attack in advance, suggesting that the former president was not the inciting force.“I have no reason to believe anyone involved with Trump was in the know,” he said of the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Still, he conceded the heart of the defense would lie elsewhere.Nicholas Fandos More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Andrew Yang Says He Has Tested Positive for the Coronavirus

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the Race5 Takeaways From the DebateAndrew Yang’s CandidacyWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAndrew Yang Says He Has Tested Positive for the CoronavirusMr. Yang, a New York mayoral candidate who had suspended in-person events after a campaign staff member had tested positive, said he was experiencing mild symptoms.“After testing negative as recently as this weekend, today I took a Covid rapid test and received a positive result,” Andrew Yang said in a statement on Tuesday.Credit…Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesFeb. 2, 2021Updated 8:14 p.m. ETAndrew Yang, a leading New York mayoral candidate who has pursued extensive in-person campaigning amid the pandemic, announced on Tuesday that he had tested positive for the coronavirus.“After testing negative as recently as this weekend, today I took a Covid rapid test and received a positive result,” Mr. Yang said in a statement. “I am experiencing mild symptoms, but am otherwise feeling well and in good spirits. I will quarantine in accordance with public health guidelines and follow the advice of my doctor.”Perhaps more than any other candidate in this year’s race, Mr. Yang has sought to forge an in-person campaign trail, holding multiple events outdoors since declaring his candidacy last month.His approach has generated enthusiasm on the ground and attention in the news media, but even before Mr. Yang tested positive, the risks were clear: A staff member tested positive less than a week after he announced for mayor, forcing the candidate to quarantine.But Mr. Yang had since returned to a robust in-person schedule. He said his campaign had begun the contact-tracing process.“During this time, I will continue to attend as many virtual events as possible, in addition to working with our incredible campaign team to continue our mission of getting New York City back on its feet,” Mr. Yang, 46, said in the statement. “When the time is right, I look forward to once again hitting the campaign trail and advancing a positive vision for our city’s future.”In addition to the health considerations, the developments offer a vivid illustration of the campaigning challenges facing the mayoral candidates as they scramble to stand out before June’s Democratic primary. Many worry about their ability to connect over livestreams and wonder about how many voters they are truly reaching with virtual events. But the health risks — to the candidates, their staffs and their supporters — remain real.Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller whose mother died of complications from Covid-19, and Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, have both had to quarantine recently, though they have generally been far more cautious about in-person campaigning.Pursuing a vigorous in-person schedule also may carry some political risk, especially in a Democratic primary.Throughout the presidential campaign, the Democrats drew sharp contrasts with their Republican rivals over the matter of taking the virus seriously. President Biden’s staff members argued that by pursuing a lighter in-person campaign schedule, they were respecting scientific and medical recommendations and offering a glimpse of how Mr. Biden would lead the country through the pandemic — contrasting with President Donald J. Trump’s large in-person rallies.None of the Democratic mayoral hopefuls are holding large rallies, though Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has faced criticism for fund-raising indoors. But they do face the challenge of breaking out of a crowded field while also signaling that they take seriously a pandemic that has devastated the city.In an interview, Mr. Stringer wished Mr. Yang a quick recovery, but he also cast the development as a “wake-up call” to the mayoral field — a sign that some of the candidates are increasingly willing to draw mild contrasts with one another, and in particular with Mr. Yang.“This is a dangerous business now, as long as this virus is raging, and we do have a special obligation to keep our people safe,” Mr. Stringer said.“Nobody wants to see, you know, a colleague get sick,” he added. “But you don’t want to be the one to expose people. So, you know, whether it’s indoor fund-raising or up-close campaigning, we have to write new rules to keep people safe while we inoculate as many people as possible.”A spokesman for Mr. Adams declined to comment on the reference to indoor fund-raising. In a statement, Mr. Yang’s co-campaign manager, Sasha Ahuja, said that the team’s strategy is informed by public health guidance.“We hope every other campaign does the same and does as much or as little as they are comfortable with,” the statement said.On Twitter, Mr. Yang used the moment to suggest a balm to speed his recovery.“In all seriousness if you want me to feel better donate to my campaign!” he wrote. “Then I can relax.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why Arizona’s Senators May Collide With Democrats Who Elected Them

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Arizona’s Senators May Collide With Democrats Who Elected ThemSenators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly ran on bipartisan approaches to governing, but some Democrats in Arizona view their openness to Senate Republicans with skepticism.Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, at the 2020 State of the Union address. She and Senator Mark Kelly have assumed unusual stature amid all the talk about bipartisanship.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 2, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETDemocrats control the U.S. Senate by a single vote. President Biden has placed bipartisanship near the top of his agenda. Republican senators are pushing for deals, including on Covid-19 during a meeting on Monday with the president. On the economy, on immigration, on health care — the Biden administration will need votes from every senator it can get.Which is where Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly come in.Arizona’s two Democratic senators, both moderates, have assumed unusual stature amid all the talk about bipartisanship. Ms. Sinema made waves and frustrated progressives last month when she aligned with Republicans to maintain the filibuster, which empowers the minority party. Mr. Kelly was part of a bipartisan group of 16 senators who recently met with White House officials to discuss Covid relief. The pair represent a state that Mr. Biden narrowly flipped in November; pleasing Arizona is a new Democratic priority.But if Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly are emerging as players in Washington, the politics back home are more complicated. Arizona Democratic Party officials and activists threw themselves into the two senators’ races, despite the fact that many of these Democrats are more progressive than either Ms. Sinema or Mr. Kelly. Now they are eager for their senators not just to embrace the middle, but also to adopt the policies the left is pressing for as well. Many view the senators’ openness to Republicans with skepticism.Mr. Kelly and his wife, former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, after his swearing-in ceremony in December.Credit…Al Drago for The New York Times“So many things went into Kelly and Sinema’s victory that no one effort can take credit, but also everything was necessary, so nothing can be sacrificed,” said Ian Danley, the executive director of Arizona Wins, who helped coordinate voter outreach among dozens of liberal organizations last year. “They’re both in a tough spot. Those different strategies from a policy perspective can be in conflict.”Ms. Sinema, who was elected in 2018, and Mr. Kelly, who won last year, both ran for office on bipartisan approaches to government. And given the narrow Democratic control in the Senate, both senators are likely to prove essential to the Biden agenda as well as any major legislative deal-making on issues central to the state, including immigration, health care and Covid relief.Their importance was on clear display last week when Vice President Kamala Harris included the Phoenix ABC affiliate and The Arizona Republic’s editorial board in a round of interviews as she promoted the administration’s Covid relief package. Though Ms. Harris did not mention Ms. Sinema or Mr. Kelly by name, she left no doubt that their loyalty was paramount.“If we don’t pass this bill, I’m going to be very candid with you: We know more people are going to die in our country,” Ms. Harris said in the interview with The Republic. “More people will lose their jobs and our children are going to miss more school. We’ve got to be here collectively to say that that is not an option in America.”That same day, Ms. Harris offered similar comments to a television station and newspaper in West Virginia. Later, Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat who has represented the state since 2010 and relishes his reputation as an independent, voiced his own frustration, saying her interview was “not a way of working together.”Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly made no such comments, and some progressives viewed their silence as worrisome.“We need to be able to depend on these senators that we worked so hard to elect,” said Tomás Robles, an executive director of LUCHA, a civil rights group that knocked on tens of thousands of doors in Arizona for Democrats last year. “If they’re going to act like a moderate Republican, we will remember by the time elections come. We expect them to recognize that Latinos voted overwhelmingly for those two, and we expect them to repay our loyalty.”Nayeli Jaramillo-Montes, a canvasser with the Arizona advocacy group LUCHA, which knocked on tens of thousands of doors for Democrats last year.Credit…Gabriella Angotti-Jones for The New York TimesFor many immigration activists, a sense of pessimism has already begun to sink in. They fear that Democrats will try to strike a deal with Republicans who are unlikely to approve the sweeping changes Mr. Biden has proposed — similar to the strategy that failed during the Obama administration.Erika Andiola, a Phoenix-based immigration activist, became the first known undocumented congressional aide when she worked for Ms. Sinema in 2013, drawn to what she saw as Ms. Sinema’s intense interest and commitment in the issue. Now, Ms. Andiola said she viewed her former boss as moving to a more conservative stance on immigration — more often emphasizing border security than creating a path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.“There is a window of time now and there is a way for Democrats to get something done on immigration — and they can do it on their own,” Ms. Andiola said. “In the moment of crisis, you have to choose your battles, you have to choose what you can win. Pick the right strategy. Compromising with Republicans is not going to get us anywhere.”Both Ms. Sinema and Mr. Kelly declined to be interviewed for this article, but statements from their offices emphasized bipartisanship and border security, as well as support for Dreamers, who were brought to the United States as children of unauthorized immigrants and have been threatened with deportation at times. Mr. Kelly is already part of the group of 16 senators tasked with finding bipartisan agreement on the relief package. Ms. Sinema has been one of the most outspoken critics of Arizona’s response to the pandemic, and some Arizona Democrats believe she will be supportive of the Biden administration’s package.Raquel Terán, the newly elected chair of the Arizona Democratic Party and a state representative, acknowledged that the two senators “didn’t campaign on the progressive end of spectrum.” But she said that while there might be some disagreements, she expected both to side with Mr. Biden on the relief package, health care and immigration.Raquel Terán, the new chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, said she expected the state’s senators to back President Biden’s agenda.Credit…Bob Christie/Associated Press“They will vote for the Democratic agenda, the agenda that Joe Biden has put forward — they supported him in the election and what they put on the table, so I am hopeful,” Ms. Terán said. “I hope that they will do everything to ensure that his agenda is not blocked.”Arizona has a long history with high-profile, independent-minded senators willing to buck party lines, and others who amassed political power — John McCain and Jon Kyl were long seen as two of the most influential senators during their time in office, and Jeff Flake became one of the first Republicans in the Senate to openly criticize former President Donald J. Trump.“There is no state in America that is going to play a more pivotal role in the direction of congressional legislation in the next two years,” said Glenn Hamer, the president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. “Every major piece of legislation is going to go right through Arizona, and the role many of us want our senators to play is as someone who reaches across the aisle.”Many Democrats point out that the political atmosphere of the state has changed drastically since 2018, with voters flipping both Senate seats and a Democrat presidential candidate winning in Arizona in November for only the second time in five decades. And since the riot in Washington last month, more than 5,000 Republicans have dropped their party affiliation.Still, Mr. Hamer warned that both senators were in a precarious political position, particularly Mr. Kelly, who won a special election and is up for re-election in 2022. (The Chamber of Commerce endorsed his opponent in the election last year, and did not make an endorsement in Ms. Sinema’s race.)Approving major changes like a $15-an-hour minimum wage or an immigration package that does not include more enforcement, Mr. Hamer said, would turn off the moderate voters who also helped propel the pair to Washington.“I don’t believe you can have unity in America without bipartisan legislation, and I really believe both of them have a role to play in that,” he said. “That would be far better and more durable than trying to blow up the filibuster.”Mr. Danley, a longtime liberal activist, similarly warned that the two senators could not take new voters in the state for granted.“If we’re going to turn out voters who support you, we need ammunition, we need to have something that is real and legitimate,” Mr. Danley said. “We can’t keep going out saying they are better than the bad guys — that is too low of a bar. What about actually being good for these folks who showed up and who have expectations?”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Ryan Is Said to Plan Senate Bid

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTim Ryan, a Top Democrat in Ohio, Is Said to Plan Senate BidMr. Ryan, who mounted a long-shot campaign for president in 2019, plans to compete for the state’s open Senate seat. His campaign will test Democrats’ strength in a state tilting to the right.Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio has argued that Democrats will build enduring majorities only if they reclaim support from a multiracial, working-class coalition of voters.Credit…Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesFeb. 1, 2021, 5:34 p.m. ETRepresentative Tim Ryan of Ohio plans to run for his state’s open Senate seat, Democrats who have spoken with him said, a bid that would test whether even a Democrat with roots in the blue-collar Youngstown region and close ties to organized labor can win in the increasingly Republican state.Mr. Ryan, an 18-year House veteran, has reached out to a host of Ohio and national Democrats in recent days about the seat now held by Senator Rob Portman, a Republican who stunned officials in both parties by announcing last week that he would retire.Former Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, a Democrat who has been encouraging Mr. Ryan to run, said of the congressman, “I think he is the person with the best chance, given this political climate we’re in and given the way Ohio has been performing.”“He has the ability to appeal to a lot of independents, and Democrats will be very excited about this candidacy,” Mr. Strickland said.Mr. Ryan has also discussed his candidacy with Representative Marcy Kaptur, the longest-serving member in Ohio’s congressional delegation, and national labor leaders, including Lee Saunders of Afscme, while also receiving a nudge from Hillary Clinton.Asked about these conversations, Mr. Ryan said on Monday that he was “encouraged by their support, enthusiasm and commitment,” adding, “The U.S. Senate needs another working-class voice, and I’m very serious about the opportunity to continue representing the people of Ohio.”He is expected to declare his candidacy by the beginning of March, according to Democrats briefed on his planning.Long one of the country’s quintessential political battlegrounds, Ohio has turned sharply right since former President Donald J. Trump’s ascent. Mr. Trump carried the state by eight percentage points in 2016 and won it again by the same margin last year, even as Joseph R. Biden Jr. emphasized his working-class appeal and made a late push in the state.Senator Sherrod Brown is the only Democrat remaining in statewide office in Ohio. And even with his fiercely populist approach, Mr. Brown has lost ground among once-reliable Democrats in eastern Ohio, including those in the industrial area south of Lake Erie and in the more rural enclaves that trace the Ohio River.Mr. Ryan hails from Niles, Ohio, just north of Youngstown, a region filled with voters who are effectively Trump Democrats, many of them union members or retirees. He outperformed Mr. Biden in his district, but Democrats there suffered a series of losses in other down-ballot races.The question, should Mr. Ryan become his party’s nominee, is if he can win back these mostly white voters.Mr. Ryan has long considered running statewide, but in the past decided on seeking re-election to the House seat he first won in 2002, when he succeeded the famously fiery, and corrupt, James Traficant.Mr. Ryan mounted a long-shot bid for the presidency in 2019 with the same message he’s expected to carry into the Senate contest — that Democrats will build enduring majorities only if they reclaim support from a multiracial, working-class coalition of voters.Beyond elevating that argument, Mr. Ryan, 47, has another compelling reason to run for the Senate: As Republicans grow stronger in eastern Ohio, his district has become increasingly competitive, and the Republican Party could redraw the state’s districts to make it even more forbidding for him in 2022.While he has risen on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Ryan has mostly given up on his hopes to join the House leadership, having been turned back in his 2016 challenge against Nancy Pelosi, then the minority leader.In Congress, Mr. Ryan has been a close ally of unions and has generally toed the Democratic line, shifting toward a stance in support of abortion rights in recent years. Even before formally announcing his bid, Mr. Ryan drew support from the state chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which on Monday released a letter endorsing his undeclared candidacy.Mr. Ryan will enter the Senate race as an early front-runner. He is one of the few Democrats left in the state’s congressional delegation, and represents a region of the state the party is desperate to reclaim. He also has deep relationships with national leaders.On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton publicly encouraged Mr. Ryan to run for the Senate, repaying him for his support for her when she ran against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primary race.“You’re right, Kathy!” Mrs. Clinton wrote on Twitter, promoting a message from a Democratic activist in Ohio, Kathy DiCristofaro, who wrote that “Ohio needs leaders like @timryan to fight for working people.”Mr. Ryan also has an ally in the White House, having endorsed Mr. Biden in November 2019, a low ebb in the race for the candidate.It’s unlikely, though, that the congressman will run unopposed for the Senate nomination. One Democrat whose name has been floated for the seat, Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, said she was “thinking about it” when asked on the day Mr. Portman announced his retirement. Ms. Whaley is also considering a run for governor, though, and many Ohio Democrats believe she and Mr. Ryan would try to avoid clashing in a primary.Equally intriguing to some Democrats in the state is Dr. Amy Acton, who as the former director of Ohio’s Department of Health ran the coronavirus response effort last year for Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican. She is considering joining the race, The Plain Dealer of Cleveland reported last week, and received her own online boost when Connie Schultz, a longtime Ohio columnist and the wife of Mr. Brown, wrote on Twitter: “Imagine Dr. Amy Acton as Ohio’s next U.S. senator. I sure can.”The Republicans are likely to have an even more crowded primary field. The race appears to be wide open after the announcement last week by Representative Jim Jordan, the far-right Trump ally whom the former president awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, that he would remain in the House.A number of other House members may run, including Representative Steve Stivers, a Columbus-area lawmaker. A host of would-be self-funders are also eyeing the seat, including Jane Timken, the chair of the Ohio Republican Party.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Why Barbara Kavovit, Entrepreneur and Occasional ‘Housewives’ Friend, Is Running for Mayor

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

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The First Post-Reagan Presidency

      by

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