The Dictatorship

Why New Yorkers rejected Andrew Cuomo

Published

12 months ago

June 26, 2025

“All he had was name recognition, and then Mamdani had that,” my mother — a New Yorker for a half-century — said late Tuesday night when I filled her in on what had just happened in the city’s Democratic mayoral primary.

The results were an emperor-has-no-clothes moment, revealing that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s city-in-crisis campaign was wildly out of step with what New York’s Democrats want in their next mayor. Though it’s only a local election, it’s a repudiation by the electorate of the fading Democratic dynasties, which Cuomo surely represents.

Tapping into that pessimism to lecture voters to grit their teeth and think about how much worse it could be wasn’t a winning message.

After three months of projecting his grim inevitability, beginning with a 17-minute straight to camera monologue about a city in crisis while channelling the only I can fix it vibes of another son of Queens, New York’s Democrats poured into the polls to reject Cuomo’s fear-based attempt to tap into the darker instincts of a city where most voters think things are headed in the wrong direction.

Spoiler alert: Tapping into that pessimism to lecture voters to grit their teeth and think about how much worse it could be wasn’t a winning message. Zohran Mamdani, running with much more vigor and urgency, offered a far more compelling Trump-derived counterpunch: Look at this guy. How much worse could I be?

Cuomo’s fall came as news to pundits, pollsters, editorial board members and a business class that spent millions trying to derail Mamdani, many months after he built up a small army of young volunteers knocking on doors with enthusiasm on his behalf. Suddenly, people who’ve never felt connected to the city’s suffocating backroom politics — where the politicians like to pick their voters instead of the other way around — went out to make sure their friends and neighbors voted, too.

That’s the sort of small-d democratic politics the city’s big-D Democratic gave up on many years ago — so that they could keep the same voter base that elected them in the first place, at least until those voters die or move. But that means outsiders, like the Democratic Socialists of America, willing to put in the work to get new voters to turn out, have an opportunity to change the math and wield an awful lot of power.

Mamdani’s supporters weren’t downstream of politics but active participants in it. They got an energy boost in the closing phase as former Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who openly envisioned the city as a luxury product while spending a quarter billion dollars on his own three runs here, put $8.3 million into outside spending backing Cuomo and trashing Mamdani.

Others dumped tens of millions more into an endless deluge of TV ads and mailers treating a smiling young man (who’s been game to talk to anyone, any time, make his case) as some sort of alien threat. It felt like an awfully heavy and negative thumb on the scale, and failed to make much of a positive case for Cuomo.

“The governor,” as his team continued to refer to him years after he resigned from that office before his own party could impeach him, turned out to be an indefinite object, giving way the moment voters had their say. The unstoppable force of Mamdani’s smiling populist promise of a city that can deliver more to New Yorkers, rather than tell them what they can’t afford to hold onto, won the day.

Mamdani’s supporters weren’t downstream of politics but active participants in it.

Cuomo, who’d dominated New York’s politics for the past two decades, clearly disdained the office for which he was running (regularly sneering about how the mayor can’t do anything Albany won’t allow), and kept his distance from the city even after moving into his daughter’s $8,000-a-month office to establish residency here. He never fully engaged with rival candidates, the press or the people in a city he hadn’t lived in for decades.

New Yorkers aren’t stupid. We know the difference between a volunteer and someone paid or pressed by their union to show up to support a politician — and we know the difference between a candidate running to manifest something new and one running because he feels entitled to public power.

National Democrats reeling after last year’s elections need to take care not to over-index what happened here. Mamdani isn’t a model, he’s a moment — a candidate with great natural gifts who also was blessed with a perfect opponent. Mamdani rose to the occasion, but he still needs to win November’s general election in what will be a crowded field, open to all voters and (unlike the ranked choice vote primary) where the most votes will win.

Cuomo could still be on the ballot. And Mayor Eric Adams, who won the Democratic primary four years ago and is running as an independent, as he’s midway through a heel turn toward Trump, also loves to punch left.

But it’s clear that Mamdani is now the favorite to be New York City’s 111th mayor, and he gave a fine primary night speech about seeking to unite the whole city and not just his political movement. But there are serious questions he’s yet to answer, including what he’d do to make government more efficient to help pay for his pricey proposals about “free” benefits to New Yorkers.

Perhaps more urgently, he’s been vague about how the police would function under him, specifically how they would or would not work with or against Trump’s federal agents, how they would handle protesters and how he would relate to the Democratic Socialists of America that’s treated its elected officials as avatars rather than independent agents.

Remarkably, endless questions about his views on Israel have helped him avoid addressing these more local and pressing concerns about how his ideology would lead him to govern.

If the center wanted to hold, it should never have lined up behind a divisive and overly familiar establishment figure like Cuomo — who’s breeded pessimism and seemed epically incapable of self-reflection about his treatment of women who worked for him, or of the political leaders who worked with him, pushed him out and then lined up behind him again this year.

It turns out that voters weren’t interested in following those leaders.

Harry seal

Harry Siegel is a senior editor at the newsroom The Citya columnist for the New York Daily Newsand the producer and a co-host of the “FAQ NYC” podcast.

The Dictatorship

National Guard and Park Police patrol as coating peels…

Published

18 minutes ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

National Guard and Park Police patrol as coating peels…

WASHINGTON (AP) — National Guard members and U.S. Park Police patrolled the deck around the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Monday as President Donald Trump’s administration faces a self-imposed deadline to fix a botched renovation before the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration.

The patrols came two days after Trump said authorities had made “multiple arrests” of people he insisted were responsible for damage to the peeling coating after an algae bloom occurred. The liner was installed as part of his $14 million-plus project.

The president has confirmed the problems most likely require draining the pool again for liner repairs and he promised a quick fix. Without offering substantiation, he also said vandals dumped fertilizer in the pool and slashed the coating with a box cutter.

But the timeline was not clear Monday, with the White House saying damaged areas are still being assessed. Contractors and federal workers in recent days have been using chemicals and ozone nanobubbles to combat the algae.

Trump pitched the original improvements as intended to clean, beautify and reinforce an iconic site that he said had become dilapidated and dirty because of previous presidents’ neglect. Algae has plagued the pool for a century, and Trump insisted that a newly installed “American flag blue” coating, which he selected himself, would turn the pool into a gleaming expanse along the National Mall.

Yet within weeks of Trump declaring the rehabilitation completed in time for Independence Day, the water was plagued by a vivid green algae bloom that clouded the pool’s coating. A piece of liner, about 4 square feet, was observed Friday partially floating in the pool. The Associated Press saw additional pieces in the water Monday.

Via social media, the president has blamed the problems on “SICK, DERANGED PEOPLE!” He asserted Monday on Truth Social that intentional damages include a “300 foot long gash” and that “chemicals have been illegally placed in the water.” A day earlier, Trump posted, “Work will begin immediately on fixing the seriously vandalized Reflecting Pool.”

At an executive order signing on Monday, the president said five people had been arrested and five more were under suspicion, and he deflected blame for the pool’s maintenance issues: “I can’t help it if somebody goes in with a knife and starts hacking it up.” He has not backed up those claims, and even if anyone has deliberately peeled or cut the lining, that would not explain the algae bloom that appeared more intensely than what typically occurred before the renovation.

Images showing that Trump’s project apparently backfired boomeranged across social media last week, drawing crowds of onlookers eager to see the effects themselves. An unknown number ended up being detained by federal authorities.

One man arrested was David Hearn, 67, of Bethesda, Maryland. A former Olympic canoe racer, Hearn told The Associated Press that he reached into the pool because he wanted to examine the peeling new coating. He said he briefly touched a chunk that was still attached to the side of the pool, then let go shortly after a park worker told him to. Hearn said he was then detained by National Guard troops and Park Police for five hours before being released Friday night.

“I’m a curious citizen,” Hearn said in a telephone interview. “I reached down to see what it felt like. It was very rubbery.”

The Park Police did not immediately respond Monday to AP’s questions about how many arrests were made and whether any charges had been filed. Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department said Monday that the agency is not involved.

The White House said Monday that any arrests have been made only by the U.S. Park Police.

It was not immediately apparent what criminal or civil violation someone might commit reaching into the pool. Trump, in one of his Truth Social posts, cited laws against defacing monuments as grounds for imprisoning anyone harming the pool.

___

Barrow reported from Atlanta. Katie Vogel contributed reporting from Washington.

The Dictatorship

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

Published

18 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — Eight protesters accused by the Justice Department of having ties to antifawere sentenced Tuesday to decades in federal prison over a shooting outside a Texas immigration detention center that wounded a police officer. Prosecutors have called the shooting an act of terrorism.

One of the defendants, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, was sentenced to 100 years in prison, the maximum punishment.

The lengthy sentences were condemned by family members and supporters in a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. Hope Song, whose son Benjamin Songreceived the heftiest sentence, disputed prosecutors’ claims that her son shot the officer and said he didn’t intend to hurt anyone.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened wasn’t a protest but “an assault on democracy.”

“The need to deter this type of conduct is high,” O’Connor said.

The seven other protesters received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

Prosecutors said the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization and a targetof the Trump administration. Antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.

The defendants deny any affiliation with antifa and maintain they attended the demonstration in support of detained immigrants.

Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties.

“People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison,” Gatto said. “They believe violence is justified.”

Phillip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the courthouse that he takes issue with the idea that the protesters are extremists.

“This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Hayes said. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”

Prosecutors said in court that Song had yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.

Hayes argued that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet hit the officer after he arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. He said his client will appeal the 100-year sentence.

“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”

Other defendants and their family members pleaded for leniency in court.

Autumn Hill said the gathering “seemed more like a party to me than anything else” and that she and others who participated “didn’t expect or want any violence or destruction of property to occur.”

Amber Lowrey told the judge that her sister, Savanna Batten, is a compassionate person with dreams of opening a bakery. She said Batten’s activism started with animal rights and evolved into anti-war and human rights advocacy.

“She’s the best person I know,” Lowrey said.

Hill and Batten both received 50-year sentences.

Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.

Critics warn the case could have a wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 peoplewith impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdownin Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.

The Dictatorship

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

Published

18 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

About a month into Donald Trump’s second term, Senate Republicans weighed whether to confirm one of the president’s worst nominees. Indeed, the list of reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence was not short.

The former congresswoman lacked the requisite experience in intelligence matters. She had an indefensible habit of echoing Russian propaganda. She struggled to explain her record of defending Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. Senators heard from former national security officials who issued unsubtle warnings about elevating Gabbard to an important and influential position.

But in case that weren’t quite enough, let’s also not overlook the fact that Gabbard was a member of a secretive Hare Krishna offshoot religious sect that is considered by many of its former members to be an abusive cult.

Gabbard, who wrapped up her tenure as DNI last week, has long insisted that any suggestion that she was somehow enthralled to or controlled by this sect or its leader, whom she has referred to as her “guru,” is just bigotry against her faith.

But it’s against this backdrop that The Washington Post obtained hundreds of secret memos prepared for Gabbard during her congressional tenure, which were put together by members of the alleged cult and which included thousands of pages of specific directives to her on policy and politics.

After careful analysis of thousands of these documents, which have not been independently verified by MS NOW, the Post determined that they likely came from Gabbard’s secretive guru, a man named Chris Butler.

The memos, starting in 2013, when the Hawaiian first arrived on Capitol Hill, reflect a dynamic in which Gabbard didn’t just take direction from the materials, but essentially took dictation from the alleged cult leader: Memos told Gabbard what she should do as a member of Congress, and she often did exactly that, sometimes word for word.

The Post’s Jon Swaine spent months trying to get Gabbard to respond to questions, but to no avail. Her spokeswoman reportedly encouraged Swaine to drop the story, saying, “I cannot imagine WaPo’s readers would be interested in yet another uncredible, bigoted attack on the DNI’s faith.”

On May 20, Swaine nevertheless alerted the DNI and top members of her staff to the fact that the Post was prepared to publish his reporting anyway on her association with Butler.

On May 22, Fox News reported that Gabbard was leaving the administration, ostensibly because of a health issue involving her husband.

This week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke on the Senate floor and commented on the reporting:

There are reports that Tulsi Gabbard was receiving instructions from a so-called guru and repeating them word for word. That ought to concern all of us if it’s true. No one knows who this guru really is, what his connections are, and where the instructions came from. … We need answers.

The New York Democrat’s comments made sense, though it’s worth considering who, exactly, “we need answers” from.

It stands to reason, for example, that Gabbard has some explaining to do, but I’m also interested in the answers from those who elevated her to an influential intelligence office in the first place.

In February 2025, confronted with an avalanche of reasons to reject Gabbard’s nomination, 52 Senate Republicans — every GOP member except Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell — shrugged off every red flag and voted to confirm her as the nation’s DNI, including so-called “moderates” such as Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

The question for these 52 senators seems obvious: Do you regret that confirmation vote and now recognize it as a mistake? Or do you still think it was a good idea to put Gabbard in this influential intelligence position?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”