NYC business leaders are terrified of what socialist Zohran Mamdani may do as mayor
Friends of mine, prominent players in the New York City business community, tell me they are horrified that a certified socialist, Zohran Mamdani, might become our next mayor.
Their next step is Florida, or somewhere, anywhere out of his grasp if Mamdani does become mayor as the polls suggest could happen — even with the more moderate, albeit flawed, Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, seemingly in the lead for the Democratic nomination. In this one-party town, that usually means a ticket into Gracie Mansion.
'We need Cuomo to win or we're doomed,' is how one brand-named, uber-rich New Yorker put it over dinner the other night at Elio's, the Upper East Side restaurant frequented by New York's top business leaders.
Advertisement
Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani campaigning in East Harlem on June 18, 2025.
Robert Miller
Yes, 'Mayor Mamdani' is a scary thought. He sees anyone with a heartbeat and a job as part of the problem, an oppressor class that needs to be exploited to pay for an ever larger welfare state.
His positions on Israel are so noxious, they don't bear repeating.
Advertisement
But his type has been here before — and for a long time, which is why crying over Mamdani is, as they say, a bit rich when it comes from the rich.
New York City and state have been experiencing massive outmigrations of people and business for years because the Big Apple and the Empire State have been run largely by the radical left for the better part of two decades.
Our tax base is being decimated by crime and the cost of living. Banks are moving more of their operations to lower-taxed Texas and Florida. Real estate is sinking.
All of this has picked up steam in recent years, but it's hardly a new phenomenon and you can blame the now-sweating fat-cat class for allowing it to happen. Their money could have informed the public of the city and state's death spiral and backed sensible mayoral candidates, people like John Catsimatidis, an entrepreneur and true New Yorker.
Advertisement
The current Republican candidate and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa is smart enough to appoint people who successfully ran the city under Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg. Sliwa also ran four years ago, and would have been a far better choice than the ethically challenged Eric Adams.
Speaking up too late
Instead, the city's business class sat idly by. They acquiesced as a defund-the-police prosecutor, the hapless Alvin Bragg, became Manhattan DA. Only after a violent-crime spree against their own employees perpetrated by criminals allowed to roam the streets because of Bragg's policies did they say a word.
Where were they during Comrade Bill de Blasio's reign of terror and error? Recall in 2021, Adams ran as mayor promising to address the crime wave and with business support. But only after crime coverage by this newspaper did he step up policing by appointing the highly competent Jessica Tisch as police commissioner.
Advertisement
Likewise, where's the outrage over the emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the fatuous Bronx and Queens congresswoman?
She comes from similar lineage as Mamdani — leftist education, devoid of private sector experience, dimwitted when answering tough policy questions, though good at social media — the main qualifications for the leadership in New York's Democratic Party, and increasingly the national party as well.
Which brings us to the business community's preferred choice, Cuomo. They see him as a smart, moderating influence on the left. Most are unimpressed by the reasons he was forced out as governor, as they should be. The sexual-impropriety case mounted by state AG Tish James was at best a political hit job from someone who wanted his job and searched for stuff that couldn't stand legal scrutiny.
You can criticize him for locking down the city during COVID, but those were perilous times, and confusion from DC on how to react didn't help. Count me as highly skeptical that he was solely responsible for those nursing home deaths since hospitals were calling on the state to return the elderly once they appeared to clear the virus to make room for others as the pandemic spread.
My problem with Cuomo is doubts over whether he will stand up to the progressives who are destroying New York City and the state in general.
His instincts are moderate — maybe even a bit conservative given the leftism that permeates the Democratic Party. I've sat down with him, and he talks a good game about preserving the business class in the city, how they produce jobs and will produce them elsewhere if he taxes them out of the state.
Advertisement
He understands the need for public safety, how the economy is inextricably tied to people feeling safe, which makes him an anomaly in New York's Dem Party. Housing values increase when you're not worried about them getting robbed. If people can't take the subway to work, they can now work from home, depriving small businesses of that end of the wealth effect.
And yet, in his later years as governor, he gave in far too much to the lefty loons. New York state should be a fracking capital given shale supplies upstate. Cuomo blocked that. His bail reform law has been a disaster. Taxes were too high when he was governor, as they are now. He made the incompetent Kathy Hochul his No. 2 and now we're stuck with her running the state in his absence.
That said, Cuomo's first term was decidedly centrist on taxes and a lot more. His dad, Mario Cuomo, a three-term governor, was among the greatest politicians of our time, so Andrew learned from the best.
Will Cuomo 2.0 beat back the misguided support for Mamdani? The business class — and the future of this great city — are depending on it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
40 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with Iran
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United States attacked three sites in Iran early Sunday, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe that prompted fears of a wider regional conflict. Addressing the nation from the White House, President Donald Trump asserted that Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated.' There was no independent damage assessment. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted that its nuclear program will not be stopped. Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations. It was not clear whether the U.S. would continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a war with Iran for nine days. Trump acted without congressional authorization , and he warned that there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, warned in a post on X that the U.S. attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate. Hours later, Iranian missiles struck areas in northern and central Israel, according to an Israeli rescue service. United Hatzalah said it was dispatching first responders, but here was no immediate word on casualties or damage. The US helped Israel strike Iran's toughest nuclear site Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Trump and Israeli leaders have claimed that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the U.S. in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But U.S. and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media, using common alternate spellings for two of the sites. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Trump added in a later post: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the U.S. attacks. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. U.S. military leaders are scheduled to provide a briefing at 8 a.m. Eastern. The attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant that is built deep into a mountain, a U.S. official said. The weapons are designed to penetrate the ground before exploding. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. In addition, U.S. submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles, according to another U.S. official who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote on X that there has been 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after the strikes. 'The IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' it said. The 'IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available.' Trump's turn to strikes departs from some previous statements The strikes are a perilous decision for Trump, who won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But Trump also vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. After Israel began striking Iran, Trump went from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. He has bristled at criticism from some of his MAGA faithful who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack in a video message directed at the American president. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history,' he said. Netanyahu said the U.S. 'has done what no other country on earth could do.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' Fears of a broader war U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the 'dangerous escalation' of American strikes. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' he said in a statement. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the U.S. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 865 people and wounded 3,396 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 363 civilians and 215 security force personnel. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. ___ Madhani reported from Morristown, N.J. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Mehdi Fattahi in Iran, Lolita Baldor in Narragansett, Rhode Island, Samy Magdy in Cairo, contributed to this story. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Just wrong': Oregon advocates say SCOTUS decision targets transgender youth
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Oregon groups and lawmakers are responding to a Supreme Court ruling made Wednesday that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors. The , along with three families and a physician, who claimed a Tennessee law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Travis Decker, accused of murdering 3 daughters, may have changed appearance: Here's how The found the law does not discriminate against transgender youth based on their sex and is constitutional. It will effectively protect Republican-led state governments that are rolling back protections for transgender people from any future legal challenges. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said the 'life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life.' Meanwhile, to call the ruling a 'landmark victory for Tennessee in defense of America's children.' BLM warns of 'aggressive' mountain goats along Oregon river According to the Oregon Nurses Association, puberty blockers and hormone therapy is 'endorsed by every major medical organization in the U.S.' and has shown to significantly reduce depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among transgender youth. 'ONA believes that all young people deserve access to medically necessary care, free from political interference,' their statement read. 'Today's decision is not based on science, public health, or the well-being of children; it is rooted in ideology, and it places vulnerable youth at serious risk.' Basic Rights Oregon called the ruling 'a devastating outcome for transgender people, our families and our medical providers.' However, Oregon law still protects access to gender-affirming care on a state level. 'Gender affirming care is still legal in Oregon, and Oregon law prohibits discrimination against people based on their gender identity or sex, including from healthcare providers,' ACLU litigation manager Eri Andriola said. The decision comes as local activists campaign for an Equal Rights for All ballot measure in 2026. As proposed, the ERA would guarantee equal rights 'regardless of one's sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation' and create certain protections in the Oregon Constitution. These protections include the right to abortion, contraception and IVF, transgender health care, and same-gender marriage. Oregon lawmakers consider strengthening National Guard oversight Sen. Merkley's full statement can be read below: 'Access to medically-necessary care for trans youth saves lives, and the U.S. Supreme Court's callous decision puts trans youth and their families at risk. 'MAGA extremists across the nation will not stop at banning medically-necessary gender-affirming care for trans youth. The Court's life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life. And this is just the beginning—this decision opens the floodgates for MAGA extremists in state legislatures and Congress to ban medically-necessary care, from gender-affirming care to abortion access. 'This is just wrong—everyone should have access to the care they need, when they need it. No exceptions. 'Let's get politicians out of the exam room. We will continue to fight these divisive policies in communities nationwide to fully realize the vision of America as a land of freedom and equality for all, and I won't rest until my Equality Act is signed into law to deliver on this fundamental promise.' Stay with KOIN 6 News as we continue to follow this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers respond to U.S. launching strikes on 3 Iranian nuclear facilities
Washington — Lawmakers across the political aisle offered a mixed response Saturday following President Trump's announcement that the United States launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Immediately following Mr. Trump's announcement, Congressional Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Ted Cruz, backed Mr. Trump's actions, while a number of leading Democrats condemned his decision to launch the attack without consulting Congress. In a televised address Saturday night, the president described the strikes as a "spectacular military success" and said "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." He warned of "far greater" attacks if Iran does not "make peace." "There is not another military in the World that could have done this," Mr. Trump said in a social media post. "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!Thank you for your attention to this matter." Here's what lawmakers are saying: Many Republican lawmakers back U.S. strikes in Iran, but not all "Good. This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump," Sen. Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a social media post that "the military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says." "The President gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement," Johnson said in the post. "President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity." Texas Sen. Cruz, who has backed of Israeli strikes against Iranian targets, said in a statement: "As long as Iran was able to access and conduct activities at Fordow, they could still rush to build a nuclear arsenal. Tonight's actions have gone far in foreclosing that possibility, and countering the apocalyptic threat posed by an Iranian nuclear arsenal." Rep. Rick Crawford, Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, praised Mr. Trump in a statement and said, "I have been in touch with the White House before this action and will continue to track developments closely with them in the coming days." The strikes announced by Mr. Trump Saturday evening further escalated the conflict between Iran and Israel that started June 13. Mr. Trump, on Wednesday, was still mulling over whether the U.S. military would join Israel's ongoing attacks on Iran. Before the announcement of the strikes, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was among the few Republicans who opposed the U.S. action, arguing on social media, "This is not our fight." "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war," she said in a post on X. "There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first." Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, reshared Mr. Trump's post on the strikes with a terse comment: "not constitutional." Massie introduced a resolution on Tuesday to prohibit U.S. involvement in the conflict. A few days earlier, He pointed out that the power to authorize use of military force rests with Congress, and said of the Israel-Iran conflict on X, "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Some Democrats say U.S. strikes in Iran are unconstitutional House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats agreed with Massie that the president should have consulted Congress, and on Saturday demanded that lawmakers be "fully and immediately" briefed on the attacks in a classified setting. "President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East," Jeffries said. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also called for Congress to enforce the War Powers Act. "President Trump must provide the American people and Congress clear answers on the actions taken tonight and their implications for the safety of Americans," Schumer said in a statement. "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy. Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased." Sen. Mark Warner, vice chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said that while there is "no question that Iran poses a serious threat to regional stability," the president's actions threaten to drag the U.S. into an open-ended conflict "without consulting Congress" and "without a clear strategy." Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who cosponsored Massie's resolution seeking to limit Mr. Trump's war powers, said in a statement early Sunday that Congress "needs to come back to DC immediately to vote" on the resolution "to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts called on Congress to return to Washington to vote on Massie's legislation "to stop this madness." Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Mr. Trump's decision to bomb Iran without congressional authorization "is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers." "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations," the New York Democrat wrote. "It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been trying to limit Mr. Trump's ability to order U.S. strikes on Iran amid its ongoing war with Israel, emphasizing that only Congress has the power to declare war under the Constitution. The extent of the president's authority to enter foreign conflicts without the approval of the legislative branch has been questioned in recent years. The last time Congress authorized the use of military force was in 2002, against Iraq. A year earlier, days after the 9/11 terror attacks, Congress passed a bill approving the use of military force against nations, organizations or individuals the president determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 terrorist attacks." Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan urged Democratic colleagues in a post, "Don't make another mistake in dragging our country into another war," and added, "You can stop the President and the war mongers in Congress by signing on to our War Powers Resolution." In contrast to other Congressional Democrats, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said he fully supports the U.S. strikes on Iran. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," Fetterman said in a social media post. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." Sen. Bernie Sanders, who's on a tour this weekend in red Southern states, announced the news of the U.S. attacks on Iran to his supporters and was met the chants of "no more war" from the crowd. "It is so grossly unconstitutional," Sanders said. "All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right." Sneak peek: The Life and Death of Blaze Bernstein Some key Democratic congressional leaders left out of Trump's Iran attack plans Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites
