Connect with us

Opinion

Eric Adams is the right choice for NYC

Published

on

Eric Adams is the right choice for NYC

The Post’s endorsement of Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams for mayor on Monday has sparked considerable attention, with key figures joining in backing him. Below is a roundup of what they’re saying.

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.: “Eric Adams will be a great mayor for the city of New York. I’m glad The Post agrees about having someone with Eric’s career and life experience informing him about how to fight for all New Yorkers.”

Diaz has been an increasingly important force in Democratic circles in the city whose endorsement will carry much weight.

Brooklyn Councilman Justin Brannan: “New York City is the nation’s economic engine and the fuel for that engine lives in the so-called ‘outer boroughs.’ Indeed, nearly 75 percent of all New York City essential workers live in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island. Eric Adams knows this, and that’s why he will be a mayor keyed in to the communities, like the one I represent, that are at the edge of the city geographically but at the core of what makes our city run.”

Brannan represents moderate and diverse working-class communities in Brooklyn that could help propel Adams to victory.

Henry Garrido, executive director, DC 37: “There is no candidate more aligned with what our members believe in and stand for. The soul of our city is at stake. We need a mayor who understands the plight of the essential workers who kept this city running and the struggles working people face. That’s Eric.”

There’s no way to overstate the importance of support from unions like Garrido’s. Not only will many of his members take a cue from him, but so will voters who back unions and watch their endorsements carefully.

Uniformed Fire Officers Association President Jake Lemonda: “Like The Post, the Uniformed Fire Officers Association believes Eric Adams is the right choice to lead the city out of these trying times because he offers the best chance of solving the issues bedeviling the entire city.”

Lemonda’s statement can help drum up support for Adams among the uniformed rank and file in the city. Adams’ service as a police officer will likewise help.

Sheikh Musa Drammeh, head of the National Community Peace Building Commission: “Eric Adams is uniquely qualified and positioned to move the city out of its multi-prong socioeconomic challenges. Despite being knocked down by the pandemic, Adams will bring it back to a new and higher level. He personally understands what poor New Yorkers are going through while also appreciating the contributions of wealthy New Yorkers to our economy. New York knows that Eric Adams is the right leader we need now.”

Sheikh Drammeh has led various efforts forging ties between Jews and Muslims as well as improving police-community relations.

David Gold, a consultant and former Wall Street banker: “Eric believes in New York and its future. Wall Street likes him because he is a man with a plan who sticks to it and cares about our city. We need to feel safe on the street, in the subway, in all of our boroughs, and importantly, people should be comfortable coming to New York. We need Eric Adams because New York is at a critical point — our next mayor will be instrumental in making sure we thrive. That should be Eric Adams.”

Gold knows Adams through his work supporting first-responders as well as widows and children of those who have died in the line of duty. His support may signal to Wall Streeters that Adams is no left-wing radical who’ll let the city fall to ruin and force the financial industry to flee.

Jenny Sedlis, who has headed the pro-charter-school advocacy group StudentsFirstNY: “We’re at a moment in public education where we can’t afford to take good ideas off the table. Eric Adams is not beholden to ways of doing things just because it’s how they’ve been done before; he’s committed to putting the needs of students front and center. New York City needs a mayor like Eric Adams who will fight for every student to have access to excellence and opportunity, no matter their zip code.”

Sedlis is fundraising for Strong Leadership NYC, a pro-Adams independent expenditure committee. Her decision to back him will strike a note with parents throughout the city who care about getting a good education for their kids but can’t afford private school.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

Published

on

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court last fall, hysterical Democrats declared millions of Americans would lose health coverage with her vote against ObamaCare — and immediately started talking about packing a court they called hopelessly divided.

Two big Supreme Court decisions last week proved reality turned out to be nothing like Dems’ fever dreams.

In a 7-2 decision in California v. Texas, the high court rejected a Republican bid to invalidate ObamaCare — and Barrett was not one of the two dissenters. It ruled that Texas and 17 other GOP-led states didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s individual mandate. The Trump administration had taken their side, while 20 Democratic-run states including New York and California, along with the Dem-controlled House of Representatives, took the other. Only Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented to the majority opinion the liberal Stephen Breyer authored.

How could this be? Last year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” In her opening statement at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris held up a picture of an 11-year-old constituent and accused Republicans of trying “to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away health care from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.”

Democrats boycotted the final committee vote, filling their seats instead with posters of ObamaCare recipients, implying a vote for Barrett would put those lives at risk.

During the whole childish circus, they insisted Trump had picked Barrett and sped up her confirmation just so she’d be seated in time to hear arguments in the case and dismantle the law. They didn’t bother to look at her record and examine her judicial philosophy — they assumed this well-qualified woman would be the president’s puppet.

In the second important decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court ruled unanimously that the city violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause by suspending Catholic Social Services’ contract because the group wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

Yes, all nine justices ruled in favor of religious freedom — putting paid to Democratic complaints the court is out of balance with too many conservatives. It’s far from the only unanimous decision already this term, either. Every justice signed on to decisions written by Gorsuch, Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, with two of the cases involving immigration issues.

That people of varying political stripes can agree on the law shouldn’t come as a surprise. Supreme Court justices take their jobs seriously — which is more than you can say for Democrats charged with helping choose them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

Published

on

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

The media have spent the Joe Biden presidency thus far pressuring moderate Democrats to join the left’s efforts to destroy the filibuster.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Big Labor’s gift to itself and other commentary

Published

on

Big Labor's gift to itself and other commentary

Libertarian: Unions’ Gift to Themselves

Big Labor spent millions getting President Biden elected — and now it’s seeking to enact a law “directing federal power and resources to boost flagging” union rolls, laments Reason’s Eric Boehm. The so-called PRO Act “is a grab bag of Big-Labor agenda items that would extend some of California’s awful independent contractor regulations nationwide” and “abolish so-called right-to-work laws in the 27 states that have passed them.” Biden and the unions insist this is about empowering workers, “but if workers were as eager to join unions as [they] seem to think, they wouldn’t need a powerful federal bureaucracy to encourage that outcome.”

Centrist: United Supremes

The most striking aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on ObamaCare and religious liberty was the “absence of ideological divisions” from a high court that “Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines,” observes Jonathan Turley at USA Today. The largely united decisions mark “the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.” Critics may continue to insist that the court is “dysfunctional, divided and needs to be radically changed,” but the justices aren’t “cooperating,” issuing instead an “inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.” Yet even as the court “seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law, but about its own institution,” the media will undoubtedly continue to denounce it, “because politics demands it.”

Crime beat: A Wake-Up Call in Atlanta

The “mind-numbing randomness, brazenness and, even worse, casualness of violence afflicting Atlanta” has the upscale Buckhead neighborhood “wanting to break away from Atlanta to form its own city” with “its own police force,” writes The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Bill Torpy. Atlanta shootings are up 40 percent this year, but police often see “the same ne’er-do-wells walking the streets the next day,” thanks to a “broken” criminal-justice system. “Buckhead is almost three-quarters white,” yet “in black neighborhoods across the city, victims are widespread, and residents there want police to protect them, too.” But Buckhead can get attention, because its departure would “take away 40 percent of the city’s income.” It should be “one loud wake-up call.”

Culture critic: RIP, Janet Malcolm

At First Things, Helen Andrews assesses the complex legacy of veteran New Yorker magazine scribe Janet Malcolm, who died last week — and whose “cold, precise, unsparing” journalistic style recalled that of the great Russian writer Anton Chekhov. She was born to a psychiatrist father, and “psychoanalysis was a constant presence in Malcolm’s journalism.” The shrink’s couch formed her “eye for the telling detail” and “taught Malcolm a certain bleakness” about the world — and her own profession. Yet her “most famous line” — that “every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible” — helped spread cynicism about reporters. The result, Andrews laments, is that now “every trace of authenticity has been scrubbed from press interviews.” 

Media watch: Suppressing the Truth

“From the lab-leak theory to the Lafayette Square tear-gassing, anti-Trump bias blinded our news media,” declares Wilfred Reilly at Spiked Online. “Except perhaps for the Hunter Biden story,” there was no “potentially major and obviously newsworthy story more intensely suppressed than the lab-leak explanation for COVID’s origins,” but it was just “revealed quite possibly to be correct.” Pols and press called then-President Donald Trump “reckless” for touting hydroxychloroquine, yet “a major study” has found “it increases survival rates for COVID patients by almost 200 percent.” And the claim “Trump had ‘tear-gassed peaceful protesters’ ” to stage a photo-op turned out to be “complete nonsense.” Tellingly, all these facts only came out when Joe Biden became president. This “mainstream-media swiveling” causes “latent social distrust that has no imaginable upside.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Continue Reading

Trending