Team Cuomo
Excelsior
Forward. Ever Upward.
Hope. Logic. Reasoning.
Chief of Staff
Melissa D. DeRosa
Melissa D. DeRosa
"Our country is facing a historic crossroads: two crises converging at the same time. The pain and fear that we’re confronting at this moment threaten to overtake us, but they can also unify us and make us stronger. As a nation—and certainly as New Yorkers—we will clear a path forward, even though at times it may feel impossible.
In New York State, we beat back COVID-19 by coming together, united in resolve and in purpose.
We put the good of the collective over the individual, and we made change happen. We flattened the curve, and we saved lives. We now must use that same energy and unity and resolve to confront and beat back 400 years of systemic racism
and discrimination, which have prevailed in this country for far too long.
I have hope, but even more than hope, I have faith—that in this moment of national pain, there is opportunity for constructive change. By uniting around a concrete agenda of justice and reform, by voting and electing leaders committed to seeing it through, by participating in the census and making sure you’re counted. By recognizing the will of the people and the fact that this time needs to be different, that we can—and we must—make inroads for racial justice."
NYS's Most Powerful Woman-MDR
Click To Order:
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General and Chief of Staff to Governor Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist, and Best-selling Author based in New York City.
#IStandWithIsrael
The Honorable Governor
Andrew M. Cuomo
The Honorable Governor
Andrew M. Cuomo
The Honorable Governor
Andrew M. Cuomo
The Honorable Governor
Andrew M. Cuomo
Anthony Scaramucci
The Ugliness Of Politics Is A Reflection of
the Ugliness That Is Society
with
Governor Andrew Cuomo
Melissa DeRosa
Andrew Cuomo's Voices of Hope & Reasoning
"As A Matter Of Fact"
-2023-
PART 1: Washington Fiasco - Speaker Standoff
PART 2: Washington Fiasco - Speaker Standoff (Continued)
Andrew M. Cuomo
Antisemitism PART 1: Governor Cuomo and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
on the rise of antisemitism in America
Antisemitism PART 2: Governor Cuomo and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Andrew M. Cuomo
Andrew Cuomo and Sean Penn talk Ukraine
Andrew M. Cuomo
.
"Andrew Cuomo can't understand what goes on in the head of
Donald Trump, but
@Scaramucci can"
Scaramucci was the first guest on Andrew Cuomo's new podcast, "As A Matter Of Fact..."
Find it on @QuakeMedia
or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions.
Download the "Quake Media" app for more. New Episodes drop every Thursday.
Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor Cuomo on Alec Baldwin: "Prosecutors are politicians..."
Melissa DeRosa
Melissa DeRosa
Andrew M. Cuomo
Gov. Cuomo on Sandy Hook 10 years later
Melissa DeRosa
In 1590 the French proverb, “Comme on faict son lict, on le treuve,” was first coined. It translates roughly to “As one makes one’s bed, so one finds it.”
Over time, the phrase has evolved to “You’ve made your bed, now lie in it,” and is commonly used as a retort to people who complain about problems that they have brought upon themselves. While Democrats have enjoyed a moment of blissful schadenfreude over the fact that Republicans now have to deal with George Santos, the GOP congressman-elect from New York recently exposed as a fabulist who has lied about every relevant detail in his CV—it’s the Democrats who need to reflect on how they were beaten in a blue state by a sentient piece of cardboard.
Yes, Santos is a fraud. He lied about everything from his religion (first claiming to be the descendant of a Holocaust survivor, while now claiming to be Jew-ish), to his college education (he doesn’t have one), his employment history (he didn’t work for Citigroup or Goldman Sachs, but he knows people who worked with them), and his real estate portfolio
(he does not own 13 properties, in fact he doesn’t own a single one).
But as the circular firing squad on social media wanders aimlessly in search of a scapegoat, it’s past time we as a society come to the uneasy realization that we made our bed, and now we have to lie in it. George Santos is a cultural product of our time—one of political and media mediocrity, where everybody is to blame, which not only fostered an environment where a fraud like him could win a seat in the United States House of Representatives, but facilitated it.
“...while Dems held onto control of the Senate, we shouldn’t talk ourselves into believing it’s because of our tactical political ingenuity or the popularity of our candidates. Rather...it’s because the candidates the other team put up were so vile.”
On the Democratic side, it was malpractice all around. Santos did not fall from the sky; he
ran (and lost) against Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi for the same congressional seat two years ago. One would assume the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), whose chair was from New York, had a thick binder of opposition research on Santos from the 2020 race that it could dust off this time around. But if that opposition research existed, it wasn’t successfully placed.
Congressional Democrats had the most at stake in the Santos election and the party’s failure to do basic research on a candidate running in a seat as important as NY-3 is mind boggling. Making the situation worse, Santos is from Nassau County, which also doubles as the New York State Democratic Party chairman’s backyard. And then there’s the Robert Zimmerman campaign—which lost to Santos in the 2022 general election, which claims it knew Santos was a fraud, but couldn’t get the press to write about it. Huh? Even if that is true, they could have run television ads and taken their case directly to the public.
Sadly, none of this is surprising coming from a party with no bench or coherent message, and which spent much of the election cycle trying to convince voters that the uptick in violent crime they were seeing was a figment of their imagination. And while Dems held onto control of the Senate, we shouldn’t talk ourselves into believing it’s because of our tactical political ingenuity or the popularity of our candidates. Rather, in large part, it’s because the candidates the other team put up were so vile.
On the Republican side, the fact that Santos succeeded in becoming the party’s nominee is sadly par for the course these days. This is, after all, a party that punishes those who uphold the constitution while rewarding conspiracy theorists and serial liars with endorsements and millions of dollars in campaign funds. While some Republicans have called for an investigation into Santos
(in arguably the most promising sign to date that Trump no longer has a stranglehold on the party), GOP leadership has responded with a silence that’s deafening, a tacit acknowledgement that this is who they are.
And then there’s the media. While Democrats should have been more effective in pushing opposition research, in theory the press should have been able to uncover it themselves: it’s called reporting. The press’s job is to inform the public of information about would-be elected officials. In an election, that means acting as unbiased referees between campaigns, including vetting candidates' backgrounds, fact-checking their statements and calling foul.
Back in April, The Daily Beast published a deep dive on a Ponzi scheme run by Santos’ previous employer, stating that “one fact about Devolder-Santos has eluded scrutiny.” It turns out there were many more facts that eluded scrutiny. Long Island’s local newspaper, Newsday, had four congressional races to cover; two of them helped flip control of the House. And yet, none of their reporters uncovered this basic information. And while The New York Times ultimately broke the story,
they did it on Dec. 19, six weeks after the election.
The political news media dropped the ball by missing all the flashing red warning lights whirring around Santos’ campaign. Republicans, of course, failed to vet another ridiculous candidate—although, to be fair, a cypher like Santos won’t even rank among the absolute worst GOP members of Congress.
But Democrats, who lost the House by losing seats to Republicans in the New York City suburbs need to confront their failures: the lack of effective oppositional research, the mangling of political messaging, and the inability to convince the public that their candidate was a better bet for their interests in Washington than… George Santos.
You can’t solve a problem until you’ve admitted it is one.
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General
and Secretary to Gov. Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist based in New York City.
Melissa DeRosa
Democrats Are Deer in the Headlights on Crime Problem
BLINDED BY THE RIGHT
The Democrats have been focused on abortion rights ahead of the midterms, but they must acknowledge the crime problem and “go on offense” with a plan to fix it.
When a deer is caught in the headlights, its fully dilated pupils need time to adjust. The process takes as long as several minutes, causing them to freeze with indecision, and often resulting in them getting hit head-on.
This is a fitting analogy for the Democratic Party, whose eyes were adjusted to a midterm election focused on abortion, but who are now caught in the headlights—blinded by the issues of inflation and crime.
Indeed, poll after poll shows that as election day draws near, Americans are increasingly ranking crime as the top issue that matters to them after the economy and inflation.
And there is a reason. This is not an instance of ‘perception is reality’—in this case, reality is reality. Violent Crime is dramatically higher in cities across America than before the pandemic and every day, more and more people are either personally impacted or know someone who is.
Just last week a friend and former colleague of mine was punched in the face while standing on a street corner in Manhattan in broad daylight—so don’t waste your breath telling me crime is not a problem.
Public safety is responsibility No. 1 for the government, which is why people naturally turn to their elected officials to do something about it. And Democrats are in charge, so they have a responsibility to fix it.
Seeing the opening, Republicans—who themselves have offered little by way of an actual solution beyond bluster and hypocrisy—have cynically seized on the issue, working to paint Democrats as weak on crime and pointing to their position on clemency and criminal justice reforms as proof.
From Pennsylvania to New Mexico and Ohio to New York, Republicans are spamming the airwaves with ads labeling Democrats as soft on crime.
Ironic, given that Republicans, bought and paid for by the NRA,
have largely sought to block any modicum of reasonable gun violence prevention for the last 30 years.
But the Democratic Party, spooked by criticism of the 1994 Crime Bill and tarred by the ghost of Willie Horton and the destructive and nonsensical “Defund the Police” movement and their woke allies who bragged about cutting funding for their local police departments, has all but ceded the issue of crime to Republicans. Unsure whether to go left or right, many have appeared paralyzed, attempting to duck the issue, or worse, taken up the mind-boggling strategy of using select statistics to try and convince voters that what they are seeing and feeling isn’t real.
In doing so, Democrats are inadvertently communicating that they don’t understand what’s important to their constituents or worse, are divorced from reality. It’s political and governmental malpractice.
First, people resent being told that their eyes are lying, and second, politicians work for voters, not the other way around.
The people get to dictate which issues matter, and when they tell the elected officials that they put in office that they don’t feel safe, particularly in the middle of their next job interview, it is incumbent on them to act.
Voters respond to leadership, and they respond to a lack of leadership. If we are going to tamp down the impact in time for election day, Democrats must go on offense and confront the issue both governmentally and politically with an
operational plan and coherent communications strategy.
Democrats can be true to their “progressive” ideology and aggressively fight crime. They are not mutually inconsistent. In fact, mainstream Democrats are better positioned to fight crime than Republicans—but they must communicate it clearly and forcefully, drawing the contrast between our solution-oriented approach and Republicans fear mongering.
A major element of crime reduction is gun control. President Biden was right to call for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines—and two-thirds of Americans agree with him. But Democrats—eager to take credit for the bi-partisan gun bill passed earlier this year—need to acknowledge that that legislation did not get to the core of the problem and make it clear that the Republican Party is the reason why.
Republicans support providing tax breaks to their wealthy donors, while Democrats prioritize long-term sustainable solutions at the root of crime like quality public housing and funding for mental health. Democrats should hammer that point and present concrete plans to increase mental health services to get dangerously mentally ill homeless people off the street and
demand the White House provide emergency funds to do it.
Democrats can support both policies that hold people accountable for quality of life offenses and community policing strategies which seek to ease the tension between police officers and the constituents they serve.
And we must support police who put their lives on the line to serve and protect while also calling out and holding fully accountable officers who abuse their position or break the law.
Finally, Democrats have to be willing to say that some people have to be behind bars to keep society safe. That is the crux of the matter. Listening to the far-left extremists, they believe no one should be in jail.
This is untenable and unrealistic. We can address the root causes of crime—poverty, mental health, lack of education and a lack of opportunity—and still protect the public by incarcerating dangerous individuals. And yes, we also believe in rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration when feasible.
Democrats must articulate our position loudly and quickly. We can be tough on crime and progressive on criminal justice. In fact,
responsible government must be both.
We know the car is coming—we have two weeks [as of 10/25/22]
to get out of the road. Let’s hope it’s not already too late.
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General and Secretary to Gov. Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist based in New York City.
Andrew Cuomo
I hit the streets to hear what matters most from NY’er's.
I also talk to former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly about crime & Frank Luntz about the midterms.
The next episode of my podcast will drop on
Thank you for listening!
-Andrew Cuomo
Rich Azzopardi
Karen Hinton and Andrew Cuomo
To the Editor,
The Post continues to dial-a-quote Karen Hinton every time they are looking for someone to say something critical of Governor Cuomo, but keeps readers in the dark about the history behind her animus.
Hinton worked for him at HUD beginning in 1996, volunteered to help in his 2002 race for governor and again helped out on his attorney general campaign four years later.
Her husband Howard Glaser worked with the governor in the 1980s,
at HUD and later for years in the governor's own administration.
Hinton also wanted a role in the Executive Chamber, but Governor Cuomo declined to offer her one - it was that decision that led her to take on a public facing adversarial role as a press aide
for then Mayor de Blasio, delighting in criticizing the Governor.
However, after she left the Mayor's office and had a very public health scare as a result of a freak injury, the Governor put the recent past aside and helped her get access to the best possible medical care. She later wrote a (since released) letter acknowledging and thanking him for his help, and for his mentorship while at HUD.
Indeed, after the resignation of former AG Eric Schniederman, Hinton even wrote a column praising Governor Cuomo, stating that she’d been “fortunate” to work for him because he, and de Blasio, were among those “who know how to be respectful of women even while being no-nonsense managers.”
This praise -- both public and private -- was unprompted.
In 2020, during the worst of COVID, Hinton tweeted about how 'funny' Governor Cuomo is, noting that his brother Chris is funnier and praising the two for appearing on television together during the height of the pandemic. It was during that period that Hinton once again asked to volunteer for the Cuomo administration, but again was denied.
Following this rejection, she all of a sudden began telling a story about her time consulting for the Governor wherein he allegedly gave her an 'inappropriate hug' 20 years ago -- oddly, that encounter did not stop her husband from working for the Governor a decade and a half later, or Hinton herself from seeking out work for him months before she told her story to the Washington Post. Interestingly on the exact same day that Hinton told her story to the Washington Post, Hinton's husband's former executive assistant approached the Wall Street Journal with claims that she had been mistreated because the Governor put his hand on her waist during a photo and once in passing called her 'sweetheart'. Coincidence?
Hinton then attempted to profit off these stories by writing a book and peddling it at book parties held with Governor Cuomo‘s critics.
Obviously this background and context show the complexity of the relationship. A newspaper does a reader’s disservice when they quote someone with personal motivations and agendas but does not disclose that to the reader. Thank you
- Rich Azzopardi
Founder & Principal, Bulldog Strategies
Former Senior Advisor to Governor Cuomo
Melissa DeRosa
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty
It’s a nightmare scenario. You’re a competitive runner, running a huge race, one of the biggest. Against all odds, you pass your chief rival, and never look back. There’s nothing standing between you and the finish line.
But as the crowd roars and victory appears in sight, you trip on the very last hurdle and fall, forced to watch your rival coast to a victory you handed them.
Sure, it could all be a bad dream. But it can also be real, just as something very similar happened to a U.S. runner a few years ago.
This week, that lamentable scene embodied the Democratic Party.
Two months ago, it seemed that the midterms would be a washout for Democrats. But in the time since, the world has changed.
Negative economic indicators—chiefly gas prices and inflation—that have traditionally dictated electoral outcomes, stabilized and began to improve. July’s blockbuster jobs report doubled labor economists’ expectations. The Democratic-led Senate finally locked arms and walked in a straight line, passing the Inflation Reduction Act.
And nearly 20 years after Thomas Frank famously posed the question “What’s the matter with Kansas?”, the people there responded loud and clear—absolutely nothing—when they resoundingly voted to protect a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.
Democrats got our groove back, and just in time for the midterm elections. We were winning—and it felt good.
Then the FBI took a trip to Palm Beach.
And just like that, the news cycle was hijacked, the political momentum stalled, and the credibility of the Justice Department questioned. The incident stoked American skepticism and polarization, with some even threatening a civil war.
The FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence landed amidst an onslaught of press reports on a dizzying array of other investigations into the former president: the Manhattan district attorney, New York state’s attorney general and a Georgia grand jury—all led by Democratic elected officials. It was a perfect foil for Trump—a master manipulator who managed to convince nearly half the country without any evidence that an election was stolen—and set the stage for him to play victim to a “corrupt Democrat-run Department of Justice” villain.
Republicans closed ranks, Democrats were caught flat-footed, the American public demanded answers, and the DOJ botched its response.
“The Justice Department’s silence allowed for conspiracy theories—which tend to snowball in extreme situations when explanations are in short supply—to take hold. The barrage of press leaks that filled the void only further confused the situation.”
Early polling says 49 percent of Americans believe the search was justified, 37 percent don't,
and 13 percent don’t know what to think.
Some Democratic pundits claimed that was good news. It isn’t. It reinforces the American divide and raises issues for those in the middle. Focus groups made up of swing voters observed by The Washington Post this week confirm this.
Democrats, myself included, assume as a matter of faith that Attorney General Merrick Garland operated ethically. But most Americans had never heard of Garland before this episode, and the past several years have seen an FBI led by James Comey and a DOJ run by Bill Barr continually accused (rightly, in my opinion) of playing politics. The Democrats were the loudest in the condemnation of the DOJ being used as a political tool.
Ironically, in an effort to adhere to the highest possible apolitical standards governing the department, the DOJ sidelined itself and lost the public relations battle to Trump who spoke first and framed the issue.
The moment necessitated answers and transparency. The Justice Department’s silence allowed for conspiracy theories—which tend to snowball in extreme situations when explanations are in short supply—to take hold. The barrage of press leaks that filled the void only further confused the situation.
Garland’s Aug. 11 press conference and his move to unseal the search warrant was professional and compelling for some, but it was two days too late, and you can’t unring that bell. Not even the written inventory detailing the documents uncovered, including top secret/sensitive compartmented information, has satisfied a skeptical public. Questions remain.
Did they find mementos or missile codes? Were they declassified? Did Obama, Clinton or other past presidents take classified information with them when they left? And, by the way, why were they fumbling around Melania’s closet?
The search—which by all rational accounts was justified—cost the Department of Justice and the American people dearly, and the Democratic Party politically. The only person benefiting is Trump who, in the aftermath of the “raid” raised millions and gained in the polls.
There was collateral damage. Reps. Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney have done an extraordinary job using first-hand testimony and concrete evidence to lay the groundwork for the American people on what crimes were committed leading up to (and on) Jan. 6. The FBI’s search on Aug. 8 made their jobs harder, casting a longer political shadow over the upcoming hearings and any subsequent actions by the Department of Justice.
So what should Democrats do to regain their footing?
First, stop talking about Trump and focus on our record of results.
The only thing Democrats continuing to focus on Trump accomplishes is overshadowing our own party’s accomplishments. We cannot let Republicans hijack the conversation, muddy the waters and dictate the terms of engagement.
Second, refocus the conversation on the American agenda.
Draw the contrast between Democratic and Republican priorities. It’s about lowering gas prices (which have little to do with who is in the White House, but are, in fact, plummeting) and creating jobs (which under Democratic leadership are booming). We want to create rights while they want to take them away. Keep Republicans playing defense on issues that matter to Americans—starting by highlighting those who voted against the insulin price cap and against the Inflation Reduction Act, rightly labeling them as opponents of working class Americans of all parties.
Third, embrace the fight for reproductive rights without apology.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should take the energy he’s built from finally being able to convince the often intransigent moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin to actually support his own party’s political goals, and reach across the aisle to the moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
The victory in Kansas underscores the electoral potency of women’s rights. Democrats should put something on the table to ensure universal access to birth control. Force the up or down vote, make Republicans stand up and be counted.
Democrats can either notch the win or put Republicans on the record in opposition to hugely popular policies.
The finish line is in sight—Democrats have to stay focused, keep our eye on the prize, and run hard to the tape.
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General and Secretary to Gov. Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist based in New York City.
Melissa DeRosa
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty
Dems Need to Stop Acting Like Victims and Swing Back
GOTTA BE IN IT TO WIN IT
Let’s face it, in modern-day American politics, Republicans have mastered the art of dominance.
Behavioral biologists have long been fascinated by the nature of dominance hierarchies in animals. There is a direct correlation, they posit, between the increased probability of winning at a given time and victories proximate to that time. In other words, if an animal perceives that it has a superior ability to win an all-out fight, it considers itself to be dominant and continues winning. It is this phenomena that accounts for what’s commonly referred to as the “winner” and “loser” effects.
Never have those effects been more on display in the human species than this past weekend, embodied by the national Republican and Democratic parties respectively.
As the Republican Party celebrated a victory over Roe v. Wade 50 years in the making—a culture war carefully mapped out and methodically executed—Democrats forced a smile and extolled the virtue of accepting breadcrumbs in the wake of another mass shooting of school children.
Republicans stripped women of a fundamental right believed to be enshrined in our nation’s most sovereign document; Democrats got funding for incentives for Red Flag Laws and marginally expanded background checks.
Republicans sent a tidal wave around the globe as world leaders reacted with shock, and disbelief, managing to stun even Britain’s right-wing populist Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Democrats held a ceremonial bill signing, hailed by President Joe Biden as “historic” for its bipartisan support—and got the rail on page 3 of the Daily News.
Let’s face it, in modern-day American politics, Republicans have mastered the art of dominance.
Democrats have been taken over by the woke Twitter mob and paralyzed by infighting, while disciplined Republicans have fallen in line and single-mindedly got to work.
They lie, cheat and steal to produce for the people who elect them.
Democrats say please and thank you and point to process arguments to explain their inability to produce
so much as a ham sandwich.
And as Republicans won—starting with Bush v. Gore, on through Merrick Garland, Brett Kavanaugh, and the largest restructuring of the tax code in generations—they became more aggressive, and they kept winning: Amy Coney Barrett, overturning conceal/carry, and now Roe v Wade.
Conversely, Democratic leadership adopted a strategy of preemptive capitulation. For evidence, look no further than the Senate Judiciary’s reaction, announcing that the Committee will “hold a hearing next month to explore the grim reality of a post-Roe America”. Hearings. Next. Month.
It’s easy to forget that the party used to be led by bareknuckled fighters like LBJ and FDR. Today, even when Democrats theoretically win—elections, policy debates, the high ground—we lose.
What’s worse: With democracy and fundamental civil rights at stake, it’s not that Democrats aren’t winning—it doesn’t even feel like we’re fighting.
But the reality is that the Democratic party is the only thing standing in the way of the United States devolving into fascism.
So how do we reverse this paradigm and motivate our voters this November?
We get up off the mat, and we fight back.
Scientists have found that the “winners effect” can be disrupted when aggressive challenges arise. If an animal wins an encounter, then its perception of its own ability to win increases and allows for the dynamic to be altered.
Let’s bear down and get in the game.
It’s past time we start playing by the same rules Republicans have for decades and do it as, if not more, aggressively than they do. Democratic leadership must be more creative tactically, take risks and think outside the box. If they can’t or won’t, then they must step aside and hand the reins over to someone who will.
As a basic principle, start by showing that the Constitution is more than a meaningless piece of paper and that there are consequences for those who betray their sworn duty to uphold democracy.
Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney have done a masterful job of prosecuting the case against Trump and some closest to him, using hard evidence and first-person testimony. But it’s not enough to produce captivating television. Make the criminal referral. Do it tomorrow, and demand the Justice Department do their job.
If Ginni Thomas was conspiring with those behind the attempted insurrection, Congress must subpoena her, publicly cross-examine her, and if warranted, punish her. If there’s even a hint Justice Clarence Thomas was involved in any way, do the same with him.
In the meantime, Merrick Garland should immediately and publicly begin proceedings against Trump and his co-conspirators at the highest levels. Charge them with obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy against the United States and sedition.
Democrats maintaining the majority is this country’s last best hope—but beleaguered Americans who have turned out to vote in years past are rightly disaffected. They need to see that the the party is using every tool in the arsenal and is unified in fighting for them.
A donkey may be smaller than an elephant, but research suggests that, regardless of size, if we started hitting back aggressively enough, we will land a punch. And another one after after that.
Who knows? The winners could be the American people.
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General and Secretary to Gov. Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist based in New York City.
Kristin Cuomo O’Donoghue
Mario Cuomo’s wisdom on abortion
By Kristin Cuomo O’Donoghue
New York Daily News
•
Jun 17, 2022 at 5:00 am
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran a piece written by Patti Davis about how her father, Ronald Reagan, grappled with the issue of abortion. Davis wrote about how her father’s faith “pulled at him” when considering the complex issue, and how he struggled to balance his commitments as a civil servant with his commitments as a person of faith.
Like Reagan, my grandfather Mario M. Cuomo struggled with his commitments as a person of faith and his commitments as a public servant. As Davis sought to remind today’s public of her father’s perspective, I believe there is immense value in turning to my grandfather’s words for direction.
In 1984, my grandfather gave a groundbreaking speech at the University of Notre Dame entitled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective.” In it, he exquisitely captured the unmatched complexity of abortion, and the moral, legal and philosophical dilemmas it presented.
While articulating its complexity, he also managed to winnow the dilemma down to its core: How do we implement public morality in a pluralistic society? Here is the heart of his response:
“In the end, I’m convinced we will all benefit if suspicion is replaced by discussion, innuendo by dialogue; if the emphasis in our debate turns from a search for talismanic criteria and neat but simplistic answers to an honest — more intelligent — attempt at describing the role religion has in our public affairs, and the limits placed on that role,” he said.
In some ways, I am grateful that my grandfather did not have to witness the debilitating polarization that plagues society today. He would be ashamed of our legislators for their inability to engage with one another, for their hollow soundbites and intolerance for disagreement.
He would pray for them, and for the citizens of this country who are struggling not only to get along, but to coexist.
My grandfather admitted that, based on their religious beliefs, he and my grandmother would not seek an abortion if they had the option. However, he recognized that this was not true of the many women who experienced an unwanted pregnancy. Mario understood that many of these women were poor, many already parents who could not afford to raise another child. He assumed no right to limit their control of their bodies.
He said that “values derived from religion should not — be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus.” He applauded Catholic bishops for their recognition that there can be “different political approaches to abortion besides unyielding adherence to an absolution prohibition.” He said that a constitutional prohibition on abortion would allow people to ignore the causes of many abortions, rather than addressing them.
“If we want to prove our regard for life in the womb, for the helpless infant — if we care about women having real choices in their lives and not being driven to abortions by a sense of helplessness and despair about the future of their child — then there is work enough for all of us. Lifetimes of it.”
Our society can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. By advocating for women in a meaningful way, by ensuring that they have real choices in their lives and are not driven to abortions “by a sense of helplessness and despair about the future of their child,” we commit ourselves to a pro-life cause. This would also lead us to advocate for improving access to education, responding to the climate change crisis, and implementing gun safety reforms.
My grandfather also issued a warning in his speech: “We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.”
Democrat and Republican, liberal, leftist and conservative individuals alike make resolute moral referenda on individuals based on their political affiliation. We must respect one another enough to engage in thoughtful discussion before judging one another resolutely.
“And if we do it right — if we’re not afraid of the truth even when the truth is complex — this debate, by clarification, can bring relief to untold numbers of confused — even anguished — Catholics, as well as to many others who want only to make our already great democracy even stronger than it is.”
Let us heed his words. Let’s strive to have productive conversations about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is a goal shared by anti-abortion and pro-choice advocates. Let’s address the situations that leave women feeling like they could not support a child because their government provides no infrastructure to help them do so. Let us come to these conversations prepared to listen, prepared to be uncomfortable, and prepared to build a democracy together in which everyone has the opportunity to make choices about their future and their body.
Let’s replace suspicion with discussion. Let’s replace hate with empathy. Let us do it now.
Cuomo O’Donoghue is a student at the University of Virginia.
Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Getty
Cheap Talk and Failed Bills Are Dems’ ‘Thoughts and Prayers’
‘ENOUGH’
The dirty little secret is that we don’t have the simple majority in the Senate necessary to enact meaningful gun safety reform. It’s time for an entirely different strategy.
After the execution of 10 Black Americans in Buffalo and 19 school children in Texas, this time felt different. The country is rightly outraged, demanding action. Instead of promoting their game, the New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays used their accounts to promote gun violence prevention, celebrity 2nd Amendment boosters like Jon Voight began speaking out, and an NRA A-rated conservative Congressman committed to voting for an assault weapons ban.
Winston Churchill said never waste a crisis. Chuck Schumer gaveled out for Memorial Day.
President Biden addressed the nation emphatically, proclaiming “enough” in one breath and blaming Republicans for Washington Democrats’ inevitable failure to deliver in the next: ”We have to take the time to do something. And this time, it’s time for the Senate to do something. But, as we know, in order to get anything done in the Senate, we need a minimum of 10 Republican senators.”
Talking about reforms that are going nowhere has become the Democratic version of “thoughts and prayers.”
Yes, Republicans are an intractable problem. Gone are the days when a conservative legend Ronald Reagan would throw his full support behind the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. Today’s Republican party is not cowed by images of dead children, grieving parents or statistics. For evidence, look no further than Buffalo where just last week Chris Jacobs — a Republican Congressman whose district is adjacent to where the race-motivated mass shooting occurred days earlier— was swiftly black-listed by his own party and forced to drop his previously secure bid for reelection days after voicing support for an assault weapons ban.
But like magicians, Washington politicians —including the Democrats who control the White House and both branches of Congress and who say they support comprehensive gun reform — are masters of the art of misdirection. Republican opposition isn’t the only thing standing between gun violence prevention laws and the majority of Americans who support them.
The Senate’s 60-vote cloture rule did not appear out of thin air — it has been in place since 1975. Since then, Democrats have held a 60+ person majority a total of 4 1/2 years; Republicans have never held it. Bills still passed.
President Clinton did not have 60 Democratic votes in the Senate when he enacted the original assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban in 1994.
And if the filibuster alone is the obstacle, why can’t Democrats be creative and consider reconciliation to bypass the 60 vote rule? It would take a well-skilled parliamentarian but is it really impossible to circumvent the Byrd amendment and identify a budgetary nexus on gun violence?
In an average year, not only do guns in America kill nearly 40,000 people, and injure more than twice as many, it costs our nation $280 billion annually. Isn’t it worth exhausting the option?
Where is our cunning? Why are Washington Democrats slow walking this moment?
The dirty little secret is that Democrats don’t have the simple majority in the Senate necessary to enact
meaningful gun safety reform.
Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate for a brief stint in 2009 and failed to take up any gun safety legislation. After Sandy Hook four years later, a new assault weapon ban was put on the floor. President Obama made it a priority. Nonetheless, it went down in flames 40-60, with 15 Democrats voting against it. Six of those Democrats—Manchin, Michael Bennet, Martin Heinrich, Angus King, Jon Tester and Mark Warner—still serve in the Senate majority today.
At this point it appears the likely scenario is that last month’s mass shootings will yield only expanded background checks and incentives for states to implement Red Flag Laws — in other words, Mr. Churchill, we’ve wasted the crisis.
If for no other reason than to hold all of our elected officials in both parties accountable, the public should demand a vote on a meaningful gun violence prevention package — including an assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban to know where every single member stands.
Republicans didn’t block Schumer’s ill-fated abortion vote — they might be thrilled to tout their their unadulterated support for the 2nd Amendment and vote against an assault weapons ban. It’s past time to make members of both parties put their cards on the table.
In the meantime, state governments continue to be held hostage by federal inaction as even the strongest local laws are by definition only marginally impactful in a country where guns easily cross state borders.
So the real question is, how does America’s chronic gun violence problem – unique on the globe – finally end?
There is actually hope, but it requires adopting an entirely different strategy that doesn’t rely solely on federal action.
Large industry change occurs when their economic calculus changes. For decades Congress coddled Big Tobacco and Pharma. We should learn from that and approach gun and ammunition manufacturers the same way we did then — by using the legal system to hold them accountable, and in the process force them to change their bad practices or suffer crippling economic liability.
This strategy was on the verge of success 20 years ago when dozens of lawsuits were pending against gun manufacturers for negligence and product liability. States, cities, and plaintiff firms had effectively pursued litigation that could have bankrupted the gun industry for their negligence and its foreseeable consequences.
The gun manufacturers themselves were ready to settle these lawsuits, making major reforms that dwarf any of the current proposals. Smith and Wesson, the largest handgun manufacturer in the country, had already accepted a groundbreaking global settlement that was announced by President Clinton.
What happened? George Bush was elected and successfully moved to make gun manufacturers essentially immune from civil litigation, making it the only private industry in the country to have such protection.
However, state governments are not powerless. In 2021 New York enacted first-of-its-kind in the nation legislation making it easier to bring civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers, bypassing the blanket immunity provided under federal law. The statute — which last month withstood a federal legal challenge— holds sellers, manufacturers, importers, or marketers of guns liable for a “public nuisance,” defined as actions that harm the public.
Blue and purple states should follow New York’s lead and enact similar legislation. Used judiciously, gun and ammunition dealers and manufacturers can finally be held financially accountable for the consequences of their products and distribution the same way Tobacco and Pharma were. At the same time, union members and public employees should demand that all public pension and retirement funds nationwide divest from companies associated with manufacturing and distribution of guns or ammunition.
Change will come from economic pressure on the gun manufacturers, and we can direct our energy into building up that pressure.
In the meantime, keep pushing our elected officials to at least be honest if not courageous— politicians follow when people lead, and it’s not too late to demand more.
Melissa DeRosa, former Obama for America State Director, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NY Attorney General and Secretary to Gov. Cuomo, is a Democratic strategist based in New York City.
"What's Left Unsaid"
