I mean, that’s cool and all, but the N.Y. Times latching on to stuff like that makes it easier for them to try to smear him as a “radical Muslim antisemite” or whatever and bury stories about his economic populism. When push comes to shove, it’s the latter that working-class New Yorkers care about and that would get him elected.
I don’t think he’s wrong to take that position re: Netanyahu, but I think it’s possibly a tactical error to let the media bait him into focusing on it instead of hammering on the economic message.
He doesn’t even need to focus on it, he just need to tangentially allude to it and suddenly a bunch of these hack rags will end up treating it like its the capstone of his policy agenda.
Perhaps, but I think his message from the debate was better: The job is to be mayor of a city, there’s no reason the office should have anything at all to do with foreign affairs so long as those affairs stay out of the city.
Like personally I appreciate calling out the atrocity, but it isn’t the job of the mayor to be neck deep in that either way.
The majority of NYC residents would like to see Netanyahu get fucked last I checked. Anti-Israel stuff is immensely popular among democrats in general.
It’s a bad position to take. Not because it’s the wrong thing to do. Netanyahu is undeniably a war criminal and should face justice. It’s a bad position because only the federal government should be making foreign relations decisions. NYC can and should make itself a very uncomfortable place for Netanyahu but actually arresting him is something that the FBI should do. From that standpoint this isn’t different from Texas putting the barriers in the Rio Grande. SCOTUS should have smacked them down hard for that because it usurps authority that the Constitution gives exclusively to the federal government. Of course, the court didn’t smack Texas down on that and it was objectively wrong both constitutionally and morally so maybe the constitution and the rule of law in general don’t really apply anymore.
I mean, that’s cool and all, but the N.Y. Times latching on to stuff like that makes it easier for them to try to smear him as a “radical Muslim antisemite” or whatever and bury stories about his economic populism. When push comes to shove, it’s the latter that working-class New Yorkers care about and that would get him elected.
I don’t think he’s wrong to take that position re: Netanyahu, but I think it’s possibly a tactical error to let the media bait him into focusing on it instead of hammering on the economic message.
He doesn’t even need to focus on it, he just need to tangentially allude to it and suddenly a bunch of these hack rags will end up treating it like its the capstone of his policy agenda.
That’s clearly the NYTs intent in writing this article.
Do you think New Yorkers will buy the “radical Muslim antisemite” line?
They already haven’t. They’re smarter than average red state Americans.
Smear? Fuck that makes me want to vote for him more.
Perhaps, but I think his message from the debate was better: The job is to be mayor of a city, there’s no reason the office should have anything at all to do with foreign affairs so long as those affairs stay out of the city.
Like personally I appreciate calling out the atrocity, but it isn’t the job of the mayor to be neck deep in that either way.
The majority of NYC residents would like to see Netanyahu get fucked last I checked. Anti-Israel stuff is immensely popular among democrats in general.
I think it’s a tactical error to let the right-wing fascists dictate your policies before there’s even a chance they get enacted.
The antisemitism accusstions no longer works we all see the genocide live
It’s a bad position to take. Not because it’s the wrong thing to do. Netanyahu is undeniably a war criminal and should face justice. It’s a bad position because only the federal government should be making foreign relations decisions. NYC can and should make itself a very uncomfortable place for Netanyahu but actually arresting him is something that the FBI should do. From that standpoint this isn’t different from Texas putting the barriers in the Rio Grande. SCOTUS should have smacked them down hard for that because it usurps authority that the Constitution gives exclusively to the federal government. Of course, the court didn’t smack Texas down on that and it was objectively wrong both constitutionally and morally so maybe the constitution and the rule of law in general don’t really apply anymore.