Copyright New York Post
The Issue: Michael Goodwin’s column explaining his vote for Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral race. Having to choose between voting for an arrogant ex-governor who already did major damage to our city or a lightweight dressed in sheep’s clothing is not an easy one (“Why Cuo is my choice,” Michael Goodwin, Oct. 29). It’s cliché, but the answer is to pick the lesser of two evils. What’s worse than Cuomo winning is the city losing by being run by Zohran Mamdani. Peter Cooper Bronxville Michael Goodwin’s column is as good as it gets. I support his reasoning for why he plans to vote for Andrew Cuomo for mayor. But sometimes, facts don’t really tell the whole story, and I still believe that Curtis Sliwa is by far the most honest candidate from the available crew of hungry-to-be-mayor wannabes. As Goodwin wrote, choosing Zohran Mamdani for mayor is more than a mistake; it’s a tragedy. It’s also a tragedy that Sliwa got the shaft before the election. I guess you can’t win ’em all for sure. Alan Hirsch Port Washington Intifada-infatuated neo-Marxist Zohran Mamdani is poised to become Gotham’s next mayor, unless Andrew Cuomo can stage a Trumanesque comeback on Nov. 4. Goodwin avers that Comrade Mamdani “was raised by his parents to hate America, our history and our institutions.” Andrew Cuomo on the other hand embraces and champions figures of our history, from Christopher Columbus to Abraham Lincoln to Fiorello La Guardia. The former governor may not be everybody’s cup of cappuccino, but (as Goodwin argues) Sheriff Andy is the only candidate with the views and experience needed to guide the city’s massive bureaucracy. Though he lacks his father’s Ciceronian oratory, Andrew is well versed in the art and practice of governance. And as a pugnaciously effective politico, he is imbued with more than a little of Niccolo Machiavelli’s virtue. Rosario A. Iaconis Mineola I realize that The Post favors Cuomo, and I understand why. However, I do not agree. My vote stands with Curtis Sliwa. Why? Because, personally, I do not want a politician as the next mayor; I want a regular New Yorker. T. Bove Staten Island The Issue: Elizabeth Eddy’s calls for the National Women’s Soccer League to enforce ”sex testing.” As an Angel City Football Club season-ticket holder, I was unpleasantly surprised to see Elizabeth Eddy call for testing to identify and expel allegedly transgender or intersex women from the National Women’s Soccer League (“Own Goal,” PostScript, Oct. 26). Rather than embrace diversity, or focus on improving her own bench-riding game, Eddy seeks to draft the league into the nasty political campaign to exclude trans people from public life. Eligibility rules born from moral panic rather than science ignore the diversity of women’s bodies. A “sex testing” mandate would require collective bargaining. The Players’ Association should vehemently resist: Such mandates are a harmful “solution” in search of a non-existent problem. Amanda Goad Los Angeles, Calif. How do we preserve women’s rights and competitive fairness while fostering inclusion? Just like we would in any competition that has rules as to who can enter. For instance, your 10-year-old may “identify” as a toddler, but a 10-year-old can’t enter a competition for toddlers. Thus, a male can’t enter a competition for females, however much he may think he identifies as a female. Inclusion means you may be included if you qualify by the rules. Angela Lennox-Kay Hackettstown, NJ
