Scott Jennings walked onto CNN and cut through the spin surrounding Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo’s radio exchange, and a photo that keeps attracting heat. Jennings argued the debate isn’t about cheap insults but practical questions of experience and judgment, especially given the odd company Mamdani has kept. This piece lays out the back-and-forth and explains why conservatives say the worry is real, not a smear.
The immediate flap started when Andrew Cuomo, on a radio interview, suggested voters should consider whether Mamdani has the experience to handle a major crisis. That line landed because Mamdani once posed with a man tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and critics say that association raises legitimate questions about judgment. Democrats rushed to label the exchange Islamophobic instead of answering whether a rookie leader is equipped for catastrophe management.
What Republicans are saying is straightforward: experience matters in a city as consequential as New York, and optics count. Voters are allowed to ask if someone who “has never had a job, never run anything, certainly never run at this level” should be put in charge when lives are at stake. This isn’t a gotcha for clicks; it’s about readiness and public safety in an era that still remembers 9/11.
Former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo laughed along with a conservative radio host on Thursday who said that Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim mayoral candidate, would celebrate another Sept. 11-style terrorist attack on New York City.
Within hours, the exchange ricocheted across the campaign trail, where Mr. Mamdani and a cross-section of Democrats denounced the conversation as Islamophobic and outside the bounds of even a heated campaign.
The episode began as part of a friendly interview between the radio host, Sid Rosenberg, and Mr. Cuomo, who is openly courting Republican votes as he attempts to catch Mr. Mamdani in the polls before Nov. 4.
Mr. Cuomo, 67, had been arguing that Mr. Mamdani, a 34-year-old state lawmaker and Democratic nominee, was dangerously unprepared to lead a city as large as New York through events like natural disasters or the deadly Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.
CNN brought in Scott Jennings to parse the shouting and focus on the substance beneath it. Jennings didn’t play the identity card game; he examined the facts and the optics, pointing out the photograph and the candidate’s resume gap. That line of analysis forces Democrats to defend choices rather than simply denounce critics.
In this particular case, I think he was making two points, actually. One is, if you did, God forbid, have a massive emergency like that, would you really want someone in the mayor’s seat who has never had a job, never run anything, certainly never run at this level?
Number two, it is true that Mamdani was taking a picture with an unindicted coconspirator from the World Trade Center bombing the other day and called him a ‘pillar of the community.’
Cuomo didn’t make him take that picture. Mamdani took that picture and seems to be pretty proud of it.
That’s a legitimate thing to debate, but I think in this case of the radio show, the core issue was Mamdani literally has no experience, and if you had a 9/11-scale event, would you want somebody who can’t prove that they can do anything in the chair?
The exchange on air exposed a common conservative argument: this is about competence, not character assassination. Jennings insisted the photograph and the candidate’s record are fair subjects for scrutiny, and that accusing critics of bigotry is a dodge when the core question is governance. That framing put pressure back on Democrats to explain why Mamdani’s associations and lack of executive experience aren’t cause for concern.
“Is it fair to say that he would ‘cheer on’ 9/11?” asked Phillip.
“He’s taking pictures with unindicted coconspirators from the World Trade Center bombing,” replied Jennings.
The look on Phillip’s face, man. God, she’s beyond unlikable.
Republicans see this as a test of political priorities: do you defend a candidate at all costs, or do you answer basic competency questions? The intensity of the reaction from Mamdani’s allies suggests they prefer to change the subject rather than engage on experience and judgment. That strategy can rally the base, but it won’t reassure undecided voters focused on safety and leadership ability.
This debate goes beyond one mayoral race. It reflects a broader disagreement about how campaigns operate when the stakes are public safety and civic trust. Conservatives argue leaders should be vetted rigorously for crisis readiness, while the opposing side often frames that scrutiny as bad faith. Voters are left to decide whether rhetoric or responsibility matters more.
At the end of the day, the CNN segment showed how a clear, persistent line of questioning can break through partisan noise. Jennings’ approach was to return to simple, practical concerns about who is qualified to lead a major city through worst-case scenarios. That insistence on competence over spin is what drives conservative critiques in contests like this one.
