Paladino scores shocking upset over Lazio in New York
(Note: a reader expresses doubts about Paladino, based on his private life, and another reader defends Paladino.)
This makes me glad. Rick Lazio is the pathetic wuss who didn’t even try to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2000 yet ten years later thought he deserved to be governor,
By the Associated Press:
New York—Political novice and tea party ally Carl Paladino shocked the Republican party designee Tuesday after forcing his way into the race for the nomination for New York governor. With 58 percent of precincts reporting, Paladino had 65 percent of the vote to former Congressman Rick Lazio’s 35 percent. (Snip) There was a deafening cheer in Paladino’s Buffalo headquarters when it was announced The Associated Press had called the race for Paladino, who promises to “take a baseball bat” to dysfunctional government in Albany.
- end of initial entry -
Sophia A. writes:
When I read your blog today, the posts about Lazio and Palladino confused me. I had thought that Lazio was the Republican nominee, full stop. The Republican poobahs decided to give us this unappetizing dish, and we were forced like it or lump it. I was so disgusted I resolved not to vote, for the second time in my life.
I didn’t realize that Lazio was being challenged. So when I read your blog I had a jolt of (a) joy (b) glee (c) confusion.
True, perhaps if I had read news accounts more carefully I would have known that he was being challenged, but I still think the MSM is partly to blame for my lack of knowledge.
Regarding Mr. Palladino spending $3M on his candidacy…. I never saw any of his ads. I don’t spend my time glued to the television, but I do watch. His ad revenue must have been spent upstate. (I live in NYC.) On the other hand I saw many Lazio ads, all of which made me reach for the remote immediately.
It is confusing. Lazio was nominated at the party convention months ago, but then Paladino proceeded to get enough signatures to force a popular primary.
The media does not report these things clearly.
Paladino doesn’t yet have my vote. Looking on Wikipedia, I was jolted by this:
Posted September 17
In addition he has a ten year old daughter from an extramarital affair with an employee. He has supported the young girl since her birth and she is integrated into the Paladino family, often seen in the company of his wife and on the road with her father on the campaign trail, though she remains in the custody of her mother….
We are all human; we are all sinners. But this gives me pause. Major pause.
If he’s a strict good government low-taxes type of politician, then it shouldn’t be relevant. But let’s be honest: we want our politicians to be good people. If Cuomo had an illegitimate child from an extra-marital affair, he would be disqualified from my consideration immediately. (Of course, I disagree with Cuomo’s politics…. )
But apparently Paladino has strayed into the morals/personal habits universe, with his suggestion that welfare recipients should be “re-educated” along the lines of the Civilian Conservation Corps. I happen to think that’s a good idea. I also think that it would sound more plausible if a horndog hadn’t made it.
Richard O. replies (September 16):
Paladino made a mistake by having an extramarital affair but he hardly qualifies as a “horndog.” He’s behaved honorably with respect to the child and appears to have peace in his household. I don’t see a pattern of affairs with or advances on other women. I don’t think such a derogatory term should be so loosely used.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 15, 2010 07:15 AM | Send
People are not as bad as the worst things they’ve done and not as good as the best things. The child is not proof that he’s a bad person and doesn’t disqualify him from the office he seeks. Yes, I want a good person as my candidate but even better is a man who’s stumbled but found his feet again.