In trying to discredit Paladino, the New York Post trashes its own positions
I can understand the New York Post having it in for Carl Paladino after his threat to “take you out, buddy,” to the Post’s state editor Fredric Dicker the other week. But now the Post is going overboard in its anti-Paladino fervor. Its front page headline today is
CARL GAY RANTAccompanied by a very strange photo of Paladino looking like a mad sinister gnome out of The Ring of the Nibelungen.
Thus the Post tells its readers that the statement that children should not be brainwashed by homosexualist propaganda is a monstrous “rant” against homosexuals.
In fact, Paladino’s speech was not a rant at all, but a standard conservative and Catholic and traditional Jewish criticism of the normalization of homosexuality in our schools and culture, the same criticism that the Post itself has articulated repeatedly over the years. If I had a dollar for every Post editorial attacking Heather Has Two Mommies and similar efforts in the schools to normalize homosexuality I could purchase a Park Avenue duplex. Yet now the Post characterizes its own past position as an “[anti-]gay rant.”
The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year.Again, these are standard conservative views on the subject, and there is no basis for calling it a rant, and there is no basis for a conservative paper to call it objectionable.
Unfortunately, the Paladino camp left itself open to the attack by (according to their account) letting the Jewish congregation collaborate on the speech, the prepared version of which the congregation released before Paladino’s appearance.
As the Post puts it:
A prepared text of the speech distributed by leaders of the congregation before it was delivered was far more incendiary, declaring that God disapproves of homosexuality and gays should be ashamed of themselves.The line that Paladino saw in the written speech and skipped over was: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”
That line is objectionable, and probably sparked the “rant” charge, because it is going beyond saying that homosexuality is not good for individuals and society and should not be normalized; it is putting down homosexuals as human beings, which you don’t do when you’re running for governor of a state that has vast numbers of homosexuals in it. But Paladino didn’t say that sentence, and, according to the Paladino camp, had nothing to do with writing it. So what the Post’s “gay rant” charge comes down to is that the paper is trying to hurt Paladino, and in pursuit of that end, smearing positions it has strongly taken in the past. That is despicable.
Of course, the Post always has a ready made excuse for situations like this: that its editorial and op-ed pages and its news pages are not edited by the same people. But that doesn’t wash. It’s one newspaper, not two newspapers.Sophia W. writes:
Paladino’s problem is that he is incapable of explaining rationally and calmly why he said what he said about homosexuality. He’s going to get caught in that deadly whirlpool of explaining oneself while the media take potshots at him. This would be hard enough for a more experienced politician to do, it will be impossible for him.Dean Ericson writes:
I was interested to see that Orthodox Jews are outspoken social conservatives. I hadn’t thought much about it, what their politics were, though I suppose it might have been inferred. But it might also be thought that, well, they’re Jews, so they have to be liberals, right? Wrong. But I should have been able to figure it out. I saw a gathering of Orthodox Jews in a park not too long ago, not black hats, but conservatively dressed, the men in nice slacks and dress shirts and kippahs (that little bitty disc hat), the women in longish dresses and long sleeved blouses, some hair scarves. A good-looking group, and not a tattoo or a piercing or bulging barrel of flesh to be seen. But lots of children, nicely dressed and well-behaved. It looked like a happy, healthy American scene right out of the 1950s. I wonder what the anti-Semitic right makes of conservative Jews. Also I don’t see anyone criticizing the Orthodox Jews, at least not the way they’re going after Paladino. Do liberal Jews hate their conservative fellows? It’s quite an interesting divide.LA replies:
First, let’s distinguish among the different types of religious Jews.Karl D. writes:
You said: “The Hasidim reject the modern world and the people in it, though they try to benefit from it, through the use of welfare and government programs.”LA replies:
Explain what you mean by “poorest.”Karl D. replies:
Well, according to the 2008 census the town had the highest poverty rate in the entire country. But if you are referring to my scare quotes it is because I am dubious of that distinction. I think there is a huge underground cash only economy in that community. Somehow they manage to keep buying land and build. And from what I have observed they seem to be driving brand new cars. When I used to drive down the Palisades parkway (in some corners known as the Hasidic highway) I would often see them zipping by. I also remember on one occasion at a rest stop/gas station on the parkway seeing a Hasidic man purchase a stack of lottery tickets five inches thick. Do these things prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But it is disturbing. On a more humorous note. Some years ago my cousin took me to a strip club in Times Square in the middle of the day. When we walked in the door I was floored. The place was filled with Hasidim. I couldn’t stop laughing. Had their wives only known?LA replies:
Maybe they went there as a kind of class trip, to study how the goyim live.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 11, 2010 09:26 AM | Send