Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you have inevitably heard about Carl Paladino’s anti-gay rant and his overexposure to the media desperately trying to defend his actions. Paladino, the New York Republican candidate for governor, stated at a gathering in Brooklyn that he is fearful of homosexuals “brainwashing” today’s youth. From a YouTube video recording of the speech, Paladino’s exact words were:
“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,”
Paladino then went on to belittle his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, by informing the public that Cuomo marched in the gay pride parade this year (Paladino did not, obviously) and he feels that it is “not the example we should be showing our children.”
After the rest of the country and the media got wind of these seemingly homophobic remarks the Paladino camp went on serious damage control. Mr. Paladino went to nearly every New York media outlet in hopes to explain his actions, and in a very Obama-like fashion, his wife tried so soften her husband’s imagine. According to a New York Times article titled Another Paladino’s Views, Cathy Paladino admits to having different opinions on homosexuality and is upset that now the attention has shifted to his view on gay marriage. She states: “I just find it so disheartening that in the six months of this campaign we haven’t even talked about issues. And you have three weeks left and it’s not important to talk about. I don’t know. I don’t get it. It’s sad.”
Initially after reading that New York Times article I initially felt bad for Mrs. Paladino. But I had to do a double take after reading that last quote. The New York gubernatorial campaign has been six months long and they have not even talked about issues? What?! The Waterman book mentions that even presidential campaigns follow this “image before substance” tactic. “For a candidate to plan how he will actually govern following an election has indeed become something of an afterthought” (Waterman 75). It seems as though in any political race a candidate’s image outweighs his or her ability. The individuals working behind (and in front) the scenes are simply interested in just winning the contest.
Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKL9TRaePww
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/nyregion/16trailer.html?ref=carl_p_paladino
First, the comment Mrs Paladino made that they've spent six months not talking about the issues is ridiculous. I personally feel this country is at a point in time where the issues are more important than ever. However, this just shows that image remains the number one priority.
ReplyDeleteAs Waterman discusses in Chapter 4, history shows that real discussion of the issues have always been avoided. He writes, "Some campaigns have stressed slogans (such as Reagn's 1984 'Morning in America' and Clinton's 1996 'Help me build a bridge to the 21st century') that purposely avoided a real discussion of the issues" (75). Even in 1968, Richard Nixon, "staffed men from the world of advertising and marketing, rather than political operatives" (74).
Emphasis on image has been crucial the past four decades and the candidate with the best image hasn't always been the best man for the job. Hopefully the issues are top priority in the near future.
Lauren brought forth a very important current political issue. As the Waterman book has brought forth, clearly image plays a crucial role in the political landscape. That being said, when non presidential candidates are involved, is the “image is everything” theory and the “constant campaign” theory still applicable?
ReplyDeleteOne example which clearly can exemplify this is the statements made by Paladino in regards to the homosexual demographic. With the pressure building on the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” forced mostly by celebrities, homosexuality has become an unavoidable aspect of the upcoming midterm elections.
It is impossible to ignore the current threat (especially to the house) to democrats up for reelection. Paladino in response to this and current societal trends has undoubtedly put his own foot in his mouth. Serving as the New York Republican runner for governor of New York, Paladino made a statement to the press which stated:
““I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t” (youtube speech)
The press had a field day with this statement. Trying to combat it Paladino has gone on the defense. His response to these comments is that he has not attended gay rallies because homosexuals choose to wear “Speedos” and “gyrate upon one another” which makes him uncomfortable as an individual.
His wife, as Lauren pointed out, in response to these comments has tried to aid her husband’s image. She essentially backed homosexuals and stated that her husband’s opinions were not her own. That being said she is not the one who will be running for governor in November.
It will be very interesting to see how influential these comments by Paladino will be in November. Clearly his wife is trying to improve his image, but it is not known if her efforts will be helpful. In regards to the Waterman theory, it will be interesting to see if his homophobic comments will affect him in a region that has a large homosexual demographics. If it does not, it seems that Waterman’s theories on “image is everything” and the “constant campaigns” are only applicable to presidential elections.
I was hoping this issue would appear through today’s blogs. This is absolutely a case of foot-in- mouth as Katelyn said—probably along the lines of a size fourteen foot, after America’s recent suicides. Carl Paladino’s homophobic outburst was undoubtedly insensitive and poor timing, so close to the election. While damage control is absolutely necessary, I feel that Paladino’s wife made a statement, that I could only imagine coming out of Sarah Palin’s mouth.
ReplyDeleteEach part of it was rough and off putting. It first began that she admitted to not discussing issues for six week?! She then continued to say that …”it’s not important to talk about.” What isn’t?! Being homosexual? The lives that have been lost due to comments like Paladino’s? Either way, all parts involved with this situation are important, obviously. Waterman discusses “Closing the Deal” in The Image is Everything Presidency. He explains that this part of the election is the most crucial:
In the general election the audience expands greatly—more than twice as many votes as in the primaries. Candidates need new strategies to win support from voters who supported other candidates in their own party primaries, and from the huge numbers of independent who did not participate in the primaries but who image of the candidates were nevertheless formed in primary campaigns. (86)
With 8,000 democratic congressional seats up for republican grabs, this is what might swing potential independent voters—either way. I feel that use of other camp members, like Mrs. Paladino would be better left out of this final leg. The potential for a foot in mouth, out of anyone but Paladino is dangerous. While I’m not sure if Mrs. Paladino’s comment was accurate or made sense it would be better off eliminated. I also feel it so demonstrates Lauren’s point, that substance is an after-thought.
The issues that the republican party opposes, make for some potential foot-in-mouths ,for sure. The democrats generally have a more passive and less outlandish stance on said issues. Therefore there is a chance republican face potential extra problems, in this leg of the race.