It turns out that Paladino never actually said the specific remarks that started the whole firestorm over at DPUD.  So, by attempting to frame the debate dishonestly, IVD has just made himself look like a complete and utter tool.

This whole fiasco is a perfect example of why one should frame their points honestly.  Then, when new information comes to light, you can still have a valid argument, rather than a smoking crater where your credibility used to be.

Even though Paladino didn't say those specific words, the facts remain that: (1) He was reading the prepared comments of a third party, and in such a way that they could be misconstrued as his own comments, and (2) He's discussing a very divisive social issue in an election where one should be able to run solely on fiscal issues.  Both of these show extremely bad judgment, at the very least.

If you can't win this year when running against a long-term political insider by focusing on just fiscal issues, you weren't going to win under any circumstances.  Whether or not Paladino is homophobic may be back up in the air, but there's no doubt he's a dipshit and a lousy candidate, which brings us right back to the issue of candidate vetting.

If this debate had been framed honestly from the start, this revelation about what Paladino actually said wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 06:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.