Politics: Campaign 2012

Romney: Obama Has Failed America

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 2, 2011, 9:54 a.m.

De­veloper Carl Paladino (R) “told a gath­er­ing” in Wil­li­ams­burg, Brook­lyn 10/10 that “chil­dren should not by ‘brain­washed’ in­to think­ing that ho­mo­sexu­al­ity was ac­cept­able, and cri­ti­cized” AG An­drew Cuomo (D) “for march­ing in a gay pride parade earli­er this year.”

Want More On This Race? Check out the Hot­line Dash­board for a com­pre­hens­ive run­down of this race, in­clud­ing stor­ies, polls, ads, FEC num­bers, and more!

Paladino, “ad­dress­ing Or­tho­dox Jew­ish lead­ers”: “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.”

More Paladino: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My op­pon­ent did, and that’s not the ex­ample we should be show­ing our chil­dren” (Har­ris, New York Times, 10/11).

In Paladino’s “pre­pared re­marks — which were handed out to re­port­ers by one of Paladino’s host rab­bis at the K’hal Adam Kasho syno­gague in Wil­li­ams­burg — but not said by Paladino was the line: ‘There is noth­ing to be proud of in be­ing a dys­func­tion­al ho­mo­sexu­al. That’s not how G-d cre­ated us.’”

Paladino mgr Mi­chael Cap­uto, when “asked why that line was striken while Paladino de­livered the rest of the pre­pared text ver­batim”: “Dif­fer­ent lead­ers of the Or­tho­dox com­munity ad­vised Carl on the first draft of the speech. The speech that Carl read was his own” (Ep­stein, “Spin Cycle”, News­day, 10/10).

Cuomo’s camp, in a state­ment: “Mr. Paladino’s state­ment dis­plays a stun­ning ho­mo­pho­bia and a glar­ing dis­reg­ard for ba­sic equal­ity,. These com­ments along with oth­er views he has es­poused make it clear that he is way out of the main­stream and is un­fit to rep­res­ent New York” (re­lease, 10/10).

Cap­uto “noted” that Paladino “em­ployed a gay man on his cam­paign staff.” Cap­uto: “Carl Paladino is simply ex­press­ing the views that he holds in his heart as a Cath­ol­ic. Carl Paladino is not ho­mo­phobic, and neither is the Cath­ol­ic Church. The ma­jor­ity of New York­ers agree with him.” He “said the cam­paign had done its own polling.”

Paladino: “Don’t mis­quote me as want­ing to hurt ho­mo­sexu­al people in any way. That would be a dast­ardly lie.”

Cap­uto “sug­ges­ted” that 8/20 “a Cuomo staff mem­ber had re­ferred to two gay male aides” to Paladino “as ‘girls.’ The aides were ac­com­pa­ny­ing a Paladino vo­lun­teer dressed in a duck cos­tume, and blow­ing duck calls, to call at­ten­tion to what the Paladino cam­paign said” was Cuomo’s “habit of duck­ing is­sues.”

Cap­uto said “the aides were ap­proached by the Cuomo staff mem­ber and told: ‘If you girls don’t get out of here I’m go­ing to shove those duck calls down your throats.’”

Cuomo’s camp “did not re­spond” 10/10 (New York Times, 10/11).

Go Ahead, Tell The World

Paladino made the full Gins­burg this a.m., ap­pear­ing on all three morn­ing net­work shows.

Paladino, on if he is call­ing the kettle black: “No I don’t think so. And I know what you’re re­fer­ring to and I did apo­lo­gize for that omis­sion in my life and reck­less­ness. I want to clearly define my­self. I have no re­ser­va­tions about gay people at all. None. Ex­cept for one thing, their de­sire to get mar­ried. I just feel, I’m a Cath­ol­ic, … I feel that mar­riage is only between a man and a wo­man. … I have people work­ing for me that are gay. Nev­er had a prob­lem with them.”

Paladino, on if people are gay by birth: “I think its a mat­ter of birth. I feel like they are born that way. And that’s just fine.”

Paladino, if he ad­ded fuel to the fire of hate: “It wasn’t my in­ten­tion.”

Paladino, on the New York Post: “I think they owe me an apo­logy at some point. They have chased me down for every darn thing” (“Early Show,” CBS, 10/11).

Paladino, on if he will al­low openly gay people to serve in his ad­min­is­tra­tion: “Ab­so­lutely. Wherever their ex­pert­ise might be, we’ll put them in our gov­ern­ment.”

Paladino: “The dis­crim­in­a­tion against ho­mo­sexu­als is hor­rible, it’s ter­rible.”

Paladino: “Young chil­dren should not be ex­posed to that at a young age, they don’t un­der­stand it. It’s a very dif­fi­cult thing and ex­pos­ing them to ho­mo­sexu­al­ity, es­pe­cially at a gay pride parade and I don’t know if you have ever been to one, but they wear these little Speedos and they grind against each oth­er and it’s just a ter­rible thing.”

Paladino: “When I talk about is­sues such as this, I talk from my heart. And I ex­pect the press to prop­erly in­ter­pret my re­marks.”

Paladino, on the speech that was writ­ten for him: “I’m not quite sure where it came from. I don’t know the people who wrote that. But I crossed it out in the car. I did not say it and to re­peat it, is wrong.”

Paladino: “No, I don’t re­gret the re­mark, the re­marks that I made be­lieve in. The re­mark that was de­leted is nobody’s busi­ness, it was put in there by some­body and I’m not re­spons­ible for that, I’m only re­spons­ible for what I say.”

Paladino: “An­drew Cuomo took his daugh­ters to a gay pride parade, is that nor­mal? Would you do it? Would you take your chil­dren to a gay pride parade? … I don’t think you should go and watch grown men grind against each oth­er, I think it’s dis­gust­ing” (“Today,” NBC, 10/11).

Paladino, on if ho­mo­sexu­al­ity is a choice: “I’ve had dif­fi­culty with that. … And I be­lieve it’s a very, very dif­fi­cult life for a young per­son. I be­lieve that young people should not ne­ces­sar­ily be ex­posed to that. Without some really, really ma­ture back­ground, first, be­fore — so they can learn to deal with it. It’s a very dif­fi­cult thing. And I sens­it­ize with it totally.”

Paladino: “My prob­lem with that, the press does not hold Cuomo to the same stand­ards that they hold at me. Everything he says, they come and shoot at me from every pos­sible angle” (“GMA,” ABC, 10/11).

Paladino went on FNC’s “Fox & Friends,” 10/11.

Paladino, on why he made his com­ments about gay people: “An­drew Cuomo had come out with a state­ment say­ing that in his first year gay mar­riage would be passed and he would sign the bill. We wanted to clearly define our po­s­i­tion on gay mar­riage. I have un­equi­voc­ally had no re­ser­va­tions what­so­ever about ho­mo­sexu­al­ity. I know the dif­fi­culties that ho­mo­sexu­als suf­fer. I have a neph­ew and I have em­ploy­ees who work for me who are of that per­sua­sion and we have nev­er had a prob­lem and i say that very clearly, un­equi­voc­ally. None.”

Paladino, on his un­der­stand­ing of gay pride parades: “I made a fur­ther com­ment that was based upon an­drew’s state­ment that last year he took his chil­dren, young teen­agers, to a gay pride parade. Now, I stumbled on one in Toronto one time with my wife. We watched this. There were men in Speedos grind­ing and do­ing things, okay, to each oth­er, on this tract trail­er. I just said, that’s not right. What’s wrong with him, tak­ing young chil­dren? We wanted to make a clear state­ment. Schools have no busi­ness teach­ing chil­dren about mor­al ques­tions. That’s re­served to the par­ents.”

Paladino, on who is at fault for his pre­pared state­ments say­ing gays were ‘dys­func­tion­al’: “Well, I don’t know who wrote the thing. But some­body did. In the car be­fore I ar­rived, I scratched out that sec­tion. I said, this isn’t me. And I scratched it out and I did not re­peat it. I didn’t say it. I cer­tainly don’t feel that way. And then that’s what led this whole is­sue up. An­drew went and took a clean copy of that and went and sent it out to the press.”

Paladino, on if he thinks his op re­search is ac­tu­ally good for the cam­paign: “I don’t. I’m out there — I don’t think it would be ef­fect­ive right now. I think right now, okay, people want to hear about the mes­sage. An­drew keeps shov­ing this gut­ter stuff out there and I have to re­spond to it. But my mes­sage is very, very clear. It’s very simple and it deals with the en­tire spec­trum of our so­ci­ety in New York state. Cut the taxes, cut the spend­ing, jobs, and enough of the gov­ern­ment cor­rup­tion and get our medi­caid straightened out” (FNC, 10/11).

Paladino also ap­peared on the “Imus In The Morn­ing” show this a.m.

Paladino, on gay mar­riage: “I do not sup­port gay mar­riage. … I’m a Cath­ol­ic and there are 7,500,000 Cath­ol­ics in New York. My feel­ings on ho­mo­sexu­al­ity are the same as the Cath­ol­ic church. I have no prob­lem with ho­mo­sexu­al­ity, none at all, but mar­riage is a sac­red thing.”

Paladino, on Cuomo tak­ing his daugh­ters to a gay pride parade: “I don’t think I would be proud to take my child to a gay pride parade where you have these men in Speedos and oth­er­wise na­ked, grind­ing against each oth­er up on the back of a truck. I think it’s dis­gust­ing. It’s like tak­ing your daugh­ter to a strip show.”

Paladino, on wheth­er his re­li­gion will in­flu­ence the way he gov­erns: “No, I will gov­ern, I will up­hold all the laws of the state of New York, no mat­ter what they are, even if they dis­agree with my per­son­al feel­ings, I will up­hold those laws. I may ad­voc­ate against them, but I cer­tainly will up­hold the laws.”

Paladino, on wheth­er he would sup­port a gay mar­riage act if it passed in the state le­gis­lature: “Oh, ab­so­lutely. Ab­so­lutely.”

Paladino, on the in­cid­ent at Rut­gers Univ.: “I see the dis­crim­in­a­tion, I have a neph­ew and oth­er people work­ing in my or­gan­iz­a­tion who are gay. I see the dif­fi­culties that they suf­fer every day. … Talk­ing about these is­sues is im­port­ant. I think that people want to know where you stand on these is­sues. I will pro­tect every­body in the state of New York. I will ad­vance the in­terests of every­body in the state of New York and I’ve as­sured every­one of that.”

Paladino, on Cuomo: “Now he wants to call me a ho­mo­phobic. An­drew’s got to get a life. He has to get out there and try to find something con­struct­ive to do for the rest of his life be­cause he’s cer­tainly not go­ing to be the Gov­ernor of the state of New York. People aren’t go­ing to tol­er­ate the gut­ter muck he throws at me. Then he points the fin­ger at me, for de­fend­ing my­self, that I shouldn’t be re­act­ing to it” (FBN, 10/11).

Money Bombed

Paladino’s “on­line fun­drais­ing site” re­por­ted that the “‘money­bomb’” he “tried to con­duct re­cently” raised “just” $72K “as of” 10/8 PM. Paladino’s Face­book page “reached” $100K “just 20 minutes be­fore mid­night.” Cap­uto “ac­know­ledged Paladino has had trouble drum­ming up cash” (Amon, “Spin Cycle”, News­day, 10/8).

Mitt Rom­ney will be the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee, Wis­con­sin sealed the deal, and he will pick Sen. Rob Port­man of Ohio as his run­ning mate.

Write it down. And har­angue me mer­ci­lessly this sum­mer if I am wrong.

Column writ­ing, I have learned, is part pro­voca­tion and part ex­plan­a­tion.

There is noth­ing pro­voc­at­ive about de­clar­ing that Port­man will be Rom­ney’s run­ning mate, ex­cept that it hasn’t happened and I don’t know it an as ab­so­lute fact.

But everything tells me it will be so.

I’m not sug­gest­ing Port­man, nor am I ad­voc­at­ing for him. I don’t know if he will be a good pick or a bad pick. What Rom­ney and Port­man make of the tick­et is between them and the voters.

Here’s why I think it will hap­pen:

1. Rom­ney likes and re­spects Port­man. They have genu­ine rap­port. This does not come eas­ily to Rom­ney and it mat­ters a great deal. Rom­ney must trust his run­ning mate and feel as if that “port­fo­lio” is in safe and re­li­able hands. Everything I’ve learned about Rom­ney’s tem­pera­ment tells me he won’t risk his own sense of bal­ance and con­fid­ence — his sense of team dy­nam­ics — by choos­ing a flashy or demo­graph­ic­ally ap­pro­pri­ate run­ning mate he doesn’t trust and be­lieve in.

2. Port­man wants the job. He proved it by en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally en­dors­ing Rom­ney and throw­ing his Ohio or­gan­iz­a­tion fully be­hind him be­fore the cru­cial March 6 primary. Rom­ney won by 10,288 votes. Some Ohio Re­pub­lic­ans be­lieve Port­man pro­pelled Rom­ney to vic­tory. This much is cer­tain: He did not fail his polit­ic­al au­di­tion. Port­man backed Rom­ney, went to work and pro­duced tan­gible, pos­sibly dif­fer­ence-mak­ing res­ults. Ask your­self: Where would the race be now had Rick San­tor­um won Ohio? Port­man doesn’t guar­an­tee Rom­ney Ohio’s 18 elect­or­al votes. But nobody else can guar­an­tee their state, either. Port­man per­formed ex­pertly in the GOP’s 2010 wave elec­tion, win­ning with 57 per­cent and car­ry­ing 82 of 88 counties and 15 of 18 House dis­tricts. Lee Fish­er, the lieu­ten­ant gov­ernor who beat Sec­ret­ary of State Jen­nifer Brun­ner in that year’s Demo­crat­ic primary, did not start the race the pushover Port­man made him ap­pear.

3. Port­man is vet­ted, more so than any oth­er po­ten­tial pick. He’s been con­firmed not once but twice to cab­in­et posts — U.S. trade rep­res­ent­at­ive in 2005 and Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget dir­ect­or in 2006. The files are ready and, by Wash­ing­ton stand­ards, spot­less. Rom­ney knows his pick must get off to a good start and any “sur­prises” after the rol­lout will de­prive his cam­paign of pre­cious time, en­ergy, and mo­mentum. Port­man is a known com­mod­ity among Wash­ing­ton re­port­ers and is re­garded as both know­ledge­able and ac­cess­ible (and as a dis­penser of well-timed leaks). In the fren­zied en­vir­on­ment that will ac­com­pany the pre­lude to Rom­ney’s pick, the Port­man choice may land with a thud on the cha­risma meter, but it won’t set in mo­tion a wave of “guess what” stor­ies and will al­low Rom­ney to fo­cus on the cam­paign, not thorny rev­el­a­tions that must be ritu­al­ist­ic­ally turned in­to an us-against-them me­dia meme. In fact, Port­man might ac­tu­ally talk Bo­ston out of its hy­per­tens­ive and al­ler­gic re­ac­tions to re­port­ers.

4. Port­man is ready for the job and, more im­port­antly, primed for the ob­lig­a­tions that will fall upon Rom­ney if he’s elec­ted. In the trans­ition, Rom­ney will need skilled and quick­sil­ver ad­vice and guid­ance on the ma­gilla lame-duck ses­sion that’s com­ing. In those pre­cious few weeks in Novem­ber and Decem­ber the na­tion will have to de­cide the fate of the fol­low­ing: the ex­pir­ing Bush tax cuts, the ex­pir­ing payroll-tax cut, un­fin­ished spend­ing bills, the ex­pir­ing Medi­care “doc fix” that shiel­ded phys­i­cians from a 27 per­cent premi­um cut, ex­ten­ded un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, the sched­uled $1.2 tril­lion across-the-board dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing cut (se­quester), the farm bill, and quite prob­ably, a trans­port­a­tion bill. Oh, and one oth­er thing. A $3 tril­lion debt-ceil­ing in­crease will come up then or right after In­aug­ur­a­tion Day. A lame-duck Con­gress with a pres­id­ent-elect may de­cide to punt these tough is­sues to the new ad­min­is­tra­tion. If so, no gov­ernor or minty-fresh tea party sen­at­or will suf­fice. Port­man knows the West Wing like few oth­ers (he also served in the White House Coun­sel’s Of­fice and the Of­fice of Le­gis­lat­ive Af­fairs un­der Pres­id­ent Bush the eld­er). He knows the House and Sen­ate and served on the su­per com­mit­tee. He knows what the num­bers are, what they mean, and how the polit­ics of budget, tax­a­tion, and trade work. Rom­ney will have to gov­ern and gov­ern quick. The head­aches will be im­me­di­ate and the choices dif­fi­cult. If gov­ern­ing mat­ters, Port­man pre­vails.

5. Port­man is to Rom­ney what Al Gore was to Bill Clin­ton. He amp­li­fies the cent­ral mes­sage and the skills set the “al­tern­at­ive” tick­et brings. The choice is about Pres­id­ent Obama and an­oth­er term. It’s a fir­ing choice more than a hir­ing choice. In this con­text, the al­tern­at­ive needs to be ac­cept­able, not ex­cit­ing. Port­man is not Rom­ney in mini­ature and Rom­ney isn’t Port­man in mini­ature. But they are both board­room-ready and polit­ic­ally in­clined. They are cool, ana­lyt­ic­al, data-driv­en and con­vers­ant in the cent­ral is­sue of the day — the eco­nomy. This is not ‘92 and Rom­ney won’t have a force carving up the Demo­crat­ic base like Ross Perot did to Bush the eld­er. Rom­ney’s not cha­ris­mat­ic and nev­er will be. Port­man re­in­forces all that Rom­ney of­fers or hopes to of­fer the coun­try. And won’t suf­fer cha­risma com­par­is­ons to Port­man. Don’t kid your­self that this doesn’t mat­ter to Rom­ney.

I’ve in­ter­viewed roughly 30 Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats about a Rom­ney-Port­man tick­et and the down­sides and none of the above points are con­tested. They aren’t even ser­i­ously de­bated.

There are real down­sides and risks to a Port­man pick ex­pressed by Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats alike, but giv­en dif­fer­ent weight and em­phas­is: Port­man’s a bore, and their tick­et would be bore­dom squared, or squares squared; he of­fers noth­ing to wo­men voters or Latino voters; he car­ries the taint of Bush-Cheney policies; and he’s not con­ser­vat­ive enough for the tea party. To one de­gree or an­oth­er, these are all val­id com­plaints. But Rom­ney has the same per­ceived “flaws” and he’s go­ing to win the nom­in­a­tion. Port­man can’t fix Rom­ney’s flaws. Neither can any­one else. That means all oth­er things be­ing equal, Rom­ney will look for someone he knows and trusts; who has de­livered for him; who can put a vi­tal swing state in play; who can im­me­di­ately help him tackle the hard­est is­sues if he’s elec­ted; and whose se­lec­tion tells the coun­try Rom­ney’s first big de­cision as a nom­in­ee wasn’t a gas­ket-blow­ing gamble or one fes­tooned with the gar­ish and out­moded trap­pings of re­gion­al or ideo­lo­gic­al bal­ance.

I could be wrong.

But I doubt it.

What We're Following See More »
WH Never Released NIger Statement
4 hours ago

"A staffer at the National Security Council drafted a statement of condolence for President Donald Trump to make almost immediately after a deadly ambush of U.S. soldiers in Niger earlier this month. But Trump never issued the statement, and, some two weeks later, is now in hot water over his initial silence on the soldiers’ deaths and alleged controversial comments he made to a widow of one of the dead."

2 US Navy Sailors Die of Drug Overdose Same Week
5 hours ago

"Two US sailors based at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia have died of apparent drug overdoses in the last week, according to a US Navy public affairs officer." The submarine force and Kings Bay leadership have ordered more drug tests and are taking the events very seriously.

U.S. Immigrant Population Hit 43.7 Million in 2016
6 hours ago
Second Lady Pence Rolls Out Initiative
6 hours ago
Five Shot at Maryland Office Park
9 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.