October 5, 2010

Google Search Validates Paladino's Claim About Post Reporter

We've been firmly in Carl Paladino's corner ever since last week's brouhaha with New York Post State Editor Fred Dicker. Dicker, whose name suits him, repeatedly invaded Paladino's personal space with a finger-pointing, chest-poking routine that, we think, would have caused an ordinary man to punch him. Carl didn't, but had he, we'd still support him, having seen Dicker's behavior. Add to that Paladino's claim that the Post had gratuitously smeared an innocent ten-year-old, and we can certainly understand why he might be perturbed at Dicker.

All that being said, when Paladino went on the top-rated cable news show, The O'Reilly Factor, last night, we expected some fireworks. What we got, instead, was a man both enormously possessed of self-control—and also a man without any regrets for defending his ten-year-old daughter. We like that. And, we think you will too if you watch the video:

Now, in fairness, we wish Paladino could more accurately name names when O'Reilly pressed him on what Post reporters went after his daughter. O'Reilly seems to question his credibility on that item when he couldn't name reporter "Amber"'s last name. That being said, there's little doubt after a 4-second Google search that Carl was referring to the Post's Amber Sutherland. AND, we might add, the photos included with Sutherland's article about Paladino's daughter lend credence to Paladino's assertion that the Post invaded his daughter's world. So, anyone wishing to question Paladino's veracity on this point—don't bother. Amber Sutherland's tabloid tactics would have set us off, too, had we been in Paladino's shoes.

As we said before, Fred Dicker crossed a line that should not have been crossed. But, given Dicker's past writings on both Paladino and Andrew Cuomo, it doesn't surprise us.

All that being said, we commend Paladino for doing his best to return this election to issues. Because on that score, he's head and shoulders above Andrew Cuomo—even if Fred Dicker doesn't think so.

No comments: