Primary Results: the New York State View

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

WNYC reporters Azi Paybarah and Bob Hennelly discuss the state election returns.


Bob Hennelly and Azi Paybarah

Comments [47]

Aneece aka Eruch from Brooklyn

Taylor, I've joined you in the other thread.

Sep. 17 2010 05:54 PM
g.e.Taylor from Bklyn., NY

@Eruch Colt from Brooklyn:

Are you "@aneece from Brooklyn" or are you "hjs11211" ? I'm only asking because those are the only two psueodo-names I've directly addressed on this thread. I could be wrong, but I can't find your previous comments here.
Anyway - time, being like an effluvial stream-
- I've moved on to Friday's thread on this same (sort of) theme; what name are you using there?
I'm trying to appear more accommodating (operative word is "appear" )
Herewith therefore is how I'd approach this today: [see: ]

"In the spirit of "can't we all get along together" - can't we all agree that the disgusting images of animal-human sexual interaction and stereo-typical tribal behavior re-published by Mr. Palidino via his e-mail account are disgusting to us all.
And those "pictorial images" are not the only kinds disgusting depravity and evidence of cruel callousness that can be seen via the Internet. While those pictorial depictions are easily understood by the child-like minds that inhabit most of the NYS electorate (especially the less educated tea party reactionaries),
less easily identified are the long textual fictions by hidden right-wingnuts who attribute improper motives and disgusting behavior to the rightful biological heirs of political advantage and power.
But rather than waste our time with such inflammatory gossip - why don't we continue to focus on the pictures."

Sep. 17 2010 01:29 PM
Eruch Colt from Brooklyn

Again, classic wingnut maneuver.

Shorter Taylor: "Side issues, side issues, red herring, bizarre non sequitur... refusal to engage in the original proposition... cup o'tea"

Ignore all of my earlier, admittedly all over the place comments about conservatives, including what I just wrote. Let's focus on what you yourself first brought up.

You questioned the story of the extremely unfortunate emails, and suggested that non Tea Partyers were over reacting because they disliked Paladino's politics. Full stop.

When several people, including me, demonstrated to you that you were wrong, that the images were "disqualifying for statewide office for all time" bad, and that our political issues with him were irrelevant, you went off the rhetorical reservation.

You questioned the reliability of the source, and made some jerky comment about the (extremely courteous and thoughtful) not safe for work warning. You didn't have only two options. You had an infinity of possible positions. But you only had (essentially) two intellectually honest positions.

So, to answer your original question which you pretended to want answered: the emails WERE that bad, wnyc was not being biased by covering them, and his substantive policy positions mattered not at all.

Your performance here demonstrates what I find so incomprehensible about Tea Partyers, and what makes me doubt their sincerity. For liberals like myself, I would hate what Paladino did even if, policy wise, he was my ideal candidate. Yet I suspect that if Cuomo'd done the same thing, you'd be having a field day. This is a familiar refrain. Right wingers are essentialists. Liberals defend the right to build a mosque not because of something essential about Islam, but because we can conceptually swap in the words "synagogue" or "Mormon temple" into the question.

Please refute me. I am completely open to changing my mind. But you'll have to make logically consistent arguments to do it.

Sep. 17 2010 12:00 PM
g.e.Taylor from Bklyn., NY

@aneece from Brooklyn:

So I read your diatribe - quite the wordsmith you are.
I was floored by the "wingnut shenanigans" call you made right out of the box. A bold gambit I'd say. I realize I have met my match. What could be a possible retort to a spell like that.
Please forgive my intrusions on your righteousness.
(oh yeah, thanks for being generous in providing me with two permissible positions - you must be a teacher.)
Time for another cup o' tea. : )
(BTW: I want to be recorded as being opposed to "bestiality pornography and virulently racist images" of anyone whether they be president or not. However, unlike Mr. Palidino, I would find it an unprincipled action to use the government's power of eminent domain to prevent such outrages.)

Enjoy the rest of the show.

Sep. 16 2010 07:38 PM
aneece from Brooklyn


You probably won't read this, but just in case, I call wingnut shenanigans on you. Right wingers love to decry liberal, post-modernist, moral relativist liberals. But what happens when the facts don't line up with their preselected conclusion? You claim that there are no facts, that all things are relative, that we can never know something for certain.

You pretend not to see those truly racist and perverse/obscene emails, and then when multiple people provide you links to them, you throw up a bunch of b.s. side issues. It's just like the global warming issue. There are facts, in physics, in our measurements, etc., and suddenly you conservatives turn into Derida on a bad day. Newsflash, Einstein: Paladino ADMITTED to sending the most disturbing images.

You have two choices: admit that Paladino sent atrocious, despicable emails, or that bestiality pornography and virulently racist images of the President are A-OK by you. That's it. Any other position is intellectually dishonest.

Sep. 16 2010 10:53 AM
g.e.Taylor from Bklyn., NY


Well he definitely appears to be a witch ( )

I was wondering whether your source was reliable until I realized that the "mosh" was created by a theatrical computer programmer and a professional image manager.

(I hope to be forgiven for my unintended disrespect of witches, wiccans, etc.)

BTW: I wouldn't be too worried about your employer finding out about the disgusting images you are collecting and transmitting. Unless you actually are a full time employee of the NYS Attorney General's office or a NYC employee, your job is already forfeit for using the computer resources and time to be involved in these comments.

Have a nice cup of tea! : )

Sep. 15 2010 06:40 PM

he's already said he's did this and doesn't see the big deal.

Sep. 15 2010 02:51 PM

i'm not really comfortable searching for 'bestiality' at work
but a quick google search for "bestiality paladino" will give u lots of links such as

Sep. 15 2010 02:49 PM

**This is not safe for work (although the images have been censored).**

The emails:

Sep. 15 2010 02:48 PM
g.e.Taylor from Bklyn., NY


Link please. :)

Sep. 15 2010 01:44 PM

i can't agree that the "sensibility of most progressives" could say "not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-it" while refering to bestiality.

Sep. 15 2010 12:43 PM
g.e.Taylor from Bklyn., NY

I had to look for the Paladino e-mails that everyone seems to find so offensive and so difficult to provide a link to. Not that WNYC listeners would be overly sensitive or unfairly partisan.
Google revealed a plethora of Palidino e-mails having to do with matters that would meet the "not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-it" sensibility of most progressives. Is it the nature of his substantive positions that is really the target? (

Sep. 15 2010 12:12 PM

Andrew Binder: yes. Perhaps this really is the windfall of the crumble in the Republican Party that was predicted 2 years ago. SOMEONE has to come forward after the disappointment of Bush. Perhaps, perhaps, so many of these obviously racist people will really gain a foothold, speak out loud, and hopefully feel sickened by what they actually stand for.

Sep. 15 2010 11:10 AM
aneece from Brooklyn

Also, 0/0 isn't in the null set.

Sep. 15 2010 10:56 AM
aneece from Brooklyn


Please read my comment further down the page. If you missed the WNYC reporters' response to that woman's concerns, it's because they bent so far backwards to be kind to her. She complained about patently biased comments from reporters mouths the previous night. She was confused. Either she was referring to a clip from a democratic politician, or she was referring to analysis of DEMOCRATIC primary voter's opinions, which are substantially pro freedom of religion. This woman was so desperate to get offended, she invented her own facts.

Sep. 15 2010 10:54 AM

Richard: not sure if this is the woman to whom you were referring, but there was one woman caller this morning who called in before when asked about the Glenn Beck rally. She was complaining about being criticized for being stupid, and she sounded very stupid.

watch this and then tell me how these Tea Party people are not ignorant as hell.

Sep. 15 2010 10:52 AM

WNYC unbiased = x/0 (the null set)

Sep. 15 2010 10:47 AM
AndrewBinder from NYC!

"Teapartyers" ignore facts, run only on emotion and ignore basic morality and decency i.e. voting for a racist scumbag because he seems to be "against the establishment" (let's ignore the fact that in a de facto sense he IS part of the establishment, but hey...why should that matter right?)

And yes, voting for a racist makes you complicit in racism, you may as well be one then so the racist label in regards to the Tea Party is apt.

Sep. 15 2010 10:45 AM

Ken: yes! excellent idea.

Sep. 15 2010 10:40 AM

About the brave woman who phoned in weary of the way WNYC shoves aside those who do not agree with the station's liberal excesses: know that she is not alone.

"If WNYC keeps insulting our intelligence," as I believe she put it, WNYC will continue failing at their stated mission of supporting our community.

I, for instance, am tired of being labeled a "xenophobe" each time I use the term "illegal alien" instead of "immigrant."

Have a heart.

Sep. 15 2010 10:38 AM

who was the last caller talking about ?someone mcman

Sep. 15 2010 10:38 AM
aneece from Brooklyn


Listen to the words, not the ideology. She blamed WNYC for the "biased" words of a reporter about the mosque, and they gently corrected her by pointing out that those "biased" words were spoken by a democratic politician at a victory rally. Tea Partyers love to get offended, even if they have to misconstrue the facts to get that way.

Sep. 15 2010 10:38 AM
The Truth from Becky

Love it! "Throw the bums out? you are the bums" lol

Sep. 15 2010 10:37 AM

Truth: I hear ya.

Sep. 15 2010 10:36 AM
Dorothy from Chelsea

I'm registered as an Independent, usually vote Dem but not always.
Re: Espada - I worked phone bank yesterday for a tenant advocacy group for Gustavo Rivera. Tenant groups should have been listed as one (perhaps the most important) force behind Espada's defeat.; Rent regulation is coming up for renewal next year and every guy in Albany should pay attention to Espada's defeat.

Sep. 15 2010 10:36 AM

I hope a feisty opponent will force Cuomo to take a stand on positions and actually reveal his agenda for NYS.. Not that I plan to vote for Paladino. But so far, Cuomo has been the stealth candidate -- flying under the radar to avoid controversy.

Sep. 15 2010 10:33 AM

Robert and the second caller are right. WNYC promises to provide unbiased coverage. It is certainly the most intelligent radio that I have found. I have been listening for more than 40 years to public radio). But the bias is clear. You did not address the woman's concerns. You dismissed her as usually happens when someone calls in and does not agree with the host (Brian and Andrea). Heep being smart, WNYC. But take a step back and learn how to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. I've got my nomex on, flame away.

Sep. 15 2010 10:33 AM
JP from NJ

You cannot justify or excuse Paladino’s racist emails. No exceptions… And eminent domain? What the hell is that all about? Government preventing the building of religious institutes? That more then violates the first amendment at the very least…. How can any American who believes in the constitution support anything remotely like that? This guy is scary….

Sep. 15 2010 10:31 AM

StopTheNonsense --

I agree with you but historically most people vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with (e.g. Bush 43). Additionally, the concept of "extraordinary" in politics is going the way of the dodo. Read Richard Hofstadter's book "Anti-Intellectualism In American Life".

Sep. 15 2010 10:29 AM
aneece from Brooklyn

P.S. non Islamophobic, yet mysteriously anti freedom of religion only for muslims:

There were TWO mosques IN the World Trade Center. Wrap your head around that.

Sep. 15 2010 10:28 AM
aneece from Brooklyn

Fake centrist alarm, set off by Robert's classic, self-serving "I am on neither the left nor the right".

One of the most cliched attributes of wingnuts is whining about being cut off/not given a fair hearing while shouting down the other guy.

Sep. 15 2010 10:25 AM
Judith from Brooklyn

People are making excuses for Paladino's course and discriminatory language and emails - people who are not bigots do not send out offensive emails and therefore do not have to be made exuses for.

Sep. 15 2010 10:25 AM
Ken from Little Neck

To anybody reconsidering a vote for Paladino, go back and listen to his interview on this show from a few weeks ago. I fear for the sanity of anybody who thinks he's even remotely electable.

Sep. 15 2010 10:23 AM

what about paladino's bestiality emails

Sep. 15 2010 10:22 AM

Diane the Caller is a perfect example of why people think she may sound a little stupid: We don't want ordinary people to be politicians. We want extraordinary people; people with a wider view of humanity. Paladino is a raging, angry person.

Sep. 15 2010 10:21 AM
Edward from NJ

Jane - your friend should contact the authorities. What you're describing is simply criminal.

Sep. 15 2010 10:21 AM
Robert from NYC

She's right about the media and you folks don't even see it yourself. Also you keep cutting her off and turning lots of us off when you do that. You try to control the agenda and discussion and DON'T listen to what we're saying when you claim to be doing just that! NO! It's not going to work anymore you stand next to the politicians in the line of things/institutions we're sick of. An btw I'm on the left not the right.

Sep. 15 2010 10:18 AM

Jane - this is an excellent example of why this new system is awful.

Sep. 15 2010 10:17 AM
Nancy from Brooklyn

I guess New York Republicans couldn't find a Grand Wizard to nominate for governor, so they had to settle for Carl Paladino.

Sep. 15 2010 10:16 AM

this woman has called in before and given her opinion.

Sep. 15 2010 10:15 AM
The Truth from Becky

The tea party is not a 3rd party, they are the crazy inbred kin folk of the republican party that you only want to see at family reunions.

Sep. 15 2010 10:13 AM

as of now they are just a movement (of angry old people) within the GOP.

Sep. 15 2010 10:05 AM
Jane from Brooklyn

Let me tell you about my friend's voting experience yesterday at Shore Front on Brighton Beach.
First, they expressed surprise at the fact that she was a registered democrat. After that, they proceeded showing her how she needs to fill out the ballot by FILLING OUT the ballot for Joseph Brodsky (and they informed her that everyone there was voting for Joseph Brodsky). They also told her that she didn't have to vote for Kristen Gilibrand or her opponent at all.
After my friend picked her own candidate and went to the scanner, a woman took her ballot, checked out her preference, and fed the ballot into the scanner. Of course, since there were 2 marks on the ballot for Attorney General (one for Joseph Brodsky, marked by the voting poll worker) the scanner didn't accept the ballot.
My friend went back to get a new ballot.
The same worker took back her invalid ballot and said: " You didn't vote for Joseph Brodsky? Does that mean that you support the building of the Ground Zero mosque?" . After that my friend got really upset, and was given a new ballot, which she successfully filled out.
How is that for voter harassment?

Sep. 15 2010 09:51 AM

I am having a hard time understanding if the Tea Party is an actual third party. If they are in fact, then why would they be running in another parties primary? If they are not a truly separate party, but just a branch of the Republican party, then why would the Republican establishment allow there existence? Or have they simply found a loophole that the Democrats never found. The Green party could have been treated the same way. Dealing with the more radical members in a primary allows your party to focus in the final election without worry of the radical stealing your votes. So, again, is the Tea Party a true third party or not?

Sep. 15 2010 09:47 AM

Espada is good news. rangel is bad news

while paladino might seem to be good news for the left, really it shows the NY GOP to be a rump party of loons. that's not good for the state. NY state needs a 2nd viable political party in albany, to stand up for the people.
i'm thinking about the modern whigs

Sep. 15 2010 09:45 AM
Eric K from Brooklyn

"has been lost re-election" was my not-enough-coffee mangling of "has been defeated" and "lost re-election".

Sep. 15 2010 09:28 AM
Eric K from Brooklyn

While everyone is going on about the Tea Party victories, Pedro Espada was defeated. That is a victory for American democracy. The man almost single handedly made a banana republic out of an already decrepit and malfunctioning state government. His own criminal enterprises, his coup to not just control the Senate but somehow position himself as a governor if possible, and his role in the near shutdown of the government earlier this year all constituted something close to high crimes.

It is a miracle, an actual miracle, that in a low turnout primary election someone like Espada could be defeated. Perhaps low turn out primary elections aren't the complete domain of the fringe and the machines.

Is this the first time a state legislator in a leadership position has been lost re-election in New York?

Sep. 15 2010 09:21 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.