Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Our Product is Worse Than we thought,...so we are raising the price. | Main | A Whiff of Grapeshot »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

THANK YOU! Why doesn't Aboud call for further investigation/action on him, it's against the law!

Glad I'm not the only one who remembered that.

That's right, take a deep breath....INHALE... :)

No one in either party expects Democrats to live up to a higher moral standard.

Both Republicans and Democrats expect higher standards from Republicans.

That's what I'm talking about.

About is about hot air. I really don't think she thinks before she speaks.

How about letting the cops do their job before we convict the guy?

As far as the D and the pot; doesn't it just figure?! Holding others to a higher standard than yourself? That is, of course, if he actually does.

This is a post I completely agree with. One part of politics I don't enjoy is how viciously we want to take out the other side. I agree that we should have consistently high moral expectations for our politicians, but the way to enforce that is through the courts and the ballot box.

I think pushing for early resignation has its place, but it comes across much more credibly if its done within the party.

I think a two party system is really important, we need both parties to be strong and to serve as a counter-weight for each other.

Playing political games is a deterrent to that. So, I agree, we need to show consistency.

This is not about the guilt or innocence of Bundgaard yet; that will take some time. But right now it is about his response to pressure and danger, which we can all make a judgement about by his own words alone. He just didn't pass the test. He panicked, and kept himself in that state for some period of time. He may have political talent or good policy instincts, but he's not decent leadership material.

Well said Greybeard.

It would go a long way if Bundgaard would admit even that.

CrazyJackHarper.com will be a daily blog now that Bundgaard isn't as busy.

It hurts to admit it - because Bundgaard earned his chair as a smart and loyal lieutenant - but Greg is dead on.

If these weren't such divisive and desperate times maybe this tawdry lack of judgement would eventually pass. Instead, it's infuriating that he could be so stupid as to give dolts like Aboud a soapbox.

While the local media are shilling 'death panels' over 1.5 mil for transplants - completely misrepresenting the facts in lue the few denied care as the switch is made to medicare - or shreiking about turning emergency room workers into the East German Stasi when it comes to illegals (as opposed to acceptable progressive crimes such as domestic or child abuse) - and particularly given THE FAILURE THUS FAR TO SOLVE PROBLEM #1 - THE BUDGET - Bundgaard's timing was even worse than his anger mis-management.

Gould deserves credit for calling it short and bittersweet.

Knock off the petty carping and let the caucus get back to important business.

Expresso Pundit Fans: You can watch the entire, unedited Democrat's press conference at arizonacapitoltv.org

Wow, this just shows how long I've been faithfully reading this blog, but Ron Bellus' comment immediately made me think of this classic post by Greg:

This was from the dark ages when permalinking didn't exist, so click on the link, hit control+f and search for "costs me."

http://members.cox.net/espressopundit/archive%20June%202006.htm

Priceless.

Nintzel over at the Tucson Weekly managed to cite this post while deftly avoiding the main topic of the EP post was to point out the glaring similarity to Representative Daniel Patterson aka the alleged Pueblo Pothead. Typical of the Weekly, they don't bother reporting the whole story.

Well things just got more interesting...

Thanks, Surprised, it's not the first time I've been referenced in relation to a "classic."

"Tawdry lack of judgement".

Absolutely fascinating.

Take another deep breath. There are some huge issues here. Issues that will not go away by accusing Democrats of hypocrisy. Issues that will not go away by equating unsubstantiated "he said she said" allegations in one lawmaker's divorce with fistfight alongside a freeway. A fistfight that now, in Bundgaard's newest story, included a gun.

The black eye on Bundgaard's face doesn't look like a he said she said to me. It looks like a punch to the face. See it for yourself here: http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/blackeye2.jpg. The police report on the incident includes an eyewitness account, by an off duty police officer, of physical violence taking place. Read it for yourself here: http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e14/6044918.0.pdf

If the Daniel Patterson story contained graphic evidence of physical violence, then the accusation of hypocrisy might be valid. It contains no such thing. Not even close.

The issue that really should be addressed is the legislative get out of jail free law, whether it's been applied correctly, and whether it should exist at all. The law reads: "Members of the Legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace." Fistfighting alongside a road is NOT a breach of the peace? It doesn't even matter whether or not you believe Bundgaard's story about the gun. He should have been arrested. The State of Arizona owes Bundgaard at least one night's stay at Sheriff Joe's Palace.

And what about our Headless Body in the Governor's Mansion, pulled over for driving staggering drunk and failing field sobriety tests? Driving drunk can be a felony in certain situations in this state. I don't think it's much of a stretch to label driving a vehicle on a freeway while intoxicated as a "breach of peace," given that drinking while intoxicated can and does result in physical harm and/or death to innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Doesn't the State of Arizona also owe Jan Brewer a night in jail? Shouldn't charges have been filed against the great Headless One once the legislature adjourned its session? Why weren't they?

There are some valid reasons why our federal government and many state governments provide some level of immunity from arrest to lawmakers. A fine example would be the recent actions of Andrew Thomas, Joe Arpaio, and theor fellow as yet indicted co-conspirators concocting false charges and arresting a judge and elected officials for political reasons. Protecting lawmakers from harassment is a valid reason for immunity laws. Protecting them from arrest when they're caught driving drunk or caught brawling with a woman alongside a highway? That's crap.

A long hard look at Bundgaard reveals a lot. His first wife called for police protection as she fled the scene of their honeymoon. They were married in the mansion of a now imprisoned international gun smuggler. Bundgaard elevates the Arizona GOP to a whole new level of creepiness. He makes Russell Pearce look like thoroughly ordinary low life wife beating racist jerk with his wake and bake child beating son now sitting in Sheriff Joe's Palace while Daddy crusades for law and order in this fine state.

Back in the good old days when the Republican Party was impeaching the President of the United States over a blowjob, they told us that character counts.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

ChracterCounts: You don't like yourself very much do you?

CharacterCounts. Good post. I am amazed that the Espressoclones refuse to debate the immunity issue.

Character Counts: I like your post too. There are a lot of people who think finding the slightest bit of hypocrisy on the other side of the isle somehow means their side is perfect. Thanks for bringing that stuff up, at the very least it's worth considering.

The Right are hypocrites when they don't live up to their values and standards.
The Left aren't hypocrites because they have no values or standards to live up to.

One hard lesson learned over the years is to trust your instincts about somebody. The strange vibes you get are a defense mechanism, you ignore them at your peril. I learned this the hard way with some ex-friends (who were shysters/hypocrits), an ex-wife (was was unfaithful), and politicos who were slimy and evasive.

...like Scott Bundgaard.

He is a good-looking, smart, and articulate guy. I met him in the early 90's in Young Republican circles. Gotta say, he had a strange vibe about him. Soon learned about his Smitty's 100% off sale that he tried to keep quiet and steered clear of him. I was amazed that he was elected to anything.

But snakes are clever even if they are slimy. He drives a Mercedes for a reason, somebody thinks he is valuable and rewards him. If you look back and look around, this guy is not the person you want representing your party.

He hardly exhibits good character or decision-making either.

If you are a conservative/libertarian and a Christian like me, you don't want or need people like this associated with your side. Scott Bundgaard is bad news, steer clear for your own good.

The comments to this entry are closed.