« Let Them sit in the Friggin Gallery Like Everyone Else | Main | At Least They Spelled My Name Ri....Dang. »


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

"Bipartisan" should be listed in the Thesaurus along with "spineless" and "unprincipled".

If people wanted a bipartisan government, why the heck would they join political parties in the first place?

The only people who ever want bipartisanship are the media, the people who lost the last election, and the people who don't want to face reality.

To hell with bipartisanship. Conservatives are in the majority for a reason. Now they need to act like it.

So that means I'll never be called an unpatriotic, Godless, queer, socialist, baby-killer anymore, right? Have you read Political Mafioso or listened to your team on talk radio lately?

OED indicates one of the definitions is "a derog. term for a Black (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.);" However, I am sure the term was not used in this way so I think it is silly to attack Burns for it. Actually the term as used by Burns comes from rich African-American folklore. The Dems are being really dumb on this one.

The Democrats define "bipartisanship" as they get what they want. Everytime something "bipartisan" passes, its a disaster for Republicans and America. Think last year's AZ budget, No Child Left Behind, George H.W. Bush's tax increase.

Emily (Bitner) DeRose is the mouthpiece of Jim Pederson's money. She had some nerve to bring up Ken Bennett's son again as a reason that "Bennett was the worst possible selection." How hypocritical that Pederson's money, after his own son was arrested for weapons and narcotics, went to the salary of the person attacking Bennett. Somebody should say something.

"So that means I'll never be called an unpatriotic, Godless, queer, socialist, baby-killer anymore, right? "

Not sure where you're going with this? Is that an accurate description of you? If so, why would you object? If not, why would you care?

I've been called an "arrogant, right-wing, gun toting hard ass" by more than a few on the left, and while it obviously wasn't meant kindly, it doesn't bother me. It's both mildly amusing and somewhat accurate, even if it is meant to be derogatory by the speaker.

In the end, what do I care? As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

"Have you read Political Mafioso or listened to your team on talk radio lately?"

No, I haven't, sorry. Don't listen to talk radio, unless there is something specific pointed out to me that I'm interested in.

Not sure who "my team" is, at least in your mind, but I have the feeling you'd be surprised.

However, given the subject matter of the blog post in question, if "your team" is represented by the AZDP and Emily DeRose, I wouldn't be throwing too many stones ...

Great post Greg and great insights.

Like many things in politics, whether trumpeting bipartisanship is good or bad depends on when and why it's being used. In 1940, with war approaching, President Roosevelt named Henry Stimson to be Secretary of War and William Knox to be Secretary of the Navy. Both were conservative Republicans, and their cabinet membership helped to unify the nation to prepare for the war that inevitably came on December 7, 1941. President Eisenhower made great use of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson to get the 1957 Civil Rights bill passed, the first civil rights act since Reconstruction and the legislation that broke the ice on civil rights, and in 1964 Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and his Republican colleagues provided the critical leadership and support without which the 1964 Act could not have passed. Locally Governor Babbitt and Republican House Majority Leader Burton Barr worked together to enact the 1980 Groundwater Act, without which Arizona's future water management (so critical to the State)would have been in jeopardy.

On the other hand, there have been multiple times that one party uses phony claims of the need for bipartisanship to mask a weakness and to score political points. Then Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's calls for bipartisanship in 2004, now contrasted with her autocratic new House rules, are Exhibit A.

Great post, Greg.

You didn't go so far as to say it, but for these and other reasons it's critical for Republicans that the Don Bivens/Maria Weed/Emily DeRose team remain in place. It would be hard to match their incompetence as displayed last election, and it's good that the party is now controlled firmly by the extreme left.

There's another lesson here. Hopefully Republicans aren't duped into thinking they owe an obligation to work with Dems. This incident demonstrates once again that if they do, Dems will pockett the concessions and Republicans will get nothing but press releases like this.

Wow, glad you got that off your chest, Greg.

Bipartisanship is a choice. Bipartisanship is President Obama hosting a dinner for Senator McCain on the night before the inauguration. "In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship," President Obama said.
Bipartisanship is the Kennedy-Kassenbuam bill, a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican doing the right thing, together, and preventing thousands of Americans from losing health care coverage because of "pre-existing conditions."
Bipartisanship is the Illinois House of Representatives impeaching a useless corrupt governor by one vote shy of a unanimous decision.
Arrogance, hubris, and bitter partisan divisiveness is a choice as well. "I've got the political capital and now I'm going to spend it" is hubris. He spent it so well, didn't he? The backlash was pretty furious, wasn't it?
"To hell with bipartisanship. Conservatives are in the majority for a reason. Now they need to act like it." Now that's arrogance and hubris, isn't it? With a vengeance. Arizona voters were given a choice between Janet and a conservative Republican two years ago. Len Munsil got his butt kicked. It doesn't strike you as a little arrogant to claim a mandate for conservative rule? Please, get a clue.
Perhaps the motive for the "bipartisan" talk is that the Republicans are moving into an office they did not win. If they act like it belongs to them and it's their God given right to rule in any way they see fit, the backlash will be furious. I guarantee it.
The party of Willie Horton, Swift Boat Liars, and Obama paling around with terrorists has little right to complain about "creepy" attacks.
"Tar Baby" is a creepy racially offensive slur because racist people have used it that way. The N word was just a poor pronunciation of the word "negro." Now we all know that word wasn't originally intended as anything offensive, don't we?
The Republican party has inflicted enormous damage on itself from stupid racial terms. Pickaninny. Macaca. If Bob Burns doesn't know any better than this, maybe he should be punched a little harder.

"To hell with bipartisanship. Conservatives are in the majority for a reason. Now they need to act like it."

In Arizona, anyway. I'm sure you won't mind that with the last two landslide national victories for the Democrats if Obama acts like he's the head of the majority for a reason, right Greg?

Or will we have to send you a package of monitor-spittle wipes as you proclaim that this is a center-right nation and Obama needs to tow the line?

(seriously dude, your writing's never been more vitriolic)

The moron above calls out people for being vitrolic, while on his own "blog," there's this highly enlightened comment:

"Fifth, speaking for spoken word artists everywhere: --- you, Gutfeld."

(I use "blog" lightly since it looks like Charlie Chaplin's retarded pederast nephew designed the page and posted his picture as an avatar.)

The Klute,
I think you will only see the frustration grow in coming months as it becomes apparent that the far-right conservative agenda is going to get shot down by the public.

Does anyone else here find Steve Gallardo quitting a slap in the face?

Greg, a number of us have called for that site to come down, including some shall we say who lost very close re-election campaigns. The site is a damn embarrassment and does not reflect the sentiments of PCs or unpaid activists I know in the party.


The Democratic Party chose to take the negative Republican dirty tricks book to the hilt last cycle.

I saw it first hand. It made me realize they had become what they fought in so many ways. Truly sad as many good points were overlooked.

Neither party was without blame, but the "crazy" thing is just pathetic. I don't see Republicans painting pink x's on Deomcrat leadership.

"Bipartisanship is a choice."

Oh, I see. Is that the same kind of "choice" as killing an unborn child?

"Bipartisanship" is leftie code for "Do what I want even though I'm not in control". "Cooperation" is another issue altogether.

How "bipartisan" will BHO, Pelosi, Reid and Co. be, do ya' think? Please, if you're going to attempt to make an argument, at least make it convincing.

I wouldn't be talking about arrogance and hubris if I were you. Or have you also forgotten the original subject matter of Greg's post? The leadership of the AZDP is calling all the conservative Republicans crazy on a web site, but we're arrogant? I won't even get into the trash mailers you all spent a fortune on during the last election.

Who is it that needs a clue?

But please, by all means, keep at it. Your efforts at keeping the GOP in the majority here in AZ have sure saved us in the grassroots a lot of time, effort and money.

I couldn't have done a better job myself.

Oh, and BTW, you all don't get to be the sole arbiter of what terminology is "racist" or not. You don't have the requisite intelligence, and even if you did, you wouldn't have the right.

Klute, Greg authors the blog, not the post you were quoting. That was me.

Might want to square yourself away before commenting.

This is the first time I've heard of or seen this site. I've e-mailed the ADP officers to complain that this site IS reprehensible and classless. It is quite bad.

Moderate Democrat


I have always been vitriolic. Greg has not been. Apparently, even victory does not make Republicans happen.

I stand by everything I said to Greg Gutfeld, J.D. Hayworth, Jack Harper, Samuel Wurzelbacher, Bruce Tinsley, et al.

The retarted pederast you speak of is Edgar Allan Poe.

If you have a problem with Livejournal's design, take it up with the Russian design team.

Thanks for reading.

Dave K, you either don't get it or are exactly what is wrong with American politics today -- or both. I left the Republican Party not because I stopped believing in limited government, individual responsibility or a strong national defense, but because I was sick of its rhetoric and its demonization of anyone who didn't hold the same views as those espoused in the party platform. I wasn't going to go running to the Dems, either, first because my fundamental view of government is different but also because I didn't see their behavior and speech as any better.

The Republic Viewpoints piece was instructive, especially the anecdotes about Barr and Babbitt (they could play politics but they also could work together for what was best for the state) and Goldwater's support for Hayden. The converation with Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel may have been ever better. The bipartisanship they spoke of is sadly missing from today's political landscape, and who loses? Our state. Our country. Who wins? Well, I guess whichever party gained power in the most recent election. It's unfortunate that it plays out that way because I believe most voters would like to see it play out -- parties being true to their principles but able to work toward constructive compromise. It's something I most admire about John McCain, but which made him unpopular with rigid conservatives -- the ability to reach across the aisle.

I have come to believe George Washington was exactly right about political parties. As a result, I'm going to stay out.

"It's something I most admire about John McCain, but which made him unpopular with rigid conservatives -- the ability to reach across the aisle."

And McCain lost the election, BADLY.

Bush is the most bipartisan president out there. Hell, I figured he was more democrat than republican, and look where that got him: demonized on the left, no matter what he did, or how much money he threw at a problem (Katrina is a good case in point).

Bipartisanship is a nice ideal, but it doesn't win elections. Not anymore.

Steve f,
Please tell me you are joking about Bush being bipartisan and more democrat than republican. If not, I would be truly interested in the basis of this claim.

While I agree that there is little evidence that GWB is bipartisan, he is certainly no conservative Republican.

Bush's Liberal Credentials:

1. Federal spending through the roof.
2. Federal control of public education (NCLB).
3. Lax on immigration.
4. Increased corporate regulation (SOX)
5. Increased executive authority
6. Corporate bailouts

I think there is a good argument (not sure if its a winner; but its good) that GWB, in practice if not in theory, is more liberal than WJC. GWB's best conservative credentials are his judicial appointees but what else has he done to further the conservative agenda?

Well, he pushed privitazation of Social Security, though to his own detriment, and you'd have to say his approach to national security has been more in line with conservative hawks than liberal doves.

As for McCain losing "BADLY," I would contend that it wasn't because he was a guy who was willing to reach across the aisle. Rather, we never saw that guy this election cycle. He ran to the right to get the nomination, but because conservatives never embraced him, he stayed to the right, ostensibly to shore up the base. The center was open for Obama to claim, and he did so big time.

The call for "change" was at least in part an appeal to limit partisan politics and work on solving problems. But true party believers will never hear that call.


I beg to differ. Folks like myself have always been a part of politics. We are neither a recent development nor "what is wrong". We tend to take the spotlight because we speak with the loudest voice.

On the contrary, "what is wrong with politics" in general, and political parties specifically, is people like yourself. People who don't "hold the same views as those espoused in the party platform" can and should find themselves another home. Much like religions, party platforms are not menus. They are set up for rational reasons, and have a rational basis. If a minority of people have a hard time comprehending that, why should the majority dump their principles in the wastebasket to accomodate them?

I have far more respect for folks like Todd, Klute, and even CIC (did I say that?), who, even though I disagree with their positions the vast majority of the time, at least have the courage to take some, than for people who would rather waffle and vacillate all over the place than be pinned down to an actual principle.

Fact is, if you expect to accomplish anything of value in this life, once in a while you're going to have to get a little bit dirty. You may have to set aside your best Sunday manners, you may even have to behave badly on occasion.

Good Lord, you know, you might even have to fight for something ...

Which leads to ...

"As for McCain losing "BADLY," I would contend that it wasn't because he was a guy who was willing to reach across the aisle. Rather, we never saw that guy this election cycle. He ran to the right to get the nomination, but because conservatives never embraced him, he stayed to the right, ostensibly to shore up the base. The center was open for Obama to claim, and he did so big time."

Uh huh.

The closest McCain ever came to "running right" was naming Palin as VP. That was also the closest he ever came to winning. The shrillness of the media attack on her was proof enough of that.

Other than that, McCain could never manage to define a position. He was all over the place. Was backing the so-called "bailout" a "right-wing" position? How about his claimed support for more regulation of the financial industry?

The problem he had was you could barely tell him apart from BHO. As we "right-wingers" have been saying for years, whenever you run two Dems against each other, the real one wins every time. The truth of that proved out once again. Dem turnout was huge. GOP turnout was not.

I defined my fundamental beliefs in in my first post on this topic: limited government, individual responsibility, strong defense. If it doesn't scare you that someone like me leaves the Republican party, then have fun losing elections under that "big tent."

You can take all the shots you want at me now. I'll leave my last word to George Washington:

"They (political parties) serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

The crazyspace site is a damn embarrassment and needs to be removed. I don't care who started it I care who ends it, and I will make sure it is removed. It is disrespectful to elected officials and disrespectful to volunteers in both parties.

The comments to this entry are closed.