Comments on: Sen. Scott Bundgaard takes extended lunch break

By: GeeGollyMissMolly

GeeGollyMissMolly — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:36:00 +0000

Ditto, Frankly. He is using the same cycle of denial right now by promising private interviews to rags like the Phoenix New Times to “quote explain” the fact that he had a chance to explain his side under oath, to a Republican dominated Ethics Committee, and instead just walked away. New Times has posted coverage of Buungaard’s quotes going back to 2001 which demonstrating the same behavior pattern.

By: Jane

Jane — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:22:21 +0000

;D Glad to hear it. Doesn’t this stuff just drive you crazy?

By: Marianne

Marianne — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:14:49 +0000

I blame him most for choosing a viciously vindictive nutcase for a girlfriend. I’ve known too many women who want to bring the guy they once claimed to love to his knees and then shred him, his reputation and career. This is not a defense of Bundgaard, but based on a lifetime of observation and hearing friends I’ve known congratulating each other for doing something similar. In this case, if Bundgaard was as wretched a guy as Ballard claimed, why didn’t she move on? There is culpability on both sides, but men can’t prey on public sympathies as effectively as a weeping pretty woman can.

I’ve known women who brag about making up stories about their almost ex-husbands in order to limit the court-ordered time they can have with their own children, who they guys love and financially support.

By: vinoaz

vinoaz — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:38:04 +0000

So many of our politicians are elitists. They think they “have immunity” and that they are above it all. They lie, cheat, and steal and somehow it is OK. Yet, they know what is best for us, the great unwashed. The laws and rules they make up are for us, not them. I heard some folks call a radio station defending this guy in spite of overwhelming testimony contrary to his claims. We will never clean up politics as long as we think someone is worthy just because they have an R or D after their name.

By: JPD

JPD — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:32:34 +0000

One simple fact, it’s he said she said except for the off duty police officer and his wife witnessing Bungaard assaulting Ballard when he pulled her from his car to her knees to stop her from driving off. Now what kind of guy would leave his keys in the ignition considering the situation? Is this the kind of thinker I want making laws for me?

As sad as it is, it is what it is.

By: AZ Conservative Guy

AZ Conservative Guy — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 05:03:14 +0000

Ah, Jane. You’re one smart woman! It’s a pleasure to read your spot-on analysis…especially since I agree with it!

By: Jane

Jane — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:46:07 +0000

This Senate vs Bundgaard case was a certifiable circus. I would side with a woman in a physical conflict 99% of the time, but according to what I read from the police report, Ballard did her fair share to initiate the conflict plus came out with fewer bruises. It is still not clear what law Bundgaard broke…pulling off the highway rather than driving-while-fighting didn’t exactly warrant the hysterics we’ve been getting. If Bundgaard had done something slightly more egregious, the ethics committee would have my sympathy. However, even the AZ Liberal Times reported that a polygraph supported Bundgaard’s side of the story. This ethics investigation had the appearance of a witch hunt—the appearance that someone wanted this Senator out—and this was the way to remove him from a legally won Senate seat and rip off voters. Arizona voters just got raked with redistricting, a mishap of a recall, and now this. What’s the point of voting if any old crap can remove the winning candidate?

Meanwhile we’re watching a puny marxist rub the noses of the entire U.S. Congress in poop and then dance on their heads. What’s worse, our hero GOPers are going in circles about a Constitutional crisis. Amazing how Republicans are carnivores when it comes to other Republicans, but look at all the limp wrists when it comes to Democrats.

AZ legislature help us out here! At least Repeal Prop 106.

By: Zach Henry

Zach Henry — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:25:45 +0000

You are blaming this on a newspaper? Seriously? The AZ Republic was somehow able to intimidate Bundgaard out of even testifying on his own behalf?

The simplest explanation is usually true, and I would say Bundgaard is guilty, guilty, guilty.

By: chick

chick — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:04:03 +0000

Now they can get to work on that smarmy Tucson guy who doesn’t live in his district and has major ethical issues.

By: Frankly Speaking

Frankly Speaking — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:25:28 +0000

Sorry, but resigning while the committee has taken its lunch break is a pathetic move. In my estimation, that slippery act itself makes him look guiltier than I previously thought. I looked forward to his testimony. Ballard struck me as flaky and I was hoping Sen.
Bundgaard would be able to make a case for himself.