September 26, 2006

The Wit and Wisdom of Grover Norquist

Bipartisanship is another name for date rape

This quotation which appeared in the Washington Post three years ago (but which this Blog has only just become aware of and which sums up so much of the Delay regime that its worth quoting) coming from the longtime Republican lobbyist and advocate sums up everything that this blog stands against. Norquist here seems to be equating discussion and compromise with violence and force. Rather this blog beleives that partisanship equals violence and force and goes beyond that into dictatorship- a belief in the legitimacy of other people's views is the ultimate refuge of a democrat (small d) whereas dismissing them and comparing compromise to violent sexual intrusion is the beggining of demagogic dictatorship.


edmund said...

I've long been aware of this quote and I have to say Gracchi that I think you've massively misrepresented norquist (who incidentally I dislike) his point is that when a party (in his case the Republicans) tries to reach out to be biparitsan they tend to loose-becuase then they just implement their opponents agenda and give them full political cover- particularly as then you need their support once you make the initial commitment.The classic case is what happeened to Bush the first over taxes.

I would also add that norquist may be the man whose personal influence on US politics is most exaggerated-as can be seen by the Iraq war!

Gracchi said...

I disagree what you see in the US and Norquist is merely an element of this is a takeover by people who are extremist who lambast those who are not as people who would compromise. Look at the Leiberman Lamont encounter or the obliquoy hurled at moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe or John McCain.

edmund said...

Snowe's not really comparable to Lieberman or even McCain-she's much more out of step,

The fact is a) Norquist is not very important and b) his point rmeians a valid stratergic one with a lot of appliabiilty-look what's happned to the tories due to them being bi-partisan on Iraq for exmaple (even if one supports the ethics of that sitatu9ion)

and how is Norquist an extremist ? and even more dubiously where the "takeover by people who are extrmist" in the US ?