President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 25, 2007 03:12 PM UTC
80 Comments
It’s good to see Democrats taking strong leadership by investing in Colorado’s economy, environment with efficiency and effectiveness. With BO out of the office, and obstructionist republicans (while in all honesty just a handful in the senate and twice as many in the house) finally seeing the green-light of a renewable energy economy, colorado is not only competing for business, but may in fact in the next decade lead the US in clean energy independence.
http://www.denverpos…
These are the times it makes me proud to have Ritter as our Governor. His vision for the future, and ability to work with the Legislature is good for all the people of Colorado.
…. about the farm family running almost two hundred windmills on their ranch was a great example of how we can all benefit from energy mandates. Now, this had nothing to do with Ritter, but it shows how a Ritter-;oke active environmental movement and policies can benefit the most unlikely.
Because Xcel had to comply with our recent inititative on alternative energies, they had to build more windmills. The latter are much easier and faster to put into operation than even a coal burner, let alone a nuke. So in a few years, this old ranch couple is providing enough electricity for thousands of Coloradans AND making $400K/yr doing it! Even the cows don’t mind, and use the towers for shade.
Everyone wins. Oh, except the entrenched fossil fuel industry. Why would anyone be “Bitter on Ritter?” Snark, snark.
Q: Why would we use the coercive hand of govt. to influence environmental policy?
A: Because it is recognized that humans have a negative effect on the environment, even the most green human.
Q: If more people means greater destruction of the environment, why do massive-population-growth proponents like Bill Ritter, Ken Salazar, John Hickenlooper, and Diana DeGette get a free pass from environmentalists and the press (and CP)?
A: They’re all Democrats.
Nothing’s more important than Party, eh Go Blue?
I have no idea what you just said except for–democrats are bad.
I’ve engaged JeffJ before and “Democrats/liberals bad” is about as substantive as it gets with him.
line he used against us for supporting the “massive-population-growth proponents like Bill Ritter, Ken Salazar, John Hickenlooper, and Diana DeGette”
Yes, we are encouraging the contractors, to go and build cookie-cutters all across this state that fall apart, drain our resources… oh and for those individuals to have unprotected sex without counseling incase of a pregnancy, to grow our population even further!
JeffJ sounds more like Josh Penry.
Yes, we are encouraging the contractors, to go and build cookie-cutters all across this state that fall apart, drain our resources…
…with every new illegal you encourage to come. You ever hear of “white flight”? You ever hear of urban sprawl? It’s happening every day right under your complicite nose, as tacit as it may be.
The Denver Post did a story on water usage last year; they claimed that there is going to be another two million people in the S. Platte Basin in the next 25 years. Nearly 100 percent of all that growth will be from new immigrants and their offspring.
Your Democrats, who’ll hold the positions of power for the foreseeable future, will be nearly 100 percent to blame for every new house built, every new strip mall, and every acre of land paved over. YOU enable contractors. YOU enable development. YOU destroy the environment.
BTW hypocrites, of the top ten immigrant-importing nations, only the Vietnamese actually have decreased fertility rates once entering the US. The average increase for all the rest, including the Canadians, is 22 percent. We passed the 300 mil mark last November. If Salazar gets his way, we’ll have 420 million by 2050.
Boy, won’t Colorado look grand then? You all are sick.
I hate canadians. All that politeness, universal health care and heck they’re even white and speak good english (except them dam froggy quebecoixs), how am I supposed to pick out the people I’m supposed to hate.
Who is hiring all these illegals?
Generally, it is businessmen. Generally, businessmen are Republican. They are the building trades contractors, the janitorial service contractors, and the Wal-Marts of corporate America that hire these small businessmen, wink wink.
I agree that politically, it’s mostly Dems who want to give a pass to the illegals. But far from all, from little ole me to Thom Hartmann. We understand that labor is a commodity and the more that there is, the lower the price. And there are plenty of Republicans that want that cheap labor so that they can have a McMansion built by them. So, it is both parties, my friend.
You are correct in that immigration and the next generation accounts for somewhere like 90% or more of the US population growth since 1973. http://www.numbersusa.com That’s both legal and illegal.
Then I guess they are the only people smart enough to run the country – right? In an ever growing list of stupid comments that have been made on this board this may be the topper.
Last I checked the East coast was the financial center of the country and they are pretty friggin blue on the maps I see.
businessmen like Bloomberg, Gates, Jobs and Buffet tend to be liberal. But your average, run of the mill businessman who envisions himself a “free marketer” and “visionary” is a conservative and possibly, at heart, a fiscal libertarian. (Gates started giving more money to the ‘pubs after Clinton’s DOJ went after Microsoft for antitrust, but really, look at the guy and ask yourself where the man who wants to end AIDS in Africa falls on the political spectrum.)
So, BOR, what’s your point?
If we were to tax the wealthy more would Buffet and Gates be giving billions to charity? I have always thought this was interesting. They are businessmen and they want to make their money AS WELL as give it away in the way they see fit. Being charitably minded does not mean you are a Democrat or Republican, it just means you are a good person who wants to help others. Implying that it makes you a Dem is just stupid.
Buffet and Gates are, or were, registered Dems, as was Bloomberg. I’m not 100% sure about Jobs but I know he supports traditionally lefty causes. And Buffet is on the record as saying his tax rate is too low. So he apparently wouldn’t mind paying more taxes.
See, I’m using REAL EXAMPLES here. There may be some innovative (that’s a key word) business leaders like these men who are ‘pubs but I can’t name them. Can you?
has Al Gore on the board of Apple, so you can pretty much guess what his leanings are.
regarding Gates’ donations to Rs. If Ds were to change the tax bracket I would put money on him ending donations to Ds. I suppose Buffet is a different case, as I do remember those comments.
But frankly, I think this whole spat is a little silly. These highly wealthy men have been very succesful…in this instance you praise them for their success because ultra-wealthy inventor geniuses are clearly Ds. In other instances you would remark that Rs are the wealthy corrupt ones and Ds are just workers trying to get by. In still another instance you would attack the companies where these men made their money.
My point is not that wealthy businessmen are staunchly Republican. I have better things than arguing that point and will therefore restrain myself. Rather, I like to focus on what great things Buffet and Gates have done with their money. Considering how much they have I think they could do even more. Hopefully other Americans (whether Rs or Ds) will follow their lead and give money wisely to proper organizations. If Gates were paying very high taxes he would not be free to donate as much money, that is that.
Cut the crap regarding “innovative being the key word”. Moderates like myself go crazy because of Ds like you, and I do not want to go crazy. It reminds me of when Ds on this site point to articles saying how much smarter they are in comparison to Rs…it is like a bunch of pathetic first-graders arguing over whose dad is bigger.
I’m not a D. Please note use of words like “liberal” rather than “Democrat.”
And if you don’t want to get involved, then don’t get involved. Simple enough, eh?
fair enough. I do like getting involved, just not talked down to by partisan Democrats (or Rs).
to make you look stupid.
Poor jeff. Keep trying.
When Dems like Mary Mullarkey and Mitch Morrissey are caught out committing crimes — even when a man dies as a result of their overtly criminal acts (Manzanares, and the obstruction of justice by those two which led to the Kovaleski story) — they are given a free pass. We can’t even mention their names … but heaven help Republicans like Kevin McCasky.
What a bunch of pathetic losers you all are!
You cannot admit that humans impact the environment.
You cannot admit that more humans impact the environment more.
You cannot admit that the major source of population growth in this country is from mass immigration.
You cannot admit that Democrats support mass immigration.
You cannot admit that Democrat support of mass immigration makes them complicit/responsible in the destruction of Colorado’s environment.
And yet everything I wrote is true.
Losers, losers, losers, loooosers! Or is it LIARS? I think both…hypocrites.
So, if an immigrant were to not immigrate, they wouldn’t count as population somewhere in this world?
And yes, I think all of us here who are rational can agree that humans impact the environment, and that more humans create more of an impact. In fact, I’d like to know if there are any here who don’t agree with that.
But I don’t agree that Democrats support mass immigration; they are about as divided as the Republicans on the subject. The problem of immigration isn’t immigration – it’s fair treatment of human beings, whether they cross the border or conditions change so that they don’t feel so much in need of crossing the border.
There. Happy for a rational response from someone
who hasn’t had to put up with your somewhat immature responses often enough to just shrug you off (yet)?My ability to be efficacious diminishes the further from my home the need exists. I can help Colorado much more than I can help Tijuana. Did the Democrats forget the “act locally” part of the mantra?
You want to help the Third World? Knock yourself out. But I’ll bet if you opened the door, we’d have 100 million people in here before the end of July. Can we help 100 million? 200 million? Is there a magic number when you say, “This is having a negative impact and it needs to stop”? What is that magic number Phoenix?
I stand by what I said. Democrats support mass immigration. Democrats will destroy the environment of Colorado. Maybe you should check out the voting records of your Democrat representatives before you write stupid comments.
Pathetic.
If you wanted to make an attack against Democrats on immigration policy, you could at least be honest about what you’re trying to talk about and the facts surrounding it.
PR: The fact is, though, we don’t have an open border policy, and no-one I know of is pushing one.
Now that Steve Harvey is gone, we may not … but he was certainly pushing it.
Dems want to legalize the illegals under the premise that they would vote Democratic. Whores, plain and simple.
Yes, I personally know of several and yes, Steve is one of them.
Although I disagree with the premise about immigrants and voting D (look at the Cubans), I can’t see that wanting votes makes a party a whore. Like the R’s don’t want votes?
“Oh, no, please, you really don’t have to vote for our candidate…..”
were based on what is sometimes called “Radical Humanism.” Right or wrong, he was very explicit, and very clear, (and if I may say so, very eloquent) about his motivations. I don’t believe that electoral politics played any part in them.
There are undoubtedly some partisans, politicians or not, who are in part or in whole motivated by the strategic consideration you identified. But the same can be said for almost any policy choice, and both parties are equally susceptible (as Parsing correctly pointed out). On the other hand, there are many highly persuasive, completely legitimate arguments to be made for legalizing the millions of illegals who currently reside here, whether you agree with those arguments or not. It is the position prefered by the majority of the American people (but, I forget, you only like democracy when the demos sides with you), and, it seems to me, it is the position favored by almost all rational policy analysts. The logistics of the alternative are untenable, even accepting the argument that all you have to do is police employers (that would still leave millions of undocumented people in the country, a problem that needs to be solved). And it is the humane course of action, a value which still motivates some of us, though we’re grateful to you for providing us with an archetype of the self-indulgent “victim” who is only interested in humanity to the extent that he can benefit from the humanity of others.
In fact, those who oppose any form of legalization of undocumented immigrants seem to be the ones who are doing the pandering. Many of them, according to the wonks, have privately acknowledged that the illegals in this country have to be legalized somehow. But they are more concerned with appeasing a radical fringe that may make or break their political careers than with pursuing what they think is truly the most reasonable and practical policy.
If you have an argument to make, make it (or don’t, and make our day instead). You contribute nothing of value by offering the “empty calories” of your little attempts at villification of all those who dare oppose or disagree with you.
And, in case you didn’t know it, graves are very cramped places. Since you’ve demonstrated that you’re capable of spewing enough crap without making reference to yevrahnevets, please continue to do so, and thus spare me the trouble of rolling over in mine.
. . . abandoned us us. Left us all dying on the vine. I’ve written him off!
Something like 70% of Americans polled are against any form of amnesty. Your statement is wrong.
Millions of illegals will not just hang around, as you imply, if the jobs are scarce due to enforcement. They will go home. We’ve seen this during our economic downturns and way back in the fifties with the Oh-So-Not-PC named “Operation Wetback.” According to http://en.wikipedia…. about ten illegals left on their own for every one deported. Just seeing many of their countrymen (there were a lot fewer women and kids here then) being deported, many left voluntarily.
Their remaining here is by no means a fait accompli.
But when asked the same question without using the word “amnesty,” over 70% are in favor of providing a path to legal status for the 12 million who are already here. The use of the word “amnesty” creates a framing anomaly, which is a false answer based on the way in which the question was framed. If they answer a question in which the precise policy is described, and say they are in favor of it, then that is far more reliable than a response to an intentionally charged word like “amnesty.”
Make it so expensive for employers to hire them that they don’t, and they will go home. No draconian enforcement required.
but millions will stay as well. The biggest problem right now are the multitudes who are NOT employed, and are in one way or another parasitic on the system. They’re not going home now, why would they under another scenario which is identical to them?
most Americans, when they hear the word “amnesty,” think of the painless and immediate legalization of the Reagan era. Again, the fact that over 70% say that they believe illegal immigrants should be given some form of legal status is a much more explicit and precise indicator of their preferences than their response to the “amnesty” question, which is a partisan tactic rather than an information gathering technique.
…that being given a path to whatever is amnesty. i.e., overlooking past crimes.
Frankly, I would embrace any illegal who really wants to become a citizen and work to pass the tests. I doubt if very many want citizenship past easy to say words. I often say that I want to lose weight, but if I don’t go exercise, so what?
it doesn’t matter what you would postulate. What matters is how people react to certains words compared to how they react to complete descriptions of what we are supposing the words to mean. If there is a discrepancy between the two, then they are not interpreting the word the way you think they are, or should be.
If we go by denotation alone, then amnesty means absolving one of a crime without the perpetrator having to endure any penalty. In a strictly literal sense, then, the current proposed legislation does not involve amnesty, because there is a fine to be paid for the crime committed. The question of whether that fine is substantial enough for the crime is not a question of *literal* amnesty (but rather, you could argue, *effective* amnesty). The preceding point doesn’t really interest me much: It is strictly semantic, rather than substantive. But if people are determined to split semantic hairs, then the best way to determine if a word is appropriate is to ask if its denotative meaning is accurately applied. In this case, it is not.
The real issue here is not the determination of the definition of amnesty. In the context of this particular discussion, the issue is what the american public actually thinks and prefers. If 70% say they oppose amnesty, but 70% say they favor establishing some form of legal status for people here illegally (not necessarily citizenship), then you can conclude with a fair degree of confidense that the response of a large proportion of the respondants to the “amnesty” question did not conceptualize amnesty as you do, and that their response to the full description of the policy is a better indicator of their preferences (since “amnesty” is ambiguous while the description is not). Therefore, going back to the topic we were discussing, “the ghost of yevrahnevets'” statement that 70% of the american people favor providing those who currently are here with some legal status granting them permission to remain here was an accurate statement. That was the point of contention, and the contention has been resolved, regardless of how we decide to define “amnesty”.
Like this: Your Democrat Senator just voted to increase the population of the US by 65 million people. The Republican Senator voted against destroying Colorado. I’m not studdering, hypocrite.
I’ll never be accused of being “ultra green”. Nor do I want the label. I know why, and appreciate the fact, that Colorado is the most beautiful state in the union. If preserving that makes me a “greenie”, then I’ll wear the moniker with the same pride I wear the monikers “racist” and “xenophobe”. My original comment however was to point out Democrat hypocrisy, something your Democrat Senator did for me today by voting to increase the population by tens of millions.
And one more thing liar, don’t think for a moment I didn’t notice that you didn’t answer my question.
PS: I think all of you Democrats SHOULD put solar panels upon your rooftops for two reasons: first, it’ll give you all a great view of Colorado being paved over to make room for your illegal aliens, and secondly, the solar panels will give Democrats something to cower behind when people ask, “Who’s responsible for destroying Colorado’s environment?”.
What a bunch of lying hypocrites Democrats are:(
… although you seem to be perfectly capable of holding your own against an imaginary opponent who you think is me by using them.
My Democratic Senator voted for an Immigration Reform bill that would increase the current population by ZERO. These people are already here – they’re just not legal. If you want to prop up your argument by only counting immigrants with slips of paper, I’m not going to stand in the way of your making an obvious fool of yourself by doing so.
I am glad to hear that, at least, you understand environmentalism; it seems to be a rare thing among “conservatives” these days. Thank you.
I don’t like being called a liar just because I point out glaring and factual inconsistencies in your responses. Were this post not so terribly untimely, I think even Gecko, Iron_Mike, and others who are ideologically against me would counter that statement; as it is, it will probably sink into obscurity instead.
You might notice that I rejected the premise of your question – no, scratch that, you didn’t notice. Without a proper foundation, the question becomes meaningless. I don’t support increased immigration. I do support bringing current illegals into the light, with an appropriate financial penalty for their past actions but also with some kind of recognition for work that they have performed over the past N years – a work visa that employers cannot easily exploit. I am not in favor of a path to citizenship beyond that currently defined by immigration law. In short, I have my own views that reflect neither the views of the pro-business Republican or Democratic factions, but also do not reflect protectionist views. Is that a satisfactory alternative to answering a question to whose basis I don’t subscribe?
. . . . . . I think he just posted, “Democrats Suck!“
He posted “Democrats Suck!” along with more misplaced logical analysis. I had requested just “Democrats Suck!”. I am disappointed… </snark>
Just thought this case that has been in the news was worth mentioning as a case in point of lawyers abusing our system, like Nifong in North Carolina. What a mess our legal system is in.
http://news.aol.com/…
WASHINGTON (June 25) — A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform. The plaintiff, Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from a Korean owned dry cleaners. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.
…that although the plaintiff is indeed a lawyer, he was filing pro se as an ordinary citizen.
Sure glad he got smacked down. I hope the Korean couple sue the pants off of him, yuk, yuk.
Though there are rumors that the judge is going to file bankruptcy to avoid paying them…
Tom Mayer, Boulder County Commissioner, died over the weekend after a battle with cancer. He was a good man and will be missed.
Was he a sitting Commissioner or a former one?
So, rev up your engines Boulder County Dems…I think they have 10 days to name or nominate a successor.
Tom was a great guy and and absolutely tireless worker. He’ll be tough to replace
it’s 10 days to send out call for a vacancy committee when then has to be held at least ten days from the day the Call goes out. So it oculd be stretched out to 20 days. This is a common course to take in cases of death to allow time for a funeral before the vacancy committee.
Of course how fast they do this will be totally up to the County Dems in Boulder.
My phone stopped ringing long enough to look it up.
It IS to be filled within ten days fo the occurrence of the vacancy. Ouch! That is an awful tight time frame, especially if it has to be the vacancy committee of the whole county.
Does Bouilder County elect their Commissioners at-large or by district? If it is by district, then only the vacancy committee of the district needs to be assembled.
Also if they are not able to get at least 1/2 of the vacancy Committee to the meeting, then the Gov. gets to appoint.
Perhaps this statute needs to be looked at next year as that is a very very tight time frame to get a lot done.
The Governor gets to appoint County Commissioners? That’s, um, interesting… Learn something new every day.
So, who’s with me?
Anyone?
Not all at once, please!
you understand technology. sure why not.
😉
Psychiatry has always been an evolving “voodoo science” (ITW, a bunch of bullshit) and the notion of false memories (referenced in that 1965 quote) has since been largely debunked.
Frankly, although the quote seems fitting to Kay’s sitation and was provided by me for some comic relief, it reads like a bunch of psychobabble that any psychiatrist could whip out to discredit a person, who really does have a legitimate grievance.
it is a remarkably accurate description of someone else on this blog. Chicken heads, anyone?
The definition of Chicken head as I understand it is not fit to print.
What were YOU thinking?!
Remember the litigious paranoiac quote I supplied for comic relief, excerpted from a treatise from the 60’s? I mentioned not to take it too seriously. Here’s a Colorado case, People v. Cohn, in which an unruly defendant was removed from the courtroom and examined by another one of our state’s finest psychiatrists to determine his competency to stand trial.
“Persecutory delusional disorder?” What the f*ck?!?! So, I guess that any person, who is being charged (or, perhaps, even framed) by the State (prosecutor) on criminal charges, who perceives that they might like to win the case and put him in jail for awhile must suffer from “persecutory delusional disorder?”
This is what I’m talking about.
has been staying away which seemed to be what most wanted since she was unable to contain her diatribe or refine it. But, I am concerned that this kind of piling on may have severe negative consequences. If any of you know her family you ought to communicate with them about her fragile condition.
she’s been busy over on her thread which I only know because she has responded recently (over the weekend) to some old stuff I posted there. Giving her her own thread was a stroke of genius.
As to her condition, I for one can only conclude that they are well aware of it, whatever it is.
. . . but, I’ve said it before, that I am worried for her. I don’t know what she’s been through or what it’s done to her but, if she needs help and support, I would do anything I can to get it to her. We don’t need another needless loss of life, because of this issue.
Do you know something we don’t?
People in Steamboat are well aware of Kate’s condition.
Later this week those candidates for Federal office who have met or exceeded fund raising expectations will issue press releases.
Those candidates who have under achieved will quietly file and hope no one notices.
Here is my list of candidates you can expect to see press releases from bragging about their fund raising totals:
Democrats
Ed Perlmutter
Joan Fitz-Gerald
Republicans
Bob Schaffer
Marilyn Musgrave
Doug Lamborn
Who agrees?
Who disagrees? Any predictions on who will raise what amount?
He of the recent “Marilyn Musgrave aiding the terrorists” spin?
Only if his fund-raising expectations are as underwhelming as those for his performance and intelligence.
http://www.msnbc.msn…
read part 1&2
Can democracy survive?
Maybe the perfect follow up to our previously featured New York Times article, A Bit of Thin Skin Peeks Out of the Robes, we have an article appearing on Law.com, Press Frets as More Judges Sue for Libel, discussing the record volume of lawsuits filed by judges against the media for criticisizing or publicizing the judge.
“When judges judge judges, there is a built-in conflict of interest … It would be the better part of valor for judges not to bring these cases,” lawyer James Goodale, former vice chairman of The New York Times, wrote in a recent New York Law Journal column. “Once they are brought, they may find themselves in the comic opera posture of the Illinois Supreme Court.”
Goodale was referring to Illinois Chief Justice Robert Thomas, who won a $7 million verdict — later reduced to $4 million — against the the Kane County Chronicle in a dispute over opinion columns that suggested that political “shimmy shammy” influenced Thomas’ handling of a disciplinary case against a local prosecutor. Thomas’ dogged pursuit of the lawsuit — which included calling his Supreme Court colleagues as character witnesses — has “compromised the independence and integrity of the Illinois judicial system from top to bottom,” the newspaper’s attorney says. The state Supreme Court, in fact, is now so compromised that it cannot hear any final appeal of the judgment against the newspaper.
critic
isizingThank goodness! At first I thought you were referencing this:
http://www.usatoday….
The BEST reason not to tick off the judges you’re arguing in front of is that you won’t get a good result for your client. If you have to tell ’em they’re wrong, be apologetic and obsequious about it!
Although I happen to have PDF copies of the arrest warrant and complaint in the case (the witness accounts are absolutely hillarious, by the way), you’ll note that I have never mentioned this case in any of my posts.
That’s because that case is not representative of the systemic problem I’m trying to call attention to. If I relied on that case, my entire message would have no cred.
However, the Law.com story ought to scare the begeezus out of everyone. In addition to the Illinois case:
And you approve of this state of affairs?
Indeed Tom Mayer was a wonderful man, committed to the public good, who truly will be missed. My sympathies to his family and his friends and to all of Boulder County. For replacing him it goes like this. 6 days to make the call, then 10 days to hold the vacancy committee. The Commissioners in Boulder County serve from a particular district, but are elected by the whole county. Thus I would believe the vacancy committee will be the county-wide central committee. The Dem party in Boulder has a lot of work to do fast. Fortunately they have a well-organized chair, and had a little warning that Tom was ill, and are at least a little bit prepared for this.
Wow.
http://www.buckfush….
Cheney’s at, what, 10% right now? Has he ever even been above 20%? By comparison, Bush is doing a heckuva job!
And note that this seems to be a new trend in poll numbers. The 26% number is one of a series of new declines; another poll put him at 27% – a first at the time – and the other polls which have traditionally returned higher numbers for Bush are also trending down (again).
Of course, Congress and just about every other institution on the planet also seems to be trending lower – maybe it’s just a general malaise…
My God who are those 10% who still support Cheney?
I mean, it takes about a week to compile the polling data… Since then, Cheney’s gone and declared himself an independent
nationbranch of government, and the Washington Post is still in the middle of a series on the man who pulls Bush’s puppet strings.Still, 5% of people will vote for absolutely anything, according to most polling statistics. (Bush’s approval among African-Americans at one time was only 2%, which kind of blows that theory.)
which, for the uninitiated, is the idea that because many younger people use a cell phone only then they are disproportionately excluded from these surveys, so the average age of the polled is skewed upward.