GOP fundraiser to feature Cheney

Good luck at your little convention, you bums!

Now there's a real crowd pleaser~~NOT.

Oh goody! Dick Cheney. Will Nixon's corpse be there too???

A few years ago, gas was about $1.09/gallon and a dozen eggs went for about 99 cents. Now, they’re about $4.07 PER GALLON and $2.59 per dozen.

One major reason prices are so high is massive deficit spending. This has caused the dollar to lose value dramatically. Bush/McCain-style Republicans like to promise low spending, but have actually spent $500 BILLION in Iraq alone.

Republicans like Bush #2 and McCain (would-be Bush #3) want to cut the taxes of the richest Americans AGAIN at the expense of the middle class.

Republicans try to keep THE BIG LIE going -- namely that they are fiscally responsible. They have kept taxes on corporations and rich people so low that the government is continually forced to print money with nothing backing it up. This is why the world doesn’t like America’s Republican-Inflated dollars, and why you have to fork over so many of them to buy anything.

Clinton started off with a huge deficit (left over from Bush #1) and turned it in to a surplus.

So... gas prices and grocery prices are going through the roof, while the oil companies rake in as much as ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS -- that’s $11,000,000,000.00 -- in a three-month period. They also have received giant tax breaks.

On June 10th, 2008, Republicans defeated a bill that would have rolled back those giant tax breaks.

McCain would continue the Bush policy of helping the rich get even richer, and likely would continue the Bush policies of TORTURING prisoners and tapping American’s phones.

Caviar and yachts are selling better than ever! Are you better off now than you were when the Bush/McCain-style, war-spending, Republicans took over seven years ago?

Most Americans know they are clearly WORSE OFF because of the $500-Billion-Dollar War created (based on Bush’s LIES) by big-spending Bush/McCain-style Republicans.

I say that, in November, we should bury the rotting carcass that is the GOP.

Defeat McCain-Exxon wrote:

Oh goody! Dick Cheney. Will Nixon's corpse be there too???
A few years ago, gas was about $1.09/gallon and a dozen eggs went for about 99 cents. Now, they’re about $4.07 PER GALLON and $2.59 per dozen.
One major reason prices are so high is massive deficit spending. This has caused the dollar to lose value dramatically. Bush/McCain-style Republicans like to promise low spending, but have actually spent $500 BILLION in Iraq alone.
Republicans like Bush #2 and McCain (would-be Bush #3) want to cut the taxes of the richest Americans AGAIN at the expense of the middle class.
Republicans try to keep THE BIG LIE going -- namely that they are fiscally responsible. They have kept taxes on corporations and rich people so low that the government is continually forced to print money with nothing backing it up. This is why the world doesn’t like America’s Republican-Inflated dollars, and why you have to fork over so many of them to buy anything.
Clinton started off with a huge deficit (left over from Bush #1) and turned it in to a surplus.
So... gas prices and grocery prices are going through the roof, while the oil companies rake in as much as ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS -- that’s $11,000,000,000.00 -- in a three-month period. They also have received giant tax breaks.
On June 10th, 2008, Republicans defeated a bill that would have rolled back those giant tax breaks.
McCain would continue the Bush policy of helping the rich get even richer, and likely would continue the Bush policies of TORTURING prisoners and tapping American’s phones.
Caviar and yachts are selling better than ever! Are you better off now than you were when the Bush/McCain-style, war-spending, Republicans took over seven years ago?
Most Americans know they are clearly WORSE OFF because of the $500-Billion-Dollar War created (based on Bush’s LIES) by big-spending Bush/McCain-style Republicans.
I say that, in November, we should bury the rotting carcass that is the GOP.

Too funny. You Dems are so pathetic that you are actually going to lose to McCain. As bad as things are in the world, the best you can come with is Obama. What a joke.

I think this cut-and-paste thing has got to stop. Please come up with original ideas with each post like a real human.

To be a Dem is not pathetic these days, you only have to have a wallet to know that.

Obama has assured us that the his running mate will not shoot anybody in the face. Ever.

See ya down the wire...

That third line should read:

Obama has assured us that his running mate will not shoot anybody in the face. Ever.

I have the worst case of sausage fingers.

The state GOP is bringing in Cheney - whose ratings are certifiably toxic - to raise money for them...wow...and I thought the news that Gilmore only beat Bob Marshall by a measely 67 votes was a bad sign. Cheny has singlehandedly done more to wreck this country, push his own agenda, and run things thru that dunderhead a.k.a. "W"...leaving behind over 4,000 casualties in Iraq with no end in sight; oil companies clearly enjoying the fruits of our labor (ExxonMObil with $40 bilion in PROFITS?!?!?); huge undermining of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I can only hope that the measure introduced today in the U.S. House of Reprentatives to begin impeachment proceedings gains traction.

Zippy wrote:

The state GOP is bringing in Cheney - whose ratings are certifiably toxic - to raise money for them...wow...and I thought the news that Gilmore only beat Bob Marshall by a measely 67 votes was a bad sign. Cheny has singlehandedly done more to wreck this country, push his own agenda, and run things thru that dunderhead a.k.a. "W"...leaving behind over 4,000 casualties in Iraq with no end in sight; oil companies clearly enjoying the fruits of our labor (ExxonMObil with $40 bilion in PROFITS?!?!?); huge undermining of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I can only hope that the measure introduced today in the U.S. House of Reprentatives to begin impeachment proceedings gains traction.

OK,OK.Enough of this kicking a person while one is down.
How about Al Gore? Here a man on top of the world.He has won the oscar,the nobel peace prize and he is making a boatload of $$$ selling something called carbon credits.Yet he is the biggest fool of them all.Here is a man that lost the election in 2000 and put this country through H*ll,dragging it out in the courts, like any noble lawyer would do,right.Then he refuses to accept the court's decision and for years has called Bush an illigitimate president.If that isn't enough to get the natives restless,he then comes out screaming that Bush "lied and people died".Now that is really becoming of an ex-vice president.What a way to rally the troops and get the country behind them and support their efforts.If I had a family member in uniform over there,I would personally seek out Mr.Gore and punch him in the nose.Can't do that!!We are paying this multi-millionaire for his posse.He flies around on his private jet from one 10,000 sq.ft. home to the other.His houses alone consume more energy than the rest of us use in an entire year.He pays for carbon credits to offset his energy consumption...to HIMSELF!!His "Inconvient Truth" movie is pure science fiction and you Liberals buy this garbage hook,line and sinker.
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" Savage.
If Democraps had any brains they would be Republican'ts. paraphrase of Coulter.
"A 20 year who is not a liberal has no heart,
A 40 year old who is not conservative has no brain". Churchill.

Maybe he'll pistol whip the guests until they donate.

Zippy wrote:

The state GOP is bringing in Cheney - whose ratings are certifiably toxic - to raise money for them...wow...and I thought the news that Gilmore only beat Bob Marshall by a measely 67 votes was a bad sign. Cheny has singlehandedly done more to wreck this country, push his own agenda, and run things thru that dunderhead a.k.a. "W"...leaving behind over 4,000 casualties in Iraq with no end in sight; oil companies clearly enjoying the fruits of our labor (ExxonMObil with $40 bilion in PROFITS?!?!?); huge undermining of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I can only hope that the measure introduced today in the U.S. House of Reprentatives to begin impeachment proceedings gains traction.

anoodle wrote:

<quoted text>
OK,OK.Enough of this kicking a person while one is down.
How about Al Gore? Here a man on top of the world.He has won the oscar,the nobel peace prize and he is making a boatload of $$$ selling something called carbon credits.Yet he is the biggest fool of them all.Here is a man that lost the election in 2000 and put this country through H*ll,dragging it out in the courts, like any noble lawyer would do,right.Then he refuses to accept the court's decision and for years has called Bush an illigitimate president.If that isn't enough to get the natives restless,he then comes out screaming that Bush "lied and people died".Now that is really becoming of an ex-vice president.What a way to rally the troops and get the country behind them and support their efforts.If I had a family member in uniform over there,I would personally seek out Mr.Gore and punch him in the nose.Can't do that!!We are paying this multi-millionaire for his posse.He flies around on his private jet from one 10,000 sq.ft. home to the other.His houses alone consume more energy than the rest of us use in an entire year.He pays for carbon credits to offset his energy consumption...to HIMSELF!!His "Inconvient Truth" movie is pure science fiction and you Liberals buy this garbage hook,line and sinker.
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" Savage.
If Democraps had any brains they would be Republican'ts. paraphrase of Coulter.
"A 20 year who is not a liberal has no heart,
A 40 year old who is not conservative has no brain". Churchill.

First, spare us the weak attempt at paraphrasing of Ann Coulter.

Second, instead of debating what I posted on its merits (i.e. stick to the subject of Cheney and his political toxicity), you go off on a tirade against Al Gore. I'm guessing you sucked at forensics in high school.

As for the points you bring up:
(A) Yes, it is inronic that "Mr. Ecofriendly" owns homes with huge carbon footprints.
(B) He "won the popular vote," to borrow another Dem's favorite catchphrase...but the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount - thus enabling that ugly woman Katherine Harris to declare "W" President (and summarily be dropped by the GOP like old newspapers once her usefulness was over).

Again, though...stick to the topic at hand. If you wish to rant about Al Gore, start a new thread.

Zippy wrote:

<quoted text>
First, spare us the weak attempt at paraphrasing of Ann Coulter.
Second, instead of debating what I posted on its merits (i.e. stick to the subject of Cheney and his political toxicity), you go off on a tirade against Al Gore. I'm guessing you sucked at forensics in high school.
As for the points you bring up:
(A) Yes, it is inronic that "Mr. Ecofriendly" owns homes with huge carbon footprints.
(B) He "won the popular vote," to borrow another Dem's favorite catchphrase...but the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount - thus enabling that ugly woman Katherine Harris to declare "W" President (and summarily be dropped by the GOP like old newspapers once her usefulness was over).
Again, though...stick to the topic at hand. If you wish to rant about Al Gore, start a new thread.

Yeah,real classy Zippy.You sound like a typical democrap.Always trying to show your superiorty by name calling and putting people down.
As for the Florida vote;All the major newspapers along with Jesse Jackson and Maxine(Ms.Socialism)Waters and her black caucus did a recount and Mr. Bush still won.
Even though I was bussed to a black high school in 1970(Maggie Walker)we didn't have forensics because we didn't bring guns to school and shoot it up.I don't intend to defend Mr.Cheney against political attacks.He does quite well with the facts,particularly the way he carved up John Edwards in the 2004 debates.I'm surprised you did not bring up Halliburton.Is that because every penny he earns from the stock compensation as CEO he donates to charity.Funny how conservatives give much more per capita to charity than liberals.Liberals want to talk like they care but you only care with other peoples money as in taxes.Mr. Cheney has been listening to you ankle-biting liberals since the Nixon years,you got anything new he hasn't heard a dozen times already.Did you know he has a lesbian daughter?

anoodle wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah,real classy Zippy.You sound like a typical democrap.Always trying to show your superiorty by name calling and putting people down.
As for the Florida vote;All the major newspapers along with Jesse Jackson and Maxine(Ms.Socialism)Waters and her black caucus did a recount and Mr. Bush still won.
Even though I was bussed to a black high school in 1970(Maggie Walker)we didn't have forensics because we didn't bring guns to school and shoot it up.I don't intend to defend Mr.Cheney against political attacks.He does quite well with the facts,particularly the way he carved up John Edwards in the 2004 debates.I'm surprised you did not bring up Halliburton.Is that because every penny he earns from the stock compensation as CEO he donates to charity.Funny how conservatives give much more per capita to charity than liberals.Liberals want to talk like they care but you only care with other peoples money as in taxes.Mr. Cheney has been listening to you ankle-biting liberals since the Nixon years,you got anything new he hasn't heard a dozen times already.Did you know he has a lesbian daughter?

First, I'm not an "ankle-biting liberal" and I didn't call you any names; I merely addressed your weak attempt at analogy. You, however, proceed to do exactly what you claimed I did - namecalling ("democrap") and putting people down (the aforementioned "ankle-biting liberals like you"). Hypocracy, they name is "anoodle."

Second, yes, I am well aware of his lesbian daughter. Why do you trot that out? That he somehow earns "street cred" for his daughter's lifestyle? In fact, it is one area that puts him somewhat at odds with the whole right-wing, theo-conservative side of the GOP...the neighborhood of Dobson, Robertson, and others who rail against anything homosexual or lesbian. To Cheney's credit, he has been really supportive of his daughter, and that is commendable.

Third, what evidence do you offer to support your claim that "conservatives give much more per capita to charity than liberals"? Do you mean their own personal "foundations," or what?

Fourth, you used an entirely different definition of "forensics" in your boast of surviving at Maggie Walker HS in the 1970s because you "didn't bring guns" to a "black high school." I was referring to the performing art of "forensics," also know as "debating."

But, in the end, all you really did was ignore my initial points by choosing to fog the air with thin attempts at distraction and deflection. How else do you explain the flak you tossed up on such a scattershot of issues, yet without addressing any of them?

Zippy wrote:

<quoted text>
First, I'm not an "ankle-biting liberal" and I didn't call you any names; I merely addressed your weak attempt at analogy. You, however, proceed to do exactly what you claimed I did - namecalling ("democrap") and putting people down (the aforementioned "ankle-biting liberals like you"). Hypocracy, they name is "anoodle."
Second, yes, I am well aware of his lesbian daughter. Why do you trot that out? That he
somehow earns "street cred" for his daughter's lifestyle? In fact, it is one area that puts him somewhat at odds with the whole right-wing, theo-conservative side of the GOP...the neighborhood of Dobson, Robertson, and others who rail against anything homosexual or lesbian. To Cheney's credit, he has been really supportive of his daughter, and that is commendable.
Third, what evidence do you offer to support your claim that "conservatives give much more per capita to charity than liberals"? Do you mean their own personal "foundations," or what?
Fourth, you used an entirely different definition of "forensics" in your boast of surviving at Maggie Walker HS in the 1970s because you "didn't bring guns" to a "black high school." I was referring to the performing art of "forensics," also know as "debating."
But, in the end, all you really did was ignore my initial points by choosing to fog the air with thin attempts at distraction and deflection. How else do you explain the flak you tossed up on such a scattershot of issues, yet without addressing any of them?

OK.First let me disqualify myself as a serious debater.I am totally new at this.I have been on this site about a week and I happened to pick you because I once knew a girl with a 'tude named Zippy.She was quite sassy.And good natured.
Second,my debating skills were honed in a poolhall many years ago and refined belly-up to a bar until I married up and got domesticated and happy.I love my home.
Most of my information comes from the Richmond Times Dispatch,talk radio and cable news as well as The Druge Report.I am somewhat center-right.I don't care for extremist on either side,more so the left.To me,liberals on the far left live in some type of Utopia world I have trouble understanding.
I don't intend to defend Cheney or any politician,it's their job.Also,I have never given so much as a nickel to any politician. I have never spent time in a political science class or forensic class either.I have never heard of forensic debating.Is that an Ivy League term.I was born in Richmond and have been living here ever since.My wife is from NYC,N.Y.
It is true conservatives give more to charity than liberals.According to a Gallup Poll the Red States lead the Blue States in charitable donations...like the Red Cross,Salvation Army,Church Organizations and the Food Bank.I remember when it was reported,some years ago,how little VP Al Gore donated,less than $1,000 because even I had donated more.I give to the March of Dimes,Red Cross,Cancer Society,Diabetes,Food Bank,Veterans of Foreign Wars...etc.Also the poll showed liberals,when they do donate,are more likely to give to Planned Parenthood,Sierra Club,NPR,Enviromental Defense Fund,PETA...etc.
I hope you are not mad at me as your tone would suggest.Like I said, I am new at this and need practice.We have a big election coming up.I have been reading some crazy stuff on the internet and I plan to respond to some of it and try to set the record straight. Aloha.

anoodle wrote:

<quoted text>
OK.First let me disqualify myself as a serious debater.I am totally new at this.I have been on this site about a week and I happened to pick you because I once knew a girl with a 'tude named Zippy.She was quite sassy.And good natured.
Second,my debating skills were honed in a poolhall many years ago and refined belly-up to a bar until I married up and got domesticated and happy.I love my home.
Most of my information comes from the Richmond Times Dispatch,talk radio and cable news as well as The Druge Report.I am somewhat center-right.I don't care for extremist on either side,more so the left.To me,liberals on the far left live in some type of Utopia world I have trouble understanding.
I don't intend to defend Cheney or any politician,it's their job.Also,I have never given so much as a nickel to any politician. I have never spent time in a political science class or forensic class either.I have never heard of forensic debating.Is that an Ivy League term.I was born in Richmond and have been living here ever since.My wife is from NYC,N.Y.
It is true conservatives give more to charity than liberals.According to a Gallup Poll the Red States lead the Blue States in charitable donations...like the Red Cross,Salvation Army,Church Organizations and the Food Bank.I remember when it was reported,some years ago,how little VP Al Gore donated,less than $1,000 because even I had donated more.I give to the March of Dimes,Red Cross,Cancer Society,Diabetes,Food Bank,Veterans of Foreign Wars...etc.Also the poll showed liberals,when they do donate,are more likely to give to Planned Parenthood,Sierra Club,NPR,Enviromental Defense Fund,PETA...etc.
I hope you are not mad at me as your tone would suggest.Like I said, I am new at this and need practice.We have a big election coming up.I have been reading some crazy stuff on the internet and I plan to respond to some of it and try to set the record straight. Aloha.

Apology accepted. It took me a few turns to get the hang of these threads, but there are some good, basic rules to follow:

1.) Don't take empty, shallow, negatively personal swipes at anyone, particularly ones you don't know from Adam (I'm a guy, btw...). If you have a beef with an opinion - that's one thing. If you castigate someone and impugn their dignity as a human being - that's something else entirely, and wrong.

2.) If you're going to make a statement that comes across as a "fact," it's best to have something to back it up. I like that you reference a recent Gallup poll. Stuff like that lets others chew on it a bit, and makes you seem like you've done some homework.

3.) As far as your ideology - you and I are not really that far apart ideologically. I am a center-left person on some things, but a tad more right-of-center on other things.

4.) Regarding your sources - The Richmond Times-Dispatch is a right-leaning newspaper. The Drudge Report was right-leaning, but lately has been chiming in on behalf of Obama some days. Talk radio is what it is - a bunch of guys (and a few ladies) pontificating, insulting, yelling, talking down, and otherwise yakking about the topics du jour. If you're really a moderate, you'll be wise to check what they're saying against some other sources (I've found www.politico.com to be really balanced in its coverage of things).

In the end, no harm...no foul, amigo. What a lot of us on here forget from time to time (myself included) is that it's OK to disagree with ideas...but it's not OK to attack someone as a person, or slap them with a knee-jerk insult. Such static really isn't helpful.

Zippy wrote:

<quoted text>
Apology accepted. It took me a few turns to get the hang of these threads, but there are some good, basic rules to follow:
1.) Don't take empty, shallow, negatively personal swipes at anyone, particularly ones you don't know from Adam (I'm a guy, btw...). If you have a beef with an opinion - that's one thing. If you castigate someone and impugn their dignity as a human being - that's something else entirely, and wrong.
2.) If you're going to make a statement that comes across as a "fact," it's best to have something to back it up. I like that you reference a recent Gallup poll. Stuff like that lets others chew on it a bit, and makes you seem like you've done some homework.
3.) As far as your ideology - you and I are not really that far apart ideologically. I am a center-left person on some things, but a tad more right-of-center on other things.
4.) Regarding your sources - The Richmond Times-Dispatch is a right-leaning newspaper. The Drudge Report was right-leaning, but lately has been chiming in on behalf of Obama some days. Talk radio is what it is - a bunch of guys (and a few ladies) pontificating, insulting, yelling, talking down, and otherwise yakking about the topics du jour. If you're really a moderate, you'll be wise to check what they're saying against some other sources (I've found www.politico.com to be really balanced in its coverage of things).
In the end, no harm...no foul, amigo. What a lot of us on here forget from time to time (myself included) is that it's OK to disagree with ideas...but it's not OK to attack someone as a person, or slap them with a knee-jerk insult. Such static really isn't helpful.

Thanks for the info.
According to a new book by Peter Schweizer"Makers and Takers":"Academic studies have found that those on the political left are five times more likely to use marijuana and cocaine...Another survey found that Democrats were five times more likely to use marijuana than Republicans..."A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users,the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8 to 1." reports Jim Meyers.
Another report by Jim Meyers is about Bob Woodward of the Washington Post and his Foundation.It seems his foundation is not as generous as he might have you think.
Woodward earns up to $50,000 for a speaking engagement and has said he gives all his lecture money to charity-the foundation run by the Watergate journalist and his wife,the Woodward Walsh Foundation.But the foundation"doesn't seem to do much genuine charitable work"according to an article by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine.His foundation had as much as $1.8 million last year.
But last year his foundation dished out just $17,555 in grants,according to Silverstein,and in recent years more than half the foundation's donations went to Sidwell Friends,an expensive private school in Washington,D.C.
He also gives money to Citizen's for Georgetown Trees,where he lives, a nursery school and a private daycare facility.
I guess he earns interest on the rest.So he gives to his own personal charity,gets a tax break,then gives to organizations that benefit him personally.This is but one example of how liberals claim to be charitable.In reality they are only charitable with the publics' money as in taxes.
They talk a good game,but don't play a good game.
Is this better?

With Gilmore running, what's the difference who they bring in? Gilmore is a sure loser. The VA GOP is nuts.

Better? Doubtful...you veer further off the main point of this thread by continuing to slander liberals by quoting pot-smoking statistics, ripping Bob Woodward of "The Washington Post," and repeat the blanket generalizations about "liberals" as a whole.

Just as there are conservatives who are hypocritical, I don't think it's fair to take a few examples as you have - Gore, Woodward, etc.- and extrapolate out to all liberals. If you wish to discuss certain specific liberals - and, by the by, certain specific conservatives, then put that on a different thread. This one is about the VA GOP bringing in Dick Cheney to help raise money; the same Cheney who is NOT being welcomed into McCain's campaign because of his toxic ratings and questionable-at-best policy roles.

Whatever wrote:

With Gilmore running, what's the difference who they bring in? Gilmore is a sure loser. The VA GOP is nuts.

Deadeye sponsors a dead party.

apt.

Zippy wrote:

Better? Doubtful...you veer further off the main point of this thread by continuing to slander liberals by quoting pot-smoking statistics, ripping Bob Woodward of "The Washington Post," and repeat the blanket generalizations about "liberals" as a whole.
Just as there are conservatives who are hypocritical, I don't think it's fair to take a few examples as you have - Gore, Woodward, etc.- and extrapolate out to all liberals. If you wish

to discuss certain specific liberals - and, by the by, certain specific conservatives, then put that on a different thread. This one is about the VA GOP bringing in Dick Cheney to help raise money; the same Cheney who is NOT being welcomed into McCain's campaign because of his toxic ratings and questionable-at-best policy roles.

I can only offer my opinion on this subject with no information as to who will attend,where it is to be held and what is to be discussed.
Being from Richmond,I can tell you I consider Mr.Chaney,the "Vice President of the United States," to be an excellent choice.I can only hope his lovely wife will accompany him.Cheney is but one in a long line of luminaries to have graced this historical city.I am sure his supporters will give him a heroes welcome and fork over some cash as well.
Just last year,the "President of the United States"was here at a private residence for a sit-down dinner and conversation.I would assume he left town with some of his host and guests money.
Regardless of whom the name or political party of the occupants of the White House,it is an honor for most Americans to meet the people that hold the position of President and Vice President.
Polls and approval ratings are just for talk.If you base your opinions or guide your principles based on polls then you are not worth much more than the paper the polls are printed on.
I pay no attention to polls,whether they support my thinking or not.For those of you who depend on polls then ponder this.Since Congress has lower approval ratings(from whomever it is that is polled)than the White House;then who better to attend the fundraiser?According to the polls,the President and Vice President are the most liked politicians in Washington.
I don't know what else to say.It's a no brainer.

You say you "pay no attention to polls," then you trumpet "polls" that say the President and Vice president "are the most liked politicians in Washington." What polls report this?

You clearly limit your research to right-leaning sources of information. The point being that - with an approval rating disastrously low, and a known record of personal responsibility for much of the horrible foreign policy decisions of the past 8 years, to the point that McCain won't touch him - Cheney is perhaps not the best person to invite into Virginia, which has proven to be a political battleground that is not as solidly red as it once was.

Gilmore barely won the GOP nomination for the Senate race (67 votes) over a far-right idealogue with no statewide experience. He's up against an opponent who enjoys a near-80% approval rating from folks across the political spectrum and from all areas of the state. The GOP in the House of Delegates seems hell-bent on ruining transportation services and funding in this state (although, Gov. Kaine has not done much better). And you add Cheney to this mix?