Please pick up the white courtesy phone for a call from George Allen, who at least had sense enough to not recount, even though that was a better chance than this.

"constituent interest" ever been part of Virgil Goode's agenda?

Virgil, just because you have the "right" to request a recount, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

of Republican elites and their sense of entitlement is, to put it simply: "Any so-called victory by Democrats is not legitimate; it is our right and duty to contest it." And, every time they do demand a recount or go to court (sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court) it does indeed in some measure de-legitimize the Democratic victory, making it seem somewhat less victorious, somewhat less likely to be repeated, while enhancing (in Republican minds at least) the stature of the Republican point of view.

Have we heard enough yet that Democrats won the White House only because of: 1) the unfortunate blip in the economy, 2) Bush's incompetence, and 3) failure of the current Republican leadership to adhere strictly to Republican principles, i.e., they were not conservative enough, because, after all: the United States is basically a center right nation.  Therefore, Obama does not have a mandate and he must work in bipartisan fashion with the Republicans (on their terms, not his). All this applies at every level of government---- most especially in these pesky Congressional Districts such as Goode-Perriello. Obviously.

From TPM:

Goode is fully entitled to a state-paid recount under Virginia law, but the chance of success seems very slim to say the least, given the number of votes cast in this race and the size of Perriello's lead. Relatively speaking, this would be as if Al Franken had gone into the Minnesota recount trailing Norm Coleman by over 7,000 votes, instead of Coleman's shaky 215-vote lead.

Do you think Minnesota taxpayers should foot the bill for a recount in that state given the close election results?

Given that the numbers were swinging back and forth for days before we finally settled at the current tally, and the fact that the difference is less that one-half of 1%, it seems logical to me that any candidate in a similar position would seek a recount.  If Perriello were on the losing side, I'd certainly be encouraging him to go for it.

given the 754-vote difference.

All I'm saying is, if Mr. Goode knows something the rest of don't that might put him ahead, then he should share it, and we can all take a look.

But if all he has is "Hey, it's close, so lets count again," then the result won't change and he is wasting everyone's time.

I think a recount is a close election is justified.  Just as I supported Deeds' recount effort, I think Goode is justified in asking for a recount. If Congressman-Elect Perriello had lost by the same margin, I suspect the readers of RK wouldn't judge him for asking for a recount.  

Recounts are different than protests.

If Mr. Goode thinks votes were counted that ought not to have been, or what not counted that should have been, then there is a process for that. He should bring forth evidence.

If all he does is want to recount, then I don't see the point.

there are stages in the election process, as I understand it

1) the original count

2)  canvass - to ensure there were no reporting errors, such as reversing digits  (245 to 425) or switching totals between candidates

3) Certification of the results, which took place today

4) recount if applicable

5) contest

if he wants to contest, he has to go through the recount first

Let's make a distinction between his right and the likelihood of change.  Goode is well within his right.  But the history of recounts in Virginia makes it highly unlikely he could even amke up 1/10 of the current difference.  The most recent recounts, for Deeds and for Oleszek, changed very few votes.  That is why with around 10 times as many total votes Allen did not seek a recount in his loss to Webb.

There is no requirement that there be a recount prior to a contest. The law simply permits a recount to occur, and if it does, provides a loser with additional time to file his/her contest.

But I'm certainly not an expert on election law.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi...

I have no problem with Goode asking for a recount.  In fact, I welcome it so there can be no lingering doubt about who won.  What annoys me is when Goode makes comments like this:

"Over 316,000 votes were cast in this Election for U.S. Representative.  The morning after the Election Night, with all precincts reporting, we were ahead by 446 votes.  Since that time, over 3,200 votes have changed -- the largest changes coming from cities and counties that voted for my opponent.  Now, we are trailing by 745 votes in the certified count."

What he failed to mention is how a large number of votes were subtracted from Perriello in Danville, how the record of changes show many updates in conservative counties, there was an extensive canvass which was in a sense a recount in itself, and how the SBE says clearly that the results on the site are UNOFFICIAL, meaning you shouldn't expect those results to remain the same.  Also, statistically speaking, Goode should have expected most of the changes (in numerical terms) to come from places that Perriello won because they are generally the most populated in the district.  For example, a .5 correction in Charlotte county is going to equal far fewer votes than that same percentage correction in Albemarle.

Updating the vote totals is part of long-standing process.  We are talking about dozens of jurisdictions and large amounts of votes.  Asking for a recount is one thing, questioning the legitimacy of your opponents victory with little to back it up is quite another.  

have no problem with the request for a recount. I trust Tom P's lead will hold up, but take a look at the history of changes in the vote totals during the course of the official canvass. To me it seems prudent for the recount to occur, to confirm the canvass and shut Goode up forever. I agree with others that most likely we'd be urging Tom P to go for the recount if the situation were reversed.

I suppose if Tom lost by 750 votes, I'd be screaming for a recount, but I think that is quite the beside the point. It would still be a selfish thing to do, albeit it on Tom's part in that hypothetical, that would be not in the interests of people in the district.

I just want to be clear that I am carefully and clearly distinguishing a resount from a contest of the election. The problem here is Goode is not suggesting there was a miscount, which he knows he cannot win, but a vague allegation that something was not kosher in Tom's favorable districts.

The law provide a remedy for this, but requires a specific allegation. Goode, rather, had only a generalized allegation, and undermines both the spirit and the letter of the law by characterizing this generalized allegation as a recount (to which he is legally entitled) rather than a contest (for which he probably cannot make a prima facie case).

That is why I call on him to go away and end the charade.

"which undermines both the spirit and the letter of the law" is exactly what I meant by my comment above about an established pattern by petulant Republican losers who routinely try to de-legitimize Democratic successes. There is always a hint, if not an outright claim, that Democrats have engaged in vote fraud or some other shady actions. These Republicans are so quick to imply nefarious dealings of others because, I suspect, they do so themselves, and judge everyone else by themselves.

When Janet Oleszek lost in a heartbreaker of a close election, I defended her right to a recount.  It gave her a few extra votes but didn't change the ultimate result; Ken Cuccinelli won the race.  Nevertheless, I never regretted for a moment that we had the recount.  It gave closure and satisfaction of knowing that the results were valid and had withstood scrutiny.  Besides, we lived to fight another day.

I'd be a hypocrite if I changed my opinion now because I think so highly of Tom Perriello and hope for his victory.  I clearly believe he's the better candidate.  And I believe his lead will hold.  But given Goode's determination to have a recount, which is within his right, the bright side is that doing so will eliminate all lingering doubts about Tom's legitimate and impressive victory.  So, let it proceed.

You know I respect your opinion as much as anyone's. Bit I am merely questioning Goode's judgment in requesting a recount under these particular circumstances, which I think are different than the Senate race to which you refer, not his right to demand one.

Obviously, every recount situation has one thing in common: they are all close. But they are not all the same.

I appreciate the closure a recount gave you gave you and other Oleszak supporters in 2007 to know that you did everything possible and exercised all your rights.

But here is what Oleszek had to say at the time:  

"I have done a lot of soul-searching about this, and it was not an easy decision," she said in a telephone interview. "I have been contacted by hundreds of supporters asking me to call for a recount, and I still didn't jump in. I couldn't just frivolously ask for a recount."

She said she had weighed the possibility of prevailing in a "very important race" against the taxpayer expense and effort.

The difference is she weighed the possibility of her prevailing in the recount. She did not suggest the results were invalid because of some vague allegation of wrongdoing, or simply because she came out on the losing end. At the end of the day, she sincerely believed she had a shot in a recount.

Goode, in essence, admits that he does not have a shot, except by proving that somehow a bunch of votes were counted for Tom that should not have been counted.

It is the difference between being a thoughtful candidate trying to do the right thing and being a sore loser.

I spent several weeks in Danville volunteering for Obama and Perriello.  Virgil had his stupid ass kicked by an impressive African-American turnout.  Virgil can whine all he wants.  He still lost.

What I find interesting about that district is that Obama lost narrowly and Perriello won narrowly.   A fair number of the Obama voters (erratic or first time voters) went with Perriello because we reassured them at the door.  Perriello apparently also picked off enough previous Goode voters to fashion a coalition that was not there for Obama.  But, driving the number of Obamacrats to the polls that we did was key.

Virgil the stupid hater did it to himself.  We did the Republicans a favor by dealing with Virgil and Musgrave in Co.

n/t

The margin is narrower since the last time I looked.  As they did the canvass right after the election, it was fluctuating back and forth like crazy.

In any case, a candidate who loses by 255 votes is entitled to a recount.  It has nothing to do with the Perriello campaign though.  If anyone has connections for pulling funny business down there, it is Good 'ol Virgil Goode.

Thanks!

Steve

I think a recount is necessary, it must be hard for Goode to realize that his life long career of being a public official is now over.  If I was in that position, I would try my hardest to leave with what little dignity I had left.

Obviously Goode isn't going to do this by filing for a recount, but I believe that Goode is going through a period of, wow...I can't believe I actually lost to this guy..what do I do know? and sees a recount as buying time to figure out what to do with his life.  

Change moves in spirals, not circles. For example, the sun goes up and then it goes down. But every time that happens, what do you get? You get a new day. You get a new one. When you breathe, you inhale and you exhale, but every single time that you do that you're a little bit different than the one before. We're always changing. And its important to know that there are some changes you can't control and that there are others you can. - Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) - Half Nelson

He's never put citizen interest before his own anyway, so no surprise there.  I'd almost like to see this come down to 1 vote, just to see his reaction. Maybe then he'll realize it's time go away.  Far away, I hope.

November 4th was a recall of a defective politician whose deep flaws were no longer politically viable here in the 5th District. Losing must be incomprehensible to someone who has always been able to win by overwhelming numbers with little effort and little regard for human dignity and the welfare of the people of the 5th District.

As a veteran I was always angered at Virgil's insistence that any vote for an increase in veteran's benefits would have to come from cutting back on foreign aid... as if vets needed any additional justification for benefits.

I marveled at his ability to hoodwink the Southside, letting them sink ever further into unemployment and poverty while cultivating the fear of outsiders into a decade long winning formula.

I thank all of the people who voted for Tom Perriello - especially those last 745! I thank all of those Republicans that couldn't take it anymore and just stayed home!

Now Virgil is headed for that garbage heap of history; the cesspool of infamous politicians that have burdened us with their lies and malice. The people have pulled the plunger and he is on his way. He will flail around and splash a lot and he will grab for the rim of the bowl, but he will not make it. He will be flushed with the rest of the idiots that have done such a disservice to us all.

We are headed for a better tomorrow. The road will be rough but we are headed there. So don't be worried or distracted by Virgil and his kind. Their day has come and it has gone.

Republicans in the 5th CD did not stay home. (McCain did win our district.) But a good number of them voted for Perriello. We outperformed Obama in the district.

Tom Perriello: 158,712

Barack Obama: 157,362

The independents and moderate Republicans who voted for us were definitely a part of that winning 745!

Well then, thanks for the correction. That makes me feel even more confident for 2010!

Some of you surprise me. It is right for the recount to take place. The last one I remember was the one for the AG race between Deeds and McDonnell. As some are saying I too feel the same way, if the votes were reversed I am sure the Perriello Camp would also ask for a recount.

Some areas the numbers did change days after the election. and even up until 2 days ago the numbers for some of the races were still changing but not enough to change outcomes.

Every vote cast needs to be counted. I feel that is what Virgil is asking for. But we also want to be sure that the votes were not counted more than once and also make sure they are done right. Either way. Win or lose Lets hope we can all get along with the person who will Represent the 5th District of Virginia for the citizens.  

Goode's right to a recount is inherent and his exercise of it should be respected.  I am confident the recount will prove the voters of the 5th CD have rightfully and righteously turned Goode out of office.

For 35-years, first in the Virginia Senate and then in the U.S. House of Representatives, Goode has fed at the trough of public largess.  Whether he desires to or not -- he may now comfortably retire.  Sadly, the people of Southside have little to show for their investment in him.

Elected to Congress as a Democrat, Goode morphed into an Independent, and was then bought by the Republicans for a seat on the Appropriations Committee.  His political legacy lacks substantive achievements but is littered with years of half-truths, divided loyalties, and bigotry.  He is a living relic of a less than illustrious chapter in Virginia's history.  It is both fitting and appropriate that he be a forgotten footnote in that history.  

Just give this a thought?

What if Virgil had not decided to Go Independent and then Republican, Would all the negative comments be going toward him? It seems here is a man that voted by what was right for the people of his district when he was in the House of Delegates. Then The party seeked him out to Run for the seat that was being vacated by L.F.Payne at that time. He won that seat. It seems that when he chose to go to the Independent party and the Republican Party folks turned their backs on him, but he never turned his back on the district. He continued to work to bring jobs to the area. He brought much needed funds to the area fire depts and areas that needed them. In Pittsylvania County / Henry County he worked with both areas to get a new water line to help bring industry to both areas and a partnership to both. One lady in particular comes to mine praised his efforts for the project but then supports the other party. Don't get me wrong folks have the right to support who they want but, Virgil has done good for the area.

I heard a fellow talk one day say that he voted for Virgil when he was a Democrat, Voted for him when he was an Independent and will voted for him as a Republican. If they were to start a new party and Virgil joined it he would still support it. Because Virgil supported the people he represented.

So getting back to my question, If Virgil was still under the Democratic heading would folks be talking about getting rid of him the way they are. Just an observation. As I said earlier, no matter what the outcome is in the recount we need to come together for the good of the 5th district.  

in the Democratic Party.  If Virgil Goode were still a Democrat, I'd be fighting to defeat him in a primary with someone like Tom Perriello.

But, what the Hell.

Had Virgil elected to remain a Democrat, all else being equal, given his record of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim demagoguery, not to mention his votes against Bill Clinton in 1998, I suspect he more than likely would have been long disposed of in a Democratic primary by now.

If you think Virgil did right by the District, then by all means vote for him. A majority of your fellow citizens, however, disagree with that assessment.

Frankly, I don't think party label s ever meant that much to Virgil goode from the get-go. He has always represented the Virgil party, and he is apparently going out that way.

If Virgil Goode had remained a Democrat he would have long ago been ousted from the party. Many of us would have done our best to separate him from our ranks.

In terms of his accomplishments you name items that are mostly Homeland Defense funding initiatives in the wake of 9/11.  Moreover, even with a coveted spot on the Appropriations Committee, Goode ranked as one of its least effective members.

I dealt with Goode to help service his constituents when he was in the state senate and I was in state government.  Always, he put the short term appearance of helping his constituents ahead of their long term needs. I never found his myopic self-interest to be a viable vision for those he was elected to represent.