The recount was an incomplete one…we may never know who actually got the largest number of votes.

Good grief. Such sour grapes. Thank goodness Mr. Deeds was more gracious.

FYI, the rest of the state knows who got the largest number of votes.. The result was checked and rechecked — every precinct in every jurisdiction. But since “your man Deeds” didn’t win, the final tally must be suspect. We’re not surprised by that reaction.

Posted by I.Publius on 21 December 2005 @ 10pm

Good grief. Such sour grapes.

Your bar for “sour grapes” is awfully low. How quickly you forget the 2000 election.

The result was checked and rechecked — every precinct in every jurisdiction.

Once again, you fail to actually read the blog entry to which you respond. This is really tiresome.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 December 2005 @ 10pm

Your bar for “sour grapes” is awfully low. How quickly you forget the 2000 election.

Funny that you should bring up the 2000 election… That really blows your argument out of the water because it shows that y’all have a history of it.

Posted by Hans Mast on 22 December 2005 @ 9am

2000 was the mother of all sour grapes, as the much-beloved leader of Iraq would say.

Posted by Hans Mast on 22 December 2005 @ 9am

That really blows your argument out of the water because it shows that y’all have a history of it.

Y’all? You might not know this, Hans, but I wasn’t actually involved with the 2000 elections or the subsequent recount. It’s sweet of you to give me credit, though.

Would you say that Dino Rossi fits this description, too? Or was that just good sense on his part?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 December 2005 @ 9am

Waldo, I was talking about the sour grapes “grexing” done by Dems from all over, not actual involvement in the recount.

It seems for politically inclined people of all stripes (lib and con and fas and com), it is not a prerequisite to actually be involved in something physically to grex or cheer.

(Oh, and pardon my mother tongue coming through in this conversation.)

Posted by Hans Mast on 22 December 2005 @ 9am

Hans,

Any ’sour grapes’ or other hassle over the 2000 election could have been dealt with easily by just doing a complete hand recount of Florida. I’ve never really understood why Republicans opposed this. Since the recount was halted, Democrats had a perfectly sound reason to question the results of that election and it cast a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush’s entire first term that could have easily been avoided.

Recounts are always a good thing. Because we had a recount in Virginia, we can all agree that McDonnell won. Otherwise, he’d be met with icy glares everywhere he goes for the next 4 years.

I say congratulations to Bob McDonnell and kudos to both him and Creigh Deeds for being gentlemen about the whole thing at every step of the way.

Hopefully McDonnell will eventually see the error of his ways and back off from his support of the 1 handgun per month rule. Meanwhile, I say that anybody who comes within less than 400 votes of winning statewide office is a serious contender against George Allen for Senate next year. I hope that Creigh will run.

Posted by ATA on 22 December 2005 @ 9am

“Grex” — could you talk to me about this word, Hans? I’m interesting in language, particularly regionalisms. What’s it mean, and where’s it from?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 December 2005 @ 10am

Without knowing what “grexing” means, i’m gonna go out on a limb and say that every American who gives a damn about this country should’ve been upset at what happened in 2000. No matter what the actual result of the numbers turned out to be, we had someone appointed president by the Supreme Court who may not have won the presidency at all.

My point is not that you should be outraged at that, but rather that insisting to know the actual results of an election is far from “sour grapes” for all but the most intellectually dishonest amoung us. It’s the very foundation upon which our country is built. Knowing that it’s not being interfered with and is being carried out correctly isn’t “sour grapes” no matter what political party is on what side of it.

Posted by Ben C. on 22 December 2005 @ 11am

Yes indeedy. Had it been Gore who came out a winner in the 2000 embarrassment, we’d still be hearing about it in fund-raising letters.

Posted by saywhat?? on 22 December 2005 @ 11am

I ran a quick, unscientific poll online last night and came up with 77% for and 23% against Creigh Deeds running for Senate against George Allen.

Say, did you know George’s father was a football coach?

Posted by Mark on 22 December 2005 @ 2pm

As for the 2000 election… A study conducted by a university, I want to say U Chicago but I’m not sure, showed Gore winning Florida in 7 of the 9 models of a total recount of Florida. I read the Bush v. Gore case for a class this semester and it really blows my mind. First the court took up an election matter which it generally leaves to the state courts to decide, the conservatives completely flopped from their decision in US Term Limits v. Thorton where the dissenters passionately stated that nothing in the Constitution forbids states from doing what the state of Arkansas did with term limits and the ballot. In Bush v. Gore the court held that because there was no set procedure for counting votes (hanging chads, pregnant chads, etc.) the recound violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (since when do conservatives care about the equal protection clause?!) The important part is that they held there was no remedy for the situation and they had to stop the recount rather than sending the issue back to the Florida Supreme Court and instructing them to create a standard.

As far as the AG recount goes, it was a joke. None of the machines could have been “cracked open” again and it was basically a recount of paper ballots. I guess the three judge panel thought machines are perfect despite reports of under votes and the most obvious fact that machines are made by humans who aren’t perfect.

Deeds will be fine. I think he should run for Governor in 2009 when Virginia has completely transitioned into a swing state.

Posted by UVA08 on 22 December 2005 @ 3pm

UVA08 — try reading Bush v. Gore I & II again, and maybe this time without a leftist professor in a 100-level class to explain it for you. Look up “equal protection” while you’re at it.

The AG count was anything but a joke. I personally helped “crack open” several dozen machines, and inspected the vote totals along with numerous Democrat and Republican observers and officials. Ya know, it’s funny how Democrats whine about any process that doesn’t result in a Democrat winning. Strange how that always happens.

Sour grapes indeed.

Posted by I.Publius on 22 December 2005 @ 9pm

IP, I’ve noticed that you never actually provide anybody with the gift of your own knowledge. There are a lot of insinuations about how your knowledge is superior to others’, but it never actually shows up. Ever. You’re all hat and no cattle.

“Try reading Bush v. Gore I & II again”? How about taking the time to explain how it is that the court’s ruling had nothing to do with equal protection concerns? Because, damnedest thing, when the majority wrote:

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

I just got the sense that maybe they’d felt that standardless manual recounts constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

If you’ve got any evidence to the contrary, we’re all ears.

Nah, I’m just kidding. You’ve got nothin’. We know.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 December 2005 @ 10pm

There you go again, assigning statements to people that they didn’t make.

Please show me where I said that Bush v. Gore “had nothing to do with equal protection.” Ummm, you can’t, because I didn’t, did I? But that’s ok, it’s your blog and you can Make Shit Up whenever you want.

Your friend above seems to misunderstand what Equal Protection is, quite likely because of a leftist professor explaining the ruling, and skipping over that critical part of the decision. In that election the Court held that every person’s vote must be of the same value.

This professor also apparently doesn’t know or doesn’t care to teach the reason the USSC made a final decision rather than sending it back to the state court. The Court had little choice in that matter — there simply wasn’t enough time to get it done and comply with constitutional requirements concerning the electoral college.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 December 2005 @ 7am

Ya know, it’s funny how Democrats whine about any process that doesn’t result in a Democrat winning. Strange how that always happens.I.Publius

Nearly as funny as how Republicans do the same thing… I didn’t know whinging had a political affiliation.

Posted by Richard Hubbard on 23 December 2005 @ 7pm

I.P. I didn’t deliver any personal attacks in my post but if you want to go there I have plenty of dumb Republican jokes that will get your blood boiling but I will pass. Let me correct you on a few things. First, the class is an upper 300 level course. Secondly I read the case more than once ( once because I was curious, twice because I was confused, third because it was assigned, forth to make sure I got it right, fifth to review for test….) Bush I the cort held that the recount effort wasn’t constitutional because there were no set standards for evaluating certain ballots. Bush II is the important one because the court held that there was no remedy for the situation. In other words, there wasn’t any set standards for counting votes and for what ever reason the court held that there were no constitutional standards that could have been developed at that late stage. They also conviently held that the ruling applied only to the case at hand and did not set a precedent.

I would also like to say that the “liberal media/academia/whatever else that doesnt agree with you” is a very tired excuse for why Republican crap looks as bad as it does.

BTW you seem to think you are a lot smarter than the professor so answer a few things for me. What are these Constitutional requirements with the electoral college that SC was so worried about and where do they mention it in thier ruling? What is it that you thought I meant by the equal protection clause and how was I wrong? And since I seem to be terribly off in my understanding of Bush v. Gore would you be so kind to explain it to me the “fair and balanced” way?
Thank you

Posted by UVA08 on 26 December 2005 @ 12am

Waldo, regarding “grex” (which I know is a horrible spelling): My grandparents grew up Amish. My parents grew up Amish-Mennonite, as did I. Much of the Amish came from the German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine area of France/Germany. They, of course, spoke German. When they came to the U.S. (to avoid religious persecution), the German they spoke was not only a rapidly dying language in Europe (as everyone standardized the dialects into Modern German), but also they had the isolation which allowed a separate evolution of the language. But, Wikipedia lays out the history of Pennsylvania Dutch (as it is called; a perversion of Pennsylvania Deutsch) much better than can I. Suffice it to say that both of my parents spoke it when I was a young’un and taught it to me before I knew English. One time on a flight, I (at age 4 or so) innocently asked the stewardess for a “kissy”. She was a bit startled and asked, “You want what? A kiss? Do you want me to kiss you?” My parents hastened to explain that “kissy” is the PA Dutch word for “pillow” and that I wanted a pillow. The stewardess replied, “Oh… I thought he was getting fresh with me.” *grin*

I don’t know how to spell PA Dutch at all and in the written word revert to a phonetic spelling.

Posted by Hans Mast on 26 December 2005 @ 3pm