A three-judge panel has concluded, after a recount, that Democrat Tom Perriello is now Congressman-elect Perriello, replacing six-term Republican incumbent Rep. Virgil Goode. Perrillo won by 727 votes. He’ll be sworn into the 111th Congress on January 6.
25 thoughts on “It’s Official: Perriello Wins”
Good for Tom. I don’t agree w/ many of his views, but I went to school (not Yale) with the guy and know he’s honest, hard-working, smart, and will do his best for the 5th District.
Virgil will land on his feet. Maybe a re-match in ’10?
Hurray! I’m so glad that my vote counted. I feel much better about the future of Va-5’s Southside counties now that we have someone else in Congress.
“I’m so glad that my vote counted.” Too bad some of the soldiers weren’t.
so the margin of victory decreased by less than 20 votes. anybody know what this recount cost the taxpayer?
FWIW, despite being an ardent opponent of Virgil Goode, I can’t blame him a bit for asking for a recount. (To the contrary, I think it’s good that he did.) With a race within that half-percent margin, I think it’s a good and appropriate thing to do. It reassures voters that the results are accurate, and that’s important.
Some of Goode’s supporters are no doubt going to try and delegitimize Periello’s wonderful victory by perpetuating the myth that Goode would have won “if only the soliders’ votes had been counted,” because they know that their Fox News-watching, WINA-listening base can’t be bothered with the actual facts. Waldo could you please clearly restate the number of military votes in question so that the Republicans cannot succeed in this misguided effort.
I think that the military vote (which a judge said should have been counted) was only about 60 votes. Even if all voted for Goode it would have made little difference.
Oh, yeah, the military votes wouldn’t have made any difference. Both Perriello and Goode filed requests with the court that those votes be counted, because it was (allegedly) the State Board of Elections’ fault that their votes came in late, because they mailed the blank ballots to the voters too late. But the three-judge panel disagreed, saying that they couldn’t count any votes that came in after November 4. But, again, even if they were 100% for Goode, they wouldn’t have been even in the neighborhood of making the difference in this race.
“anybody know what this recount cost the taxpayer?” Probably millions less than the Democratic and Republican primaries.
“Fox News-watching, WINA-listening” is this supposed to be some kind of description of a group of people? What do you find objectionable listening to Jane Foy and Coy Barefoot? Or is this some kind of sophomoric attempt at name-calling. Goode has made it clear that counting the soldiers’ votes was a matter of not disenfranchising them. While we were at the polls one of them may have been getting her leg blown off while listening to a podcast of some show on WINA. Sick!
Jane Foy and Coy Barefoot are to WINA as Alan Colmes was to Fox News. WINA is dominated by right-wing drivel and its listeners don’t exactly come away well-informed on local, state or national issues. As for Goode and his small-minded, gay-bashing, anti-inellectual nativism, good riddance.
What does all of that have to do with soldiers voting or are you saying you’d rather people’s right to have their vote counted is not as important in America as Goode’s leaving his office.
Agreed re mil ballots in this case, but you’ll have to forgive us cons for being a wee bit sensitive after FLA 2000. Just ask my fav de facto Dem, Joe Lieberman (other than Zell Miller, of course).
I think for some what rankles about the issue of counting the 60 late ballots from overseas military is the selectivity of the outrage. Some of the same people who were quite recklessly screaming about “voter fraud” in regards to ACORN’s activities during the campaign season now appear suddenly to be ardent supporters of “counting every vote,” even if it means bending the rules to accommodate a certain group (overseas military).
It’s also supremely disingenous to suggest that Goode was the pro-military vote candidate while Perriello was not, and yet that’s exactly what Virgil tried to do! Talk about inventing your own reality.
Loved this addition from today’s DP story: “Perriello’s remarks on the courthouse steps were briefly interrupted when an angry young man, who apparently goes by the name “Peanut,” left an unrelated court hearing and attempted to pick a fight with a Perriello supporter. When another Perriello backer threatened to call the police, Peanut began walking away and yelled: “I ain’t afraid of the police. They scared of me, though.”
Following the interruption, Perriello continued his news conference without missing a beat.”
Cecil: Some of the same people who were quite recklessly screaming about “voter fraud” in regards to ACORN’s activities during the campaign season now appear suddenly to be ardent supporters of “counting every vote,” even if it means bending the rules to accommodate a certain group (overseas military).
Tell me what does the complaints of people herein Virignia have to do with the voting rights of soldiers in Iraq? One issue has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I guess the opinion here is that if a locality mails out absentee ballots late, or the military posts flies the ballots to Iraq not in a timely manner, or if the military commanders do not fly the ballots back to the states in a timely manner then soldier loses her right to vote. Shamefully ridiculous that someone would equate that to not counting the votes of people who are too lazy or triffling to carry their behinds to a registrar’s office to register to vote in the first place.
Setting aside your snotty comments about people who register to vote at places other than the registrar’s office (apparently the only morally correct and truly patriotic place to register to vote, in your view), can you please show me where in my post I did any “equating” — namely, any place where I said “these two things are exactly the same, they are equal to one another.”
Just mentioning two things in the same post does not equal equating them.
In the quote I posted of yours above, you equated “people who were quite recklessly screaming about ‘voter fraud’ with those who are “ardent supporters of ‘counting every vote…'”
Also, there’s nothing particularly morally correct or truly patriotic about ACORN’s actions; it’s a business with paid employees.
I love how upset the left gets over Fox News. It is hilarious. Do you really think NBC, CNN, CBS and MSNBC are fair and honest? I realize this is off the topic, but it did come up a bit here above? Chris Matthews (MSNBC) was close to having an on-air affair with Obama and nobody says anything. The very idea they give someone like O’Reilly or Hannity a voice, damn them, damn that Fox news.
blah, blah I agree. Does Fox News cover Charlottesvile? Since most of the topics here deal with this locality, I’m wondering who on Fox News is commenting about Charlottesville. I’m beginning to believe that the people who use that term to name-call, stereotype and opine are not capable of understanding any issue. They just go along with anybody that think belong to a certain pack and add nothing to the conversation. I’m becoming intrigues with this Fox News adjective but I really don’t want to spend days watching that channel just to figure out what the obviously small minds are trying to say.
The complaint generally isn’t about the content of those shows, it’s the bias of their ostensibly “fair and balanced” news coverage. By any metric, and by Fox News’ own admission, they’re an enormously conservative media outlet, meaning that they present information as if were factual, when they’re actually only telling half of the story.
No, Cville Eye, this is what seems to be going over your head: I talked about both those categories in the same post. That’s not the same as equating them.
Cecil, I only know English.
Waldo, the same can be said of ABC, NBC,… That’s why a lot of people get their “news” from a variety of sources. I have found bias at NPR and BBC, particularly by examining what they DON’T say. Unfortunately, news reporting has been so entwined with commentary, that they’re so blended that one really has to pay attention to what is fact, what is opinion and what is an unsupported conclusion (gosh I wish they would teach that in schools these days). I would love to teach Cecil to not put unrelated ideas in the same sentence. I don’t often find his ideas faulty, just sometimes they must be obscured by misleading expression.
No, no it couldn’t. Again, Fox News is overtly conservative by design, while claiming not to be. There is no other major media outlet in the United States like that.
60 Minutes has been billed as a “news magazine” and I can’t think of anything as offending when posing as journalism. They have never claimed to be unbiased in my knowledge.
Comments are closed.