Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Obama Coronation today, Virginia Republicans managed to sneak in a gerrymander eliminating a Democratic district. The vote was 20-19, and passed because one Dem lawmaker was out of town at the inauguration. As if to put an exclamation point on the deal, the legislature adjourned to honor Stonewall Jackson on MLK Day. Whew!

Now I’m no big fan of the Democrats, but this kind of sleaziness only reinforces the notion that the GOP has sunk to a new low in their effort to win elections at any cost. The cost on this one is any shred of integrity that may have remained after the last election. Watch for more rats to abandon this sinking ship.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus

  1. Greg Goodknight says:

    The tiebreaking vote would have been the *Republican* Lieutenant Governor.

  2. Todd Juvinall says:

    Not as sleazy as you think. Politics is too funny.

    • TD Pittsford says:

      Do you find this funny, Todd? Our country is falling apart at the seams because of the corruption and greed in our political system and you think it’s funny? Take another look, this time without the rose-colored glasses.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        The redistricting machinations in Virginia were not corrupt or greedy. Just hardball politics.

        I’m going to guess they were looking for a way to get it done without forcing the Lieutenant Governor to break the tie and burn some statewide political capital, and the opportunity arose.

        • rl crabb says:

          Further GOP desperation ploys are afoot, although it looks like Virginia will can the redistricting in that state. It looks like Repubbys will attempt to win by manipulating the electoral college so that they can win without a majority of votes. Perhaps their new slogan should be: “Taking back the country one square foot at a time.”

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Not having winner take all, and instead awarding one (1) electoral vote per congressional district, and (2) additional to the majority winner for the entire state would be a boon. Imagine, a Presidential election where more than just 10 states were in play.

            Dems gamed the system as it is because of the winner take all. California was guaranteed to give all its electoral votes to whoever the Dem was, so there was, once again, no campaigning here, just the occasional fundraising. If this new push to an old idea succeeds we’d all be better off; no, it wouldn’t be like 2012 campaigning, both campaigns (and the 3rd parties that would have a chance to pick off the odd congressional district by their own targeted campaigns) would be taking their act on the road to *every* district that needed attention, not just to “battleground states”.

          • rlcrabb says:

            Yeah, right. I’m sure the Republicans are worried about giving third parties some traction, since they’re in danger of becoming one. I used to be one of those who thought the electoral college should go the way of the dodo, but in recent years I’ve come to realize that it is essential to balance rural vs. urban interests. That doesn’t mean I endorse a plan that would enable the “tyranny of the minority.” Elections do have consequences and at some point you have to be able to govern. I have no doubt that Democrats will overplay their hand and people will turn to some alternative. If the Republicans want to be that party they should work on winning hearts and souls instead of rigging the system. On the other hand, we could give the vote to our imaginary internet girlfriends and the cows on the back forty. George Orwell was right: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. My barnyard is bigger than your quarter-acre lot.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Bob, I think reading the Huffpo account gave you the wrong idea about it; it was nonsensical of them to just plug in the 2012 results. The results everywhere outside of the battleground states would have been different if their votes counted. California’s Republican areas were written off by both sides.

            In any case, how to award presidential electors is a state matter qand I applaud Virginians for working on one more proportional scheme, but I doubt California’s Dems will go for it before the GOP wins a couple of times and that hell isn’t close to freezing over. Maybe after the next Maunder.

          • Brad Croul says:

            How about we try, one person, one vote?

            Instant Runoff Voting would also allow people to vote for their favorite candidate with a “fallback” to their second, or third, choices in the event their first choice lost to their second or third choices.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Brad, for Presidential elections, that’s a formula for the whole country melting down in lawsuits the next time the popular vote is close. Imagine Florida 2000 times 50.

            There is not a chance in hell that any of the smaller states will ratify a change to the Constitution that abolishes the Electoral College, so you might as well embrace the Constitution as written, or at least that section.

  3. rl crabb says:

    Democrats lure voters with promises and gifts. Republicans just try to eliminate voters. Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy in the long run.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      A Gerrymander doesn’t eliminate a single voter, RL, and Dems do it with as much gusto as the GOP does. In fact, it helped put the state of California into the state it’s in.

      • rl crabb says:

        I never claimed that Democrats don’t have salamander slime on their hands, but you have to admit this is a pretty dumb move from a P.R. standpoint, given the timing and the significance of the event. Subtlety has never been the strong suit of the GOP. And gerrymandering may not eliminate a voter, but they can sure make him irrelevant.

  4. Brad Croul says:

    The South shall rise again!

  5. TD Pittsford says:

    It becomes more apparent every day that neither party gives a damn about this county, only their own bank accounts and the perks to which they believe they are entitled simply because the consistently hoodwink the voters into believing their lies and subterfuges.

  6. George Rebane says:

    All political parties, especially those with strong ideologies, believe that for their nostrums to benefit the people, their party must not only survive but also be as dominant as possible. So for the sake of the people, all means to such survival and dominance are justified. No political party ever folded its tent on the basis of higher principle. It was ever thus.

    • Douglas Keachie says:

      “No political party ever folded its tent on the basis of higher principle.” But the Tea Potted Republicans gave the concept a good run for the money. Now, having been paddywhacked in the sphincter (a favorite word of Greg and George’s, see even good old Gingrich is coming around on immigration and gun laws.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        By “favorite word”, Keachie means that, in the last couple years, I’ve used it three times at Rebane’s blog. Shocking.

        Over at Rebane’s, Keachie has finally been specific about his ulterior motive, and his post above, trying to drive traffic to his own rarely visited blog, is related to it:
        “Gregory Goodknight can be vetted by Google or whoever, and I am doing a public service by making sure his character is known far and wide.” Keach, 9:25AM Jan 25

        The human body has over 50 sphincters. Some of Keachie’s may be more prominent than in others.

        • Douglas Keachie says:

          Greg is blind to his obsessive compulsive habit of describing his debating opponents in whatever fancy anal retentive terms he can come up with, when his arguments turn out to be too weak. Sphincter Greg has a nice “ring” to it, I think I’ll keep it.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Having used ‘the word’ three times in the past couple years set Keachie off; talk about weak arguments. I believe he’s now used it more than I have.

            Keachie’s obsessive-compulsion is to tar my reputation, now nicely documented in variety of places.

            Sorry, RL.

          • Douglas Keachie says:

            Greg has done a fabulous job on his own reputation. My efforts, have been to save him, from himself. I wonder how many jobs he’s killed due to his mishandling of his sails, as he navigates the wicked seas of free market capitalism?

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “My efforts, have been to save him, from himself. ”

            Bull. Over and over, you’ve made stuff up and falsely attributed the words to me, in this and other blogs. That’s defamation, Keach.

        • Douglas Keachie says:

          That’s showbiz, Greg. Smooth sailing to you, and mind how you handle your spinnaker.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Yes, Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus. Over at Rebane’s, Keachie has made clear statements that he has identified the “core science that is not being done in any systematic way by either side in GW [global warming]” research. Pure crackpot stuff that I can use.

            That is all. I hope bringing it back to at least the title of the thread that it won’t anger the cartoonist whose patrons buy their ink by the barrel.

          • rlcrabb says:

            And here I thought The Sphincter was a character from from that obscure comic book series from the fifties, Alien Probe Comics. But seriously, Keachie, nobody gives a rat’s sphincter about your ongoing duel with Greg. Please keep it to your own far star.

          • Jesus Betterman says:

            And of course greg has easily found the answer to the obvious question in re global warming, that I posed over on Rebane’s to the effect of: What is the current heat content of the biosphere, and how has it changed over the last 30 years? Until scientists can get nimbers for that that they can agree on, GW, pro and con, ain’t going nowhere, and Greg still hasn’t found Canyon, a spot equivalent to Claremont. Hint, Roger and his Cessna kept this distribution point well stocked during the 1960’s.

          • Greg Goodknight says:


            Can anyone guess what the IPCC process has been spending $80+ billion US on over the past 20 years?

            Here you go, Doug, I guess your websurfing skills have atrophied:

            that is all. Out.

  7. Tony Waters says:

    George is right. Parties are about seeking and wielding power first and foremost. Principles come tumbling after.

    Parties which gain power for the first time inevitable see their “principles” deteriorate. Parties which hold power a long time often have only a rhetorical commitment to first principles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *