-------
Google Custom Search
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
The Republican Gazette

Memories from 2007-2008
MONDAY NOVEMBER 17, 2008
First step for GOP is more aggressiveness at both the legislative and party levels 
When Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey explained why certain Republican lawmakers were being targeted for defeat this year, he said they were "considered obstructionists because of their opposition to the House's Democratic majority."
In other words, they are exactly what the GOP needs in greater numbers.
The lawmakers targeted by the Dems and unions were Delegates Craig Blair, Kelli Sobonya, Mitch Carmichael, Carol Miller, Mike Porter, Patti Schoen, Tom Azinger and State Sen. Clark Barnes. As Carmichael said, being targeted by the Dems is a badge of honor, and every Republican who wasn't in their crosshairs should make it their mission to achieve that status by the next election.
The Democrats' notion of a "good Republican" is one who lines up with leadership with no questions asked, poses for bill signing photos while the governor or the speaker or the senate president praises them for their "bipartisan approach" while the gov takes credit for "working with members on both sides of the aisle."
All of which does nothing but keep the GOP in its permanent minority status, happy to get a pat on the head once in a while and maybe an invitation to the next big event in the big white tent on Kanawha Boulevard.
If legislative Republicans were within single digits of being in the majority, or if West Virginia was a state that every 10 years or so swung between GOP and Democratic control, being a party of compromise and bipartisanship would make sense.
But as a party stuck in an eight-decade cycle of permanent minority status, the GOP must be more consistently aggressive in clearly distinguishing itself from the Dems,  challenging the ruling party not just on an occasional high-profile issue like campaign finance reform, but on every issue during every session where the Dems are more concerned with walking in lockstep with the governor than they are in doing what's best for West Virginia.
Let the Democrats and the state Chamber of Commerce call us obstructionists. Let the governor scratch our names off the Christmas party list. Let us be on the losing side of every vote taken on every bad bill.  Only when we stake out our territory as being different on almost every issue and each cause will we be able to deliver a clear message of difference to voters at election time.
Is this a drastic posture to take? Yes. Are drastic measures needed to ever hope to win? Yes.
The GOP goal must be no less than winning control of the state House and Senate. Picking up one or two seats here or there is no prize. Republicans must stake out their ground, stick to their guns, and most importantly, communicate well to the voters why they are doing so.
In an editorial last week, the Charleston Daily Mail said, "A person can be a lifelong Republican and never have heard from the West Virginia GOP at all. How could the party fix that?... Fixing communications could fix everything."
While the Daily Mail's focus was on the state party, the same is true for GOP lawmakers. Many lawmakers communicate well with their own constituents in their own districts, but communicating a message to the whole state about what the GOP is doing and why is what is needed.
Achieving such a goal requires a party unified around the notion that we all share a common goal, and that the needs of the many (West Virginians who deserve better leadership) outweigh the needs of the few (some GOP lawmakers who may be in safe districts and have no personal motivation to rock the boat).
In this effort, lawmakers must work in concert with state and local party officials. The GOP chairman should be invited to legislative caucuses to discuss what's going on and make sure the message is consistent and aggressively delivered.
The Democrats, and some in the media, will cry foul, accusing the GOP of partisanship and being more concerned with winning elections than in passing legislation good for the state.
So be it. As it stands now, Republican lawmakers are almost always faced with either opposing legislation outright, or voting for the lesser of two evils. Democrats set the agenda, write the bills and decide which ones even get voted on. Until the GOP does what is necessary to put itself in that position by controlling the House and Senate, it will continue to find itself only in the "amen corner," instead of planning and preaching the sermon. Why should voters elect Republicans when Republicans have been happy to join the Democrats on issue after issue? Republicans must demonstrate the difference.
Republicans should not oppose everything just for the sake of voting no. But when bills get dumped on their desks five minutes before votes are taken, Republicans must refuse to suspend the three-reading rule. When Democrats offer nothing but the lesser of two evils, Republicans must hold out for better bills, or cast nay votes. The lesser of two evils is not good enough.
Let the Democrats pass bad or mediocre bills on a purely partisan vote, then let them defend themselves at election time.
Republicans must declare war, and then fight the battle. West Virginia is a red state. The people of West Virginia -- including most Democrats -- clearly want to vote Republican, as evidenced by the huge victories by John McCain and Shelley Moore Capito.
Let's give them a reason to do so all the way down the line.
West Virginia is a red state, and even Democrats want to vote Republican. The party & lawmakers must give them a reason to do so down the ticket
Blair challenging Armstead for GOP minority leadership position
As reported last week by "Talkline" host  Hoppy Kercheval, Delegate Craig Blair is challenging Delegate Tim Armstead for the minority leadership post, which Armstead has held since the retirement of former Delegate Charles Trump in 2006.
Like Trump, Armstead is universally respected as a calm and levelheaded attorney whose personal integrity is above reproach. But also like Trump, he is seen by many GOP members as not aggressive enough in either fighting the Democrats or delivering the GOP message.
It is likely that Blair and Armstead each have about eight to ten solid supporters, leaving another eight to ten delegates who can be persuaded either way.
(Apparently, some of Armstead's supporters are claiming that yours truly is behind the Blair movement. There is zero truth to that -- not that it matters to those who want to claim it -- but I learned a long time ago that I make a convenient villain for some folks even when I just mind my own business. No problem. I just feel sorry for Blair and his supporters hearing me get the credit/blame for their efforts.)
Blair, of course, would be the Democrats' worst nightmare, and was one of those targeted by that party for defeat in the November election. It will be interesting to see whether the Dems or others get involved in trying to keep Blair from winning the post.
For what it's worth, I like and respect Tim Armstead. But as spelled out in the column at left, I'm a believer in the need to shake things up wherever possible under the current circumstances, and Blair is nothing if not a mover and a shaker.
The actual vote will be taken during next month's interims set for Dec. 7-9.
In-laws on the Supreme Court make an interesting dynamic
One of the best kept secrets -- at least in regard to media coverage -- during the 2008 campaign was the engagement and marriage of Republican  Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin's daughter to the son of Democrat Supreme Court candidate Margaret Workman.
The nuptials took place in October.
While he observed ethics rules about not openly campaigning for anyone, Benjamin was a clear supporter of Republican candidate Beth Walker. But the fact that Workman was soon to be his daughter's mother-in-law presented an interesting dynamic all around, as Brent is clearly proud of his son-in-law and fond of the Workman family in general.
And so, it will be interesting to watch Benjamin and Workman serve together on the bench and, when they cast divergent votes, as they surely will do quite often, to speculate on just how animated those family dinner conversations could become.
GOP, Dems must guard against Manchin notion that his victory was some kind of clear mandate
With Puccio rumored to be leaving, and Mojo looking to future, opportunities abound for lawmakers to go their own way this time
Format changes for The Republican Gazette
Beginning today, there are a few format changes for The Republican Gazette.
First, the online newspaper is now located at this new address, republicangazette.com. (It was earlier featured as a sub-page of Abernathy Strategies.) Second, each week's Monday-Friday editions will remain available on this page for the entire week, so readers can simply scroll down the page to see previous posts. Then, each week's editions will be archived on Sunday night, with a new page starting each Monday. Finally, our business website is now featured at a new and separate address.
A sincere thanks to everyone who encouraged the swift return of The Republican Gazette, and apologies to those who hoped it would remain dormant.
Republican of the Year to be named Monday, November 24
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2008
Much behind-the-scenes maneuvering likely in case of Supreme Court decision to consider Caperton
The United States Supreme Court's decision late last week to take up the Harman-Caperton v. Massey Energy case likely came after much behind-the-scenes maneuvering from Harman lawyer Theodore Olson.
Olson, of course, gained fame as the attorney for George W. Bush when he successfully convinced the Supreme Court in 2000 that Al Gore's recount strategy was too narrowly defined to hold muster. He later served as U.S. Solicitor General. So Olson is a guy who knows his way around the highest levels of jurisprudence, and is not without considerable influence.
When filing an appeal to the nation's highest court, lawyers are constrained to make their cases within a fairly strict limit of arguments and text. This is where "friend of the court," or "amicus" briefs come in, and there have been no shortage of those in this case, with groups including the American Bar Association, the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, the Campaign Legal Center & Reform Institute at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, and the Committee on Economic Development, all filing amicus briefs, which allow interests who are not a party to a case to offer information on some aspect of the case to "help" the court reach a decision.
It is likely no coincidence that these briefs have been remarkably similar to Olson's own petitions, and in fact lawyers have long learned the trick of extending their own arguments beyond their allowed  limits by simply finding friendly groups to file amicus briefs to throw in additional arguments beyond what their own constraints allow. The Supreme Court in fact has been discussing the possibility of ending amicus briefs altogether for this very reason.
As you recall, Harman and its owner, Hugh Caperton, are arguing that Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from the case because Massey's owner, Don Blankenship, spent several million dollars helping to defeat Benjamin's opponent, Warren McGraw, in the 2004 election. The fact is ignored that Blankenship acted independently of the Benjamin campaign, and that Benjamin's own rulings since
taking a seat on the bench have cost Massey Energy more money than it has won, and that it took two other justices voting in Massey's favor for Massey to prevail.
The High Court's decision in this case will be ground- breaking if it rules in Harman's favor. In essence, it will be saying that the strict legal line drawn in our laws in regard to independent expenditures are rather meaningless, and that anyone who chooses to spend money to influence an election has in effect tainted a candidate to the point that it is automatically assumed said candidate is unable to judge fairly the individual who engaged in the independent expenditure.
Further, a ruling in favor of Harman would be a precedent-setting intrusion of federal power over the rights of states to determine their own rules in regard to recusal, and maybe even in regard to how judges are elected in the first place.
Such a ruling could also open the door to a variety of shenanigans. For example, suppose I was wealthy (I love to dream) and I read the tea leaves and realized that Menis Ketchum was likely going to win the 2008 Supreme Court race in West Virginia. For one reason or another, I do not want Ketchum sitting on any cases in which I might be involved. So all I do is spend a million or so on his behalf. Automatically, under the Harman-Caperton reasoning, Ketchum must recuse himself from hearing any case involving me.
Benjamin summed it up best in his concurrence, writing, "Under the self-serving due process standard of disqualification proposed by the Appellees and the Dissenting opinion herein, the actual purpose of due process would be frustrated by litigants who would hold a near-veto power over the composition of a publicly-elected court, by those who could wage public relations campaigns designed to malign judicial officers in order to manufacture 'apparent conflicts,' and by those who would challenge a decision not by its legal correctness, but by its political correctness. The long-lasting negative effect on public confidence in our courts caused by an appearance-driven due process standard for disqualification of a judicial officer would be incalculable."
West Virginia is somewhat of an anomaly on the geopolitical landscape of the United States.  In Presidential elections we vote like the Republican conservative south and on a state level we vote like the Democrat liberal northeast.  We soundly rejected the liberal philosophy of Barrack Obama with 56% of the people voting John McCain, but we voted for the very same liberal philosophy on a state and regional level. So why do we have a voting split personality?  Simply many conservatives in the state think like Neville Chamberlain.
On September 30th, 1938 after signing the Munich Agreement to stop German expansion through appeasement, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared, “Peace for our time.”  A little less than a year later Germany broke the agreement and invaded Poland. The world was plunged into war for the next 6 years.
Seventy years later many Republican leaning, pro-business and conservative, individuals and organizations lined up behind Democrats running for office in West Virginia, candidates that in many cases openly opposed the ideas of conservatives.  Their idea is to stop the expansion of bad liberal policies through appeasement rather than direct confrontation, all the while declaring “Prosperity for our time.” 
It didn’t work in 1938 and it doesn’t work today. While we are not going to enter into a war, it does insure they we are continuing with the same bad economic policies out of Charleston that have been destroying West Virginia.  We conservatives and business leaders need only look in the mirror to see who is to blame and I include myself in that group. 
So what needs to be done?  We need to stop trying to have influence in the state government through a process of appeasement of candidates that do not wholly support a conservative pro-business agenda.   We can no longer pick and choose who we think will win. We must fund conservative candidates at the expense of trying to buy influence with liberal candidates we think might win.  We will make mistakes at times, but more often then not we will begin to pick up seats across the state.  When our funding of appeasement stops, liberal candidates will begin to fall short of funding just as conservative candidates' funding begins to rise.
Many in the state fear retribution from the left if they stop funding appeasement, but consider as the balance of power shifts to the conservatives in the state, then the power of retribution shifts with it.  West Virginia is a conservative state and should be a solid Red state, but it is not the liberals that keep themselves in power.  It is appeasement-funding conservatives that keep the liberals in power.  We need to make a change.
Appeasement of status quo no way to bring about changes West Virginia needs the most
By Gary Howell
GARY HOWELL
Don't watch and wait -- time to give to WVGOP is now
While everyone and his brother, and sister, and aunt and uncle are busy discussing the future of the West Virginia Republican Party, the worst thing the GOP faithful can do
is just sit back and watch what happens before being proactive in starting now to make the party stronger. The party needs to begin immediately to build its coffers so a full staff can be in place beginning early in 2009 to begin identifying and recruiting candidates, communicating its message, and putting in place all the winning ingredients necessary for victory in
2010. Building a party basically from scratch is not something that can be accomplished in a few months. The GOP cannot wait until the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010 to rebuild, and the building blocks are spelled m-o-n-e-y.
Just click on the image above to make an online donation, and be part of making the GOP strong again in West Virginia.
Tommy Phillips new chairman in Harrison County
TOMMY PHILLIPS
Tommy Phillips on Monday was elected the new chair of the Harrison County Republican Executive Committee. Phillips replaces Sue McKinney, who resigned the position last week.
Phillips has been
among the state's most active Republicans in recent years.
Phillips, of Bridgeport, said Monday, "I want to continue on the national success that Harrison County has had in the past two presidential elections, and get the Democrats and independents that trust our national ticket to join us to elect a Republican county commissioner in 2010 and to gain a seat in the House of Delegates in the 41st District."
Phillips has served the state party as a webmaster, communications co-chair, Voter Vault administrator and other positions. He was a field director for Chris Wakim's 2006 congressional race, and has served as an officer, including president, of the Harrison County Republican Club. He is also an at-large member of the state GOP executive committee.
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 19, 2008
For several months, nominations for Republican of the Year have been pouring in to The Republican Gazette. Among those nominated have been legislators, county chairs, state party officials and many rank and file grassroots activists. The winner will be name next Monday, Nov. 24.
Gov. Joe Manchin will undoubtedly approach upcoming legislative sessions with a heavy-handed agenda in one hand and his 70% re-election result in the other. But both Republicans and Democrats must resist the notion that the gov's election performance represented any kind of a mandate.
Obviously, what his re-election demonstrated was the power of name I.D., a $3 million war chest and strong party support, versus lack of name I.D., a $30,000 piggybank, and a destitute party. That is all anyone should read into the results of the 2008 governor's race.
Manchin, of course, has shown time and again that he is not shy when it comes to threatening, cajoling and arm twisting to achieve his legislative ends. Two years ago, he famously told a reticent Democrat lawmaker, "I'm safe in 2008, are you?"
In fact, there has never been a more opportune time for lawmakers to go off the reservation. Rumors are swirling that Manchin's chief of staff, Larry Puccio, is on the verge of leaving and going back to the private sector. (Dem chair Nick Casey is said to be in line for the chief of staff spot, which will result in an even more confrontational approach.)
For his part, the gov is likely already plotting his own political future, with one eye on whether Robert C. Byrd has taken up jogging, and the other on opportunities that may arise in the Obama administration. Either way, the boring business of another four years as governor will barely keep him awake.
Manchin does have one strong piece of leverage he will no doubt use against rebellious Democrat lawmakers -- money.
He likely continues to have a million or so bucks left over from the campaign, which he cannot use for a federal race, but can give to other state candidates or the party for the 2010 campaign, giving him a carrot with which to entice fence riders, or a stick to punish rebels.
RNC seeks input on direction of GOP
Following is a message from Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
As we as a Party regroup after our near miss in the presidential election, we must reflect on what our Party has done well and what we can improve moving forward. It is for that reason we have created a new Web site for you to share your thoughts on the direction of the Republican Party. Please take a moment to visit www.RepublicanForAReason.com and create an account to begin the dialogue.
The Republican Party has always been the party of reason and hope, and I strongly believe we will continue in this tradition as we work to the future.
I thank everyone who volunteered their time, money, and energy to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. It was a ground-breaking year for the Party on a number of issues and those milestones would not have been met without your tireless efforts.
Moving forward, you have the opportunity to reflect on the reasons why you are a Republican on this site.
I look forward to your input and your ideas.
Best wishes,
Mike Duncan
Ex-court employee puts Justice Starcher back on the hot seat
An employee at the West Virginia Supreme Court who either resigned or was fired, depending on which day of the week it was, has put Justice Larry Starcher back in the hot seat in regard to the infamous photos of Chief Justice Spike Maynard vacationing with Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship.
The first story that moved on Pancho Morris' separation from his job at the court said, "Pancho G. Morris resigned Friday, effective immediately, as administrative counsel for the state Supreme Court's Magistrate Court Services Division, said court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy."
But a short time later on Monday, another story in the Charleston Daily Mail said, "A former state Supreme Court official says he was fired for being suspected of leaking the photos that cost Justice Elliott 'Spike' Maynard reelection this year and for accusing court Administrator Steve Canterbury of using racially charged language around the office."
News reports indicate that after he resigned Friday, Morris "rescinded" his resignation Monday and accepted a letter of termination issued by Canterbury.
Now, Morris is claiming he was suspected of having a hand in the leaking of the photos "because he associates with Justice Larry Starcher..."
Which raises the question, why would Morris think his association with Starcher would lead people to suspect he leaked the photos? Is there a general perception that Starcher had a hand in the leaked pics? Such speculation is not new. When he recused himself from the Harman-Caperton v. Massey case -- it was the Harman lawyers who mysteriously came into possession of the photos -- Starcher said he was doing so "because of his role in the controversy," never specifying what that role was.
Morris, by the way, was also the supervisor of Brenda Magann, who was also on the French Riviera trip with Maynard and Blankenship.
Leaked vacation photos is the story never pursued
As described in the story below, a West Virginia Supreme Court employee is claiming he was fired -- after he resigned -- because he was suspected of leaking the infamous photos showing Justice Spike Maynard vacationing with Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship on the French Riviera. The photos are widely credited with helping defeat Maynard in the May primary election.
Just how attorneys for Hugh Caperton came into possession of the photos is one of the most under-developed stories of the 2008 election campaign. The most in-depth news report of the time said, "Bruce Stanley, a lawyer for Caperton, said the photos came to him anonymously." That was it.
Source of the leaked photos was never pursued.
Speculation and rumors have abounded in regard to who took the photos, how they came to land in the hands of lawyers for Harman Mining, and whether any officials at the Supreme Court had a hand in any of it. But to date, most news agencies have failed to find any answers, and only one or two
reporters were known to even be trying, a remarkable situation given that if the speculation is anything close to the truth, it would make the Monaco vacation look like jaywalking.
Barack Obama appears to be creating third Clinton term
Barack Obama seems content to create an administration made up largely of Clinton Administration retreads.
Anyone truly hoping for "change we can believe in" is apparently in for a big disappointment, as President-elect Barack Obama seems content to rely primarily on retreads from the Clinton Administration as he forms his own executive branch.
So far, Obama's bold changes include naming ex-Clinton senior advisor Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, ex-Clinton chief of staff John Podesta as chief of his transition team (signaling a big role for Podesta in the administration), ex-Clinton Justice Department official Eric Holder Jr. as attorney general, and Obama is apparently on the verge of naming ex-Clinton First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Also said to be in line for Treasury secretary is ex-Clinton Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers. Obama's administration is going to look more like Clinton's than if Hillary had won.