-------
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 sincetaking 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 dois 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 beenamong 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 DuncanEx-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, the Monaco vacation itself would pale in comparison in news value.
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.THURSDAY NOVEMBER 20, 2008
Huckabee in Charleston on Dec. 4th
One-mark straight-ticket voting an archaic gimmick asking voters not to think
West Virginia's archaic "straight-ticket" voting option is a gimmicky and outdated device that asks voters to blindly support a party rather than consider candidates on their own merits. In fact, statistics appear to demonstrate that when one-mark, straight ticket votes of both parties are subtracted from the totals, Republicans tend to come out winners more often than not -- exactly the reason Democrats cling to the tradition and beg voters to put their brain waves on hold and just "pull the rooster."In the November 4th election, I voted "straight ticket," but I did it the old-fashioned way -- voting for each candidate one by one all the way down the ballot. The notion of making one mark at the top of the ticket blindly indicating "Republican" simply seems like an abdication of duty. I like voting for each candidate individually.I was discussing this subject Wednesday with Lisa Peana, who ran this year for the second time for the House of Delegates against Democrats Rick Thompson and Don Perdue. Lisa points out that in 2006, when she came in third in the two-delegate district, she actually came in first in Wayne County when straight-ticket votes of both parties were subtracted. This year, she finished third again, but would have finished second, and in the winner's circle, if the straight-ticket votes did not exist. There are only two things, both of them outdated and embarrassing to the state, that keep Democrats in power in West Virginia -- multi-delegate House districts and straight-ticket voting. If Democrats had to run against Republicans one-on-one in single-member districts -- like those that exist in the overwhelming majority of states -- Republicans would win control of the House immediately. (Winning the state senate has always been much more within the GOP's reach for this very reason.). Subtract straight-ticket voting, and the Dems would really be in trouble.While some Republicans choose the straight-ticket route, it's the Democrats who most aggressively promote the practice, traveling the state while loudly exorting their troops to ignore the candidates, just "pull the rooster," another phrase from a bygone era referring to the West Virginia symbol of the Democratic Party. It's an appeal to Democrats to put aside independent thinking, the qualifications of individual candidates, and their responsibility to consider each race on its own merit. And sadly, an impressive number of Democrats are willing each election to do exactly that.
MIKE HUCKABEE
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will be at Books-A-Million, Dudley Farms Plaza on Corridor G, Charleston, from noon-1 p.m. Dec. 4 at a book signing for his recent publication, "Do The Right Thing." Clip'n'save this one: In praise of Joe Manchin
Faithful readers might want to frame this particular article, because it is only the second time I can recall wherein I offer some praise for Gov. Joe Manchin (the first being three years ago when I commented on his handling of the Sago mine disaster).In fact, I often praise the governor as an excellent politician. Indeed, he has inborn political gifts that cannot be taught, so much so that they often allow him to escape real scrutiny on the issues. But beyond that, kind words here for Mojo are few.So, taking one more look back at the 2008 campaign, I would be remiss not to offer a couple of positive words for the gov.First, his agreement to engage in no less than four debates was surprising, and praiseworthy. He was obviously operating throughout the entire campaign from a position of strength -- a $3 million war chest, high approval ratings and a better-than-average economy due to the energy boom made him virtually unbeatable -- and he could obviously have escaped easily by agreeing to no debates whatsoever, even if he had endured some media criticism.At the most, he could have surely gotten by just doing the two televised debates, one by the West Virginia Broadcasters Association, the other by West Virginia Public Broadcasting. But agreeing also to a debate in Martinsburg and in Morgantown demonstrated a level of comfort defending his policies and whatever criticisms came his way, as well as an apparent belief that voters deserved to see the candidates in action side by side.The second area that impressed me came the day before the election, when I received a call from the State Police captain in charge of the governor's personal security detail. He was calling to graciously offer to assign a trooper to Russ Weeks on Election Day. Russ declined the offer, but he was appreciative of the gesture, and I assume the governor had a hand in extending it. It was classy.Third, when Russ called the governor on election night to concede the race and congratulate him, Russ asked the gov to follow up on issues surrounding Pincecrest Hospital in Beckley that have always been important to him. Manchin promised to do so, and even suggested that they get together after Thanksgiving to discuss it further in person -- an offer which Russ fully intends to pursue. Finally, the debates provided me an opportunity to interact further with both Lara Ramsburg, the governor's communications director, and Sara Scarbro, his campaign manager, both of whom were always gracious and friendly and did a thoroughly professional job.OK, that's it. But lest anyone think I'm getting soft, I'm throwing in a new Having Fun With Mojo for good measure.
Having
Fun
With
Mojo
Everything's rosy, so why all the bad news?
Hey kids! Mojo here! If you paid attention during the campaign, you know that everything's rosy in West Virginia! That's why I'm really confused about stuff in the news lately! Like, the fact that we seem to be facing a real financial crisis next year! And we continue to be among the most unhealthy states in the nation! (Geesh, Huntington, shape up!) And some are even saying I might have to worry about that Alcohol Beverage Control Administration investigation! Why does the last election already seem so far away?
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 21, 2008
Delegate Craig Blair has dropped his plans to challenge Tim Armstead as minority leader in the House of Delegates, with Armstead saying he and Blair "shared with each other our ideas about how we can improve our effectiveness..."In an email to the GOP caucus, Armstead wrote, "Over the past few days, Delegate Craig Blair and I have had veryfar worse off than where we are today. Early on, during the recruiting period, we could not find an individual that would have the pride of the party, courage and determination to challenge Gov. Manchin. Some had played with the idea, but at the end of the day, no one else had filed and put their name on the line to carry the Republican banner for a number of reasons.
Some felt that Manchin was unbeatable, had too much money and would be a suicide race leaving them with a political loss on their resume. Not to mention, Russ had also challenged the legislature by filing a lawsuit against the Legislature for an unconstitutional pay increase bringing light to the fact that the majority party will stop at nothing to pass legislation that takes care of their own personal interest before that of the people of West Virginia.But, we can be proud that Russ stepped up to the plate. He ran a clean, ethical race. Russ was able to bring a clear choice to the voters of WV through his hard work, determination, conservative legislative record and also, 4 debates. Had it not been for Russ filing and running, or a less viable candidate filling the vacancy, we may not have been able to have the minimum percentage of the vote, which in turn, would have cost us ballot access for 4 years. That would mean every Republican incumbent would have had to petition constituents just to keep fighting for their seat, and other recruited candidates would have had to do the same. There is no telling what damage such as that would have meant to our party: Lost seats, near impossibility to recruit future candidates, raise money, the list goes on and on. Russ spared us the possible embarrassment by running, what others feared an impossible campaign, and had a better election return than most expected.So, I wanted to personally say Russ, thank you. 
Russ Weeks
deserves thanks for his sacrifice
By LISA PEANA
I wanted to take a moment and write, what I feel, is a much needed thank you to Russ Weeks, our 2008 nominee for WV Governor. Had it not been for Russ, Iʼm afraid, our party would have been LISA PEANA
Blair drops bid for GOP leader post
Armstead says he looks forward to working with caucus on new objectives
TIM ARMSTEAD
CRAIG BLAIR
productive discussions about ways that we can move our caucus forward and improve our state. Craig and I shared with each other our ideas about how we can improve our effectiveness, and many of you have also shared with me your ideas as well."
Armstead said, "Throughout these discussions, they have been about ideas for the caucus as a whole. The discussion has not centered on who would serve where or jockeying about positions. Instead it has been one of exploring new and creative ideas that can help us get our message out to the people of West Virginia. One of the strengths of our caucus has always been that we value each other's ideas and input."Armstead added, "Yesterday, Craig shared with me that he does not intend to seek the position of Minority Leader. He and I agreed that I would forward this e-mail to you on behalf of both of us since he is on his way home today. As always, I have great respect for Craig and value his ideas and input. Our plan for moving forward is a work on progress and I look forward to working with all our members to develop and implement a blueprint for building on our prior successes and making our caucus even more effective in improving our state."Armstead became minority leader in 2006, replacing Charles Trump when Trump decided not to seek reelection.Armstead has served in the House of Delegates since he was first elected in 1998 and serves on Veterans Affairs/ Homeland Security and House Rules committees. Blair was elected to the House in 2002 and serves on Constitutional Revision and Industry & Labor/ Economic Development & Small Business Finance .'Real' presidential election yet to come
Five West Virginia McCain electors will meet in Charleston Dec. 15th
While voters across America went to the polls on November 4th to cast their ballots, when it comes to the presidential election what they were really voting for were electors, and those electors will gather in their respective states on December 15th to cast their votes and officially elect the president and vice president of the United States.Since John McCain won West Virginia, it will be his five delegates who will gather in Charleston to cast their votes for the GOP nominee. The five electors in West Virginia were nominated by Chairman Doug McKinney and approved by the delegates to the 2008 summer convention held in June in Flatwoods. Those electors are Sue McKinney, former party treasurer Terry Waxman, party office manager Marti Riggall, Princeton optometrist Zane Lawhorn, and state party vice chair Bob Fish.The number of electors in each state is determined by the census every 10 years, and is equal to the number of the state's congressional delegation (in West Virginia, two Senators and three Members of Congress). Forty-eight states, including West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have a winner-take-all system regarding electors, while two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion electors by winners of congressional districts, meaning electors can end up representing both the Democrat and Republican candidates.West Virginia has no rule binding electors to the candidate for which they were appointed, and four years ago elector Richie Robb caused a stir before the election by wavering on whether he would cast his vote for George W. Bush if Bush won West Virginia, which he eventually did. In the end, Robb cast his vote for Bush, who won the electoral college by a margin wide enough for Robb's vote not to have made a difference anyway.In modern history, only nine electors have turned into "faithless electors," casting their vote for a candidate other than the one for which they were appointed. One of them was Margaret Leach of West Virginia who, in 1988, when Michael Dukakis carried the state, instead cast her vote for Dukakis' running mate, Lloyd Bentsen.After electors cast their votes, a Joint Session of Congress convenes on January 6, 2009, to count the votes and officially declare the winner of the presidential race. 
TERRY WAXMAN (LEFT), MARTI RIGGALL
ZANE LAWHORN
SUE McKINNEY
BOB
FISH
THE ELECTORS
