The 2008 election cycle is over, and by all accounts we had a good election in both May and November.  Lines were not overly long, no machines blew up, and people were pretty much satisfied with their overall voting experience. But back in 2000, who could have realized what a difference some Florida chads would make.
When I took office in 2005, the use of electronic touch screen machines, along with optical scan and paper, was already set in state code and also in West Virginia’s State HAVA Plan.  Congress had already passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, and mandated that states get rid of punch cards and levered voting machines, although we in West Virginia had precious few problems with either.
The State Purchasing Division issued a request for proposal for a vendor to provide what state code mandated, and a bi-partisan committee (of which I was NOT a member) reviewed, evaluated and scored the responses of four vendors, ultimately recommending to Purchasing that the contract be awarded to Election Systems and Software.  Counties had the choice of an optical scan system, a touch screen system with a paper trail, or a “plain” paper system.
We know there have been mechanical problems with the touch screen as well as the optical scan systems, but my office, as do the county clerks, stand by our election results, because of our state’s stringent testing laws.
We know that in 2007, Ohio and California conducted in-depth tests on the “innards” of both these systems to seek out security problems.  We know conspiracy theories abound that electronic voting machines are being used by Republicans to steal elections.  (If that were the case, wouldn’t we see more Republicans actually winning in West Virginia?)
Both Ohio and California used touch screen machines in the ’08 general election.  We read their studies and learned a great deal about how better to safeguard our own touch screen machines.  We understand that Maryland will stop using touch screen machines by 2010 and Virginia will get rid of their touch screens as soon as they wear out and will move to a paper ballot.  (Significantly, neither Maryland nor Virginia’s machines have the voter verified paper trail that by law is equipped on all of West Virginia’s touch screen voting machines.)
No wonder people are confused and concerned. But if public confidence in electronic voting machines, either in West Virginia or nationwide, becomes terribly eroded, here are some suggestions for what we can do regarding our voting machines:
1. Counties could choose to get rid of touch screens and purchase optical scan systems or use plain paper systems.  (Thirty-five of our counties use touch screens and their voters like them; are their commissioners willing to scrap these machines and spend millions on a new system?);
2.  The West Virginia Legislature could outlaw the use of electronic voting equipment altogether but would have to find some way to pay for new systems, so counties would not be saddled with yet again another unfunded mandate. 
3.  West Virginia could explore the possibility of “voting by mail” such as they do in Oregon and Washington.  (But given our state’s history of election fraud, do we REALLY want to trust putting 1.4 million ballots in the mail?); or
4.  West Virginia could pressure the federal Election Assistance Commission to get moving on certifying upgrades that all voting machine manufacturers have been waiting on for over 2 years, conduct a review of the new, improved versions, and then go from there.
Of course, Congress could eventually decide that all states have to use a certain type of voting system, and we’d have no say in the matter.  But that’s what the Feds did to us in 2002 with the now much-questioned HAVA, and for obvious reasons, I strongly believe that Congress should stay out of our elections, period.
Fair and clean elections cannot tolerate a lack of public confidence and trust in the very systems that make the process work.  Therefore, before my term expires, I will begin dialogue with county clerks and legislators about how the state can avoid the ugliness and uncertainty we had leading up to the 2008 General Election.  The integrity of our democratic system of election demands it, and no voter should ever doubt the sanctity of his or her vote.
Betty Ireland is the West Virginia Secretary of State.
Google Custom Search
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
The Republican Gazette
MONDAY DECEMBER 1, 2008
Underwood memorial set for 11 today
Memorial services for former Gov. Cecil Underwood are set for 11 a.m. today at Christ Church United Methodist, 1221 Quarrier St. in Charleston. Sue McKinney sent along a couple of pictures testifying to the governor's dedication to participating in GOP events whenever he was asked. Above, Underwood poses with fellow former Gov. Arch Moore at a recent Hancock County Lincoln Day Dinner. At left is Hancock chair Jeff Wargo, and on the right is GOP chair Doug McKinney. Below, Underwood and McKinney pose for a photo at a Harrison County Pig Roast in 2006.  Underwood in fact drove himself from Charleston to the event, and afterwards headed to the grocery store to shop for a large family celebration on Labor Day at his farm (located near Clarksburg).
Dems' challenge of residency is quite amusing
Delegate Jeff Tansill was involved in a razor-thin election for Taylor County Commissioner, winning by 344 votes. But his election is being challenged by Democrats who claim Tansill's primary residence is not in Taylor County -- quite a hypocritical stand for the Democratic Party.
If all the Democrat legislators elected from various districts around the state whose primary residence is actually Charleston were removed from office for such an infraction, Republicans would suddenly hold the majority.
As one GOP lawmaker said, "There are several legislators who have condos in Charleston year around who hardly grace their presence in their own districts."
When Democrat Sen. Billy Wayne Bailey was challenged on the fact he actually does not reside in Wyoming County, he in fact initially admitted he had moved to Raleigh County, which would make him ineligible to serve. Then he changed his mind and said "I’ve got a post office box in Pineville and I can claim a residence at my mother’s house in Alpoca.”
Apparently everyone was satisfied, since Bailey continues to serve -- at least until January, when he gives up his seat after pursuing an unsuccessful bid for the Democrat nomination for Secretary of State.
So all Tansill really needs is a post office box, or a relative's house to claim as his own.
Manchin says he's not planning to go to Obama for a handout
Gov. Joe Manchin told syndicated columnist David Broder that when he and other governors meet with President-elect Barack Obama this week on the economic crisis, "I don't want to see us going there with our hands out. I want us ready to roll up our sleeves and go to work with Washington."
Manchin also told Broder that despite the fact that Hillary Clinton crushed Obama in his state's primary election, and John McCain won handily in November, Obama "had gone more than halfway in involving governors during the campaign, and now in the transition," as Broder paraphrased the governor.
But Broder spelled out the economic realities for most states, saying, "state and local governments from one end of the country to the other are hurting badly. On Monday, the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures are holding a bipartisan phone-in news conference to 'outline the current fiscal situation and urge Congress and the next administration to provide a recovery package that will spur job growth, support infrastructure projects and ease the burden of Medicaid costs.'"
----
Harrison reminds West Virginians about the importance of Lincoln Day
When Gov. Joe Manchin made the day after Thanksgiving an official paid holiday for state workers -- something other governors had been doing unofficially for several years -- he justified it by removing Abraham Lincoln's birthday as a paid holiday.
But then-Senator Steve Harrison didn't think
HARRISON
LINCOLN
that was quite right. So Harrison and other Republican sponsored legislation, which passed, proclaiming the fourth Friday of each November as Lincoln Day. "We should continue to recognize Lincoln for the important roles he played as the president of our nation, in freeing the slaves, and for being the one who signed the proclamation creating this state," Harrison said at the time.
Friday was the third official Lincoln´s Day Holiday in West Virginia.  "Remembering President Abraham Lincoln on the day after Thanksgiving in West Virginia is appropriate for at least two reasons," says Harrison. "First, President Abraham Lincoln has a significant place in the history of West Virginia because he was the President whose proclamation enabled us to become a separate state. Second, President Lincoln also had a significant role in how we currently celebrate Thanksgiving with his 1863 Proclamation, 'to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.'"
Adds Harrison, "The Thanksgiving holiday has long been a time to celebrate how God has blessed our nation and our families. Lincoln´s Day is a time to remember President Lincoln and what he did for West Virginia and how he helped establish our American tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving on a Thursday in November."
West Virginia being the only state essentially created by presidential fiat, keeping a holiday in Lincoln's honor is more than appropriate.
When making his case -- during the Civil War -- for West Virginia statehood, Lincoln wrote, "We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle; much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress and in the
field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the Union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the Union under very severe trials. We have so acted as to justify their hopes; and we can not fully retain their confidence, and co-operation, if we seem to break faith with them. In fact, they could not do so much for us, if they would."
President Lincoln issued many orders regarding his belief in the need to give thanks. For example, on November 28, 1861, he ordered government departments closed for a local day of thanksgiving. The holiday we know today as Thanksgiving was recommended to Lincoln by Sarah Josepha Hale, a prominent magazine editor. Her letters to Lincoln urged him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival."
TUESDAY DECEMBER 2, 2008
Suggestions on what to do on voting
By Betty Ireland
Underwood remembered as a visionary who loved his family
CECIL UNDERWOOD
Former Governor Cecil Underwood was fondly remembered Monday as a visionary leader who loved his family, was measured in his words and actions, and treated everyone he encountered with respect, regardless of their social standing.
A memorial service at Christ Church United Methodist in Charleston drew a packed hall of hundreds of mourners, but the solemn occasion was frequently lightened by humorous remarks from both family and friends.
Amid beautiful hymns by The Chancel Choir, Underwood's life and accomplishments were feted by
his current and former pastors, two of his children and Gov. Joe Manchin.
The pastor who served him at the end of his life, Dr. Randall F. Flanagan, noted that while Underwood was a quiet man, he could be read through his eyes, which reflected his mood even when he could not articulate words. Former pastor Dr. F. Emerson Wood recalled his duties driving Underwood as he sought the governorship in 1996, saying he came to appreciate the governor's humor, love for West Virginia and belief in the ability to accomplish great things at any age.
Grandson Chris Richardson reminded those in attendance that to him and the other Underwood grandchildren, the governor was "just granddad," who taught life's lessons through his own example. And son Craig Underwood recalled his father in an emotional tribute recounting the governor's life journey from humble childhood in a home with no electricity or running water to a governor who led the way in providing computers and internet service to the state.
Manchin expressed his appreciation for spending time lately with the Underwood family, and, acknowledging the many elected officials in attendance, said he was struck by the fact that at one time or another, nearly all had either run "with or against" Underwood in elections over the years.  
Among the many officials in attendance were Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, former Governor and Mrs. Arch Moore, Secretary of State Betty Ireland, Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin, and many other state and local officeholders.
One longtime observer said Monday's crowd may have represented the largest bipartisan political gathering ever in Charleston -- a fitting tribute to a man who has been hailed by all in recent days as the epitome of honor, integrity and humility.
U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear Wheeling-Pitt case could signal direction in Harman case
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday not to hear Massey Energy's appeal of a $260 million verdict against Massey in a case involving Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co. may signal that the court is not as interested in recusal issues as some have supposed it is when the court accepted another Massey-related case that raised similar recusal issues about a different West Virginia judge.
Massey had asked the nation's highest court to reverse the judgment in the Wheeling-Pitt case because of the perceived bias of Justice Larry Starcher, an outspoken critic of Massey and its CEO, Don Blankenship. The court on Monday refused to take the case.
But the court had earlier accepted another recent case involving Massey, one in which Massey came out on the winning side against Harman Mining and its owner, Hugh Caperton. Harman is asking the court to overturn the decision because of the perceived bias of Justice Brent Benjamin, whose election coincided with an independent expenditure by Blankenship of about $3 million to defeat Warren McGraw, the incumbent and Benjamin's opponent in the 2004 election.
But in the Wheeling-Pitt case, Benjamin joined every other justice in declining to
Nation's High Court may be preparing to send a message not to annoy it in the future with petty state recusal issues
LARRY STARCHER
BRENT BENJAMIN
consider Massey's appeal of the verdict against it, and was even one of only two justices, along with Robin Davis, voting against allowing Massey to stay the verdict until it was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Starcher voted with the majority for the stay. In other words, Benjamin was tougher on Massey in the Wheeling-Pitt case than Starcher was.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have decided not to consider a recusal issue involving Starcher in the Wheeling-Pitt case only because it has already accepted the Harman petition and plans to signal with that case that it has no interest in delving into state recusal rules at all.
Such an outcome would verify the beliefs being voiced lately by some in the legal community who are speculating that if anything, the court may have accepted the Harman case only in order to codify Benjamin's own concurrence in that case, wherein he defended his decision not to step aside. In other words, the court may want to send a signal to attorneys not to annoy it in the future with petty state recusal issues.
As Benjamin wrote in the Harman case, "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."
Benjamin added, "Federal courts have consistently rejected the contention that appearance-driven conflicts, without more, raise due process implications. As recently recognized by the Third Circuit, no decision 'has held or clearly established that an appearance of bias on the part of a judge, without more, violates the Due Process.'"
The U.S. Supreme Court might be preparing to say, "Amen."
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 3, 2008
News & Notes
Kanawha GOP hosts Christmas reception
The Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee will host a Christmas Reception, 5:30-7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9, followed by its regular meeting.
The event will take place at the Dunbar Woman's Club.
For more information, contact Melody Potter, Kanawha GOP chair, at 744-3058 or 415-2909.

Putnam GOP hosts Christmas dinner
The Putnam County Republican Club is holding a Christmas dinner the evening of Dec.15.
The event will be held at the Hurricane Valley Community Center. The potluck dinner is free, and all are welcome to attend.
As Barack Obama proceeds to reconstitute the Clinton White House -- change we can believe in, remember? -- he might be preparing to harken back to an even earlier Democrat than Clinton in forming his energy policy as cold weather sets in.
In the 1970s -- in one of his most inglorious moments (among many) as president, Jimmy Carter went on television wearing a sweater, sitting in front of a fireplace, and urging Americans to keep their thermostats low to conserve energy.
So as the temperatures dip into the 30s and even 20s in the coming days, and you're tempted to crank up the furnace just a
Jimmy Carter's inspirational leadership included asking Americans to turn down their thermostats, and Barack Obama seems to share that notion.
Obama brand of leadership seems much like Carter
little more, remember the immortal words of President-elect Obama, who warned us during the campaign, "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.” To which good Republicans everywhere should respond, "Yes we can!"
Manchin to Obama: 'Hundreds of thousands of people' in WV need 'safe water, sanitation and roads'
Gov. Joe Manchin has never been one to understate an issue or a cause, but even he went a little overboard when he indicated this week at a meeting with Barack Obama that "hundreds of thousands" of West Virginians are without safe drinking water, sanitation and roads.
Given that his state only has 1.8 million people to begin with, claiming that "hundreds of thousands" are in need of federal help for basic drinking water is either an exaggeration, or an admission of immense failure on the part of his own administration. How desperate is he for federal money?
Specifically, Manchin told The New York Times, “I’ve got hundreds of thousands of people in West Virginia who need safe drinking water and sanitation and roads. That’s investment, that’s not spending money."
THURSDAY DECEMBER 4, 2008
Dems planning attack on ballot order
After yet another GOP presidential win in West Virginia, Democrats are planning to change the law about which party is listed first on the ballot
Democrats in the West Virginia State Legislature are planning to introduce legislation changing the state's laws on which party is listed first on election ballots.
Under current law, the ballot order is determined by which party's candidate for president carries the state. For the third election in a row, the GOP candidate -- John McCain this time -- won West Virginia, meaning Republican candidates are listed first on the ballot in the next two elections in 2010 and 2012.
According to sources, many Democrats were initially under the impression that since Barack Obama won the overall election, Democrats would now be listed first. But state law has always been interpreted as being based on which candidate carries the state, not the national election, something that Democrats have now come to realize, to their chagrin.
The reason for the confusion is somewhat understandable. West Virginia code says, "The party whose candidate for president received the highest number of votes at the last preceding presidential election is to be placed in the left, or first column, row or page, as is appropriate to the voting system. The party which received the second highest vote is to be next and so on." While the code does not specifically say that it is referring to the highest number of votes received "in West Virginia" by a candidate for president, it has long been interpreted that way by both parties, including when Democrat Joe Manchin was Secretary of State, and again by Republican Betty Ireland, the current secretary.
As Del. Craig Blair (R-Berkeley) said Wednesday, "I think the press should contact the new Secretary of State-elect (Natalie Tennant) and ask her what her interpretation of the current ballot placement statute will be."
Two Democrat Delegates -- James Morgan and Mike Caputo -- introduced a bill in 2007 to change the law. HB 2172 said that parties should be listed on the ballot based on how many registered voters there are in the state. Since there are about twice as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans in West Virginia, the bill would have virtually guaranteed that Democrat candidates would always be listed first. But that bill failed to advance.
Now, though, Democrats are beginning to realize that the likelihood of a Democrat presidential candidate winning West Virginia in future elections is not good. So, they are ramping up their efforts to craft legislation for the 2009 session that would guarantee their candidates the first ballot position.   
If the Democrats pursue the plan to change the ballot order rules, it will represent the most partisan, petty and
childish abuse of legislative power since -- well, since they ramrodded through the doomed campaign finance bill in special session last summer, which was, as predicted by Republicans, shot down again in court.
As Blair said Wednesday, "Before the Governor and Democrat leadership venture into another expedition of partisan, self serving politics, when are they going to pay the reparations to the West Virginia taxpayers for wasting our tax dollars on the twice unconstitutional electioneering bill?" 
Del. Kelli Sobonya (R-Cabell) added, "West Virginia has many problems that need addressed in the limited sixty-day legislative session -- issues like fending off potential increases in PEIA premiums, addressing the overcrowding in our regional jails, and making West Virginia competitive with other states. I would hope the ruling party would think twice before they push self-serving legislation like changing their position on the ballot placement. In my opinion, legislators should only utilize precious legislative time debating bills that benefit the average West Virginian instead of those that benefit legislators in a partisan manner."
And Del. Jonathan Miller (R-Berkeley) said, "I hope the Democrats don't intend to waste our short and critical time in Charleston on such a self serving issue when West Virginia families and citizens are struggling to make ends meet during this recession. We have important reforms to make to improve our struggling economy. I don't see how this issue will do anything to put more money back in the pockets of our hard working citizens, and I'm sure it isn't a high priority for them."
But if they can't resist the temptation, the best and fairest method of listing candidates on the ballot is via a rotating system. For example, in -- dare I say it? -- Ohio, candidate name orders are rotated for each race that appears on a ballot, so that each candidate appears both first and last, depending on what random ballot a voter is given.
Such a system is fair to all sides, and takes away any claims of favoritism or advantage for one party over another.
Non-partisan judicial elections turning into highly partisan issue
Support for changing West Virginia law from partisan to non-partisan election of judges is hot one minute, then cold the next, with even Gov. Joe Manchin waffling on the issue.
A few days ago, the executive committee of the West Virginia Judiciary Association expressed its support for the switch, after being urged to do so by Manchin. But on Tuesday, the full association backed off that endorsement, and 55 Democrat Party county chairs have been urged to oppose the change. Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin was blunt about the issue, calling it “a backdoor approach to let Republican candidates hide behind the label of ’non partisan.”’ Manchin is also said to be backing off his initial support, caving in to the hyper-partisan atmosphere that seems to be rearing its head in Democrat legislative initiatives.
Democrats more ready than ever to engage in partisan free for all
Judging by the issues that appear to be moving to the forefront of legislative initiatives, Democrats appear more ready than ever to turn the lawmaking process into a vehicle to enhance the power and influence of their party, at the cost of good government.
As described by the stories on this page regarding the non-partisan election of judges and a plan to change the law in regard to the ballot order of candidates in the state, Democrats are preparing to use state code to further solidify their power base in West Virginia, likely a result of upcoming redistricting and the third straight win by a Republican candidate for president.
"Before the Governor and Democrat leadership venture into another expedition of partisan, self serving politics, when are they going to pay the reparations to the West Virginia taxpayers for wasting our tax dollars on the twice unconstitutional electioneering bill?" 
--Del. Craig Blair
"I would hope the ruling party would think twice before they push self-serving legislation like changing their position on the ballot placement. In my opinion, legislators should only utilize precious legislative time debating bills that benefit the average West Virginian..."
--Del. Kelli Sobonya
"I hope the Democrats don't intend to waste our short and critical time in Charleston on such a self serving issue when West Virginia families and citizens are struggling to make ends meet during this recession."
--Del. Jonathan Miller
Manchin, like others, hoping to jump on the bail-out bandwagon
When the first government bail-out package was proposed, it represented a one-time emergency reaction to an unprecedented financial crisis. While most conservatives opposed the rescue plan, it at least made some sense in terms of the need for action.
But now, with subsequent bail-outs and more being proposed, many companies and elected officials seem to think Christmas is coming a few weeks early.
Even Gov. Joe Manchin is not immune to the siren call of federal money, making the case this week in a meeting with Barack Obama that West Virginia residents are in need of safe drinking water, sanitation and roads.
Of course they are -- but if they are, that was the case long

before the financial meltdown, and hopefully Mojo had some plans to address these issues. On the one hand, he is bragging to the media about West Virginia's solvent financial status compared to most states, but on the other hand -- which is held out with the palm up -- he claims an emergency need for federal funds to solve his state's problems. The whole thing just drives home an age-old lesson -- when it is even hinted that tax dollars might be available, politicians of all stripes cannot resist lining up at the watering trough.
If West Virginia is in as good shape as the governor claims, he should stand aside for governors and states who might really be facing emergencies; or maybe all has not been as rosy in West Virginia as Joe Manchin claims.
FRIDAY DECEMBER 5, 2008
RNC's Duncan deserves credit for challenging bad finance law
MIKE DUNCAN
Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee, deserves credit for mounting a court challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that has handcuffed national and state parties since its passage in 2002.
Thanks to the law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, millions of dollars have been driven away from the party organization and instead have ended up in independent expenditure and "527" campaigns where donors are much less accountable and traceable.
In announcing the suit shortly after the November elections, Duncan said, “The campaign finance restrictions the RNC today challenged infringe on the First Amendment’s core: political speech and association. The RNC must have the ability to support state candidates, coordinate expenditures with our candidates, and truly engage in political activity on a national level.  The RNC has operated under and complied with these provisions of the law since their enactment, and as applied it is unconstitutional.”
When Sen. Mitch McConnell originally challenged the law just after its passage, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the law, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voting with the majority. But with O'Connor's retirement, hopes are high that the justice who replaced her, Samuel Alito, will swing the decision the other way. In recent challenges to certain provisions of the law, Alito has shown himself so far to be no friend of the limits enacted by McCain-Feingold.
The RNC is challenging the constitutionality of the law's prohibition against unlimited corporate donations, known as "soft money," and the ban on close coordination with candidates -- an absolutely foolish prohibition that prevents parties from working hand-in-handwith its own candidates.
The suit is also prompted by Barack Obama's decision to break his promise and forgo public financing of his campaign. As a result, John McCain was hamstrung by his $84 million spending limit in the general election, compared to Obama's unlimited fundraising and spending -- an irony that could not have been lost on McCain as an author of the law.
Weeks meeting next week with Manchin on Pinecrest
They met four times in debates during the 2008 race for governor, but next week Russ Weeks and Joe Manchin will meet under different circumstances for an entirely different reason.
Weeks, who hoped to occupy the governor's office, will instead be Manchin's guest as the governor follows up on his election night promise to listen to
Russ Weeks, left, will meet next week with Gov. Joe Manchin, right, to discuss Pinecrest Hospital.
Weeks' concerns about Pinecrest Hospital in Beckley, a subject that has been of concern to Weeks since his days in the state senate.
Weeks will meet with Manchin next Thursday at the governor's office, sharing numerous concerns he has about the practices and patient care record of the Raleigh County facility.
Recently, several employees and others settled lawsuits with the state over their exposure to tuberculosis germs which they said continued to linger in the former TB care facility years after it was transformed into an extended care hospital. Lawsuits claimed an improper ventilation system spread the germs throughout the hospital, where workers and others were exposed.
Weeks has also complained over the years about improper care and cases of patient neglect at Pinecrest, incidents he detailed in his book, "No Strings Attached."
On election night, when Weeks called the governor to concede the race, he asked Manchin to look into issues at Pinecrest. Manchin, in turn, promised to meet with Weeks sometime after Thanksgiving, and this week he proved true to his word by agreeing to meet next week with his former rival.
Huckabee promises to help in W. Va.
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was in South Charleston on Thursday as part of his tour promoting his book, "Do The Right Thing," appearing at Books-A-Million on Corridor G.
According to sources, Huckabee promised some GOP lawmakers he would return to the state soon to help raise money for legislative races.
Huckabee, who won the West Virginia GOP Presidential Convention back in February, told MetroNews earlier this week his book will be "provocative to some, but I do agree that it will be a point of serious discussion to get things started" for Republicans.