 | ||||
Abernathy Strategies
RepublicanGazette
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 "When news breaks, we fix it" Published daily except some days
Submissions welcome
The Republican Gazette welcomes Emails to the Editor and press releases. All submitted items must include the name and contact information for the author of the article, and all articles will only be published with the author's name included. Thank you for reading and participating in The Republican Gazette, another of West Virginia's most biased publications.
All opinions are those of The Republican Gazette and its editor, Gary Abernathy, except letters or commentary signed by others, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, including clients of Abernathy Strategies.
-------
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
ABC's Brian Ross spotted in Charleston
Network reporter likely in town to do Massey-Maynard-Starcher story
ABC News reporter Brian Ross was reportedly spotted in Charleston on Monday, and was likely in town to anchor the long rumored story the network has supposedly been coaxed into covering regarding the controversy involving Justice Spike Maynard, Massey Energy and Larry Starcher.Ross is no stranger to West Virginia mine-related stories, having covered the Sago disaster in 2005, as well as having his "investigative team" do follow up stories on Don Blankenship and the Aracoma mine tragedy in 2006.forces have apparently been trying desperately to interest national media outlets in the recusal controversy regarding Massey cases. Starcher has taken the lead publicly on the matter, his latest adventure being to announce an unprecedented one-man hearing on April 10 to consider arguments on whether he should recuse himself from a Massey-Wheeling Pitt case. It will be shocking if Starcher does not end up being a major component of any story produced by ABC.
Of course, the entire episode revolves around the fact that Maynard is up for election this year, and liberal trial lawyer and labor forces are aghast at the possibility of the high court being moved even further from their longstanding control. 
Howell gets pro-life nod
GARY HOWELL
Gary Howell, GOP candidate for the State Senate from the 14th District, has won the endorsement of West Virginians for Life.In a press release, the WVL PAC said, "The West Virginians for Life Political Action committee (WVL PAC) is pleased to announce the endorsement of Mr. Gary Howell for the 2008 primary election for State Senate."WVL PAC is the internal PAC for West Virginians for Life (WVFL), the state pro-life organization. WVFL is affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee and through both education and legislation is working to build a society where all human life is respected, from conception until natural death.
"Melissa Adkins., WVFL Executive Director, stated, 'We commend Mr. Gary Howell for expressing commitment to the unborn.'"Lawmakers receiving retroactive per diems
House of Delegate members have begun receiving more than $1100 in additional per diem payments based on the retroactive clause legislative leaders claim was included in a pay raise bill passed during the recent session.Senators apparantly received their checks first, and now House members are watching theirs arrive in the mail. The checks contain a notation calling the additional funds an "increase."Some observers who had expressed support for the overall pay raise measure have nonetheless been troubled by the fact that leaders in the House and Senate have deemed the per diem increase included in the legislation to be retroactive to January of this year, in spite of the fact the final bill did not contain language to that effect -- something leading lawmakers called a "typo." (Update: A legislative spokesperson on Tuesday provided the Republican Gazette with a copy of the bill that actually says the increased per diem rates are effective in calendar year 2008.)Don't like your judge? Just take a poll
The stunt pulled last week by lawyers for Harman Mining and Hugh Caperton in producing a poll to back up their claims that Justice Brent Benjamin cannot be fair in Massey Energy cases is apparently an endorsement of mob rule in the justice system.As noted here yesterday, the poll was clearly tilted to generate the desired responses, and even then undercut its own intent by revealing that the majority of respondents had no clue what was being asked of them.But imagine if such a ploy was ever taken seriously. It would open the door to justice by opinion poll -- something apparently preferred by those who feel they have been foiled in their effort to judge shop.Don't like the judge who has been assigned to hear your case? Take a poll! Ask local residents if they believe old Judge Smith can be fair or not. Make sure to ask a poll question like, "Knowing that Judge Smith has never taken a drink in his life, do you think Judge Smith can be fair to me in my DUI trial?" Then, after you get the "no" answers to outweigh the "yes" answers by two to one, get a sworn affidavit from the guy who conducted your poll that the answers are true and accurate, shove it all under Judge Smith's nose, and demand he step aside. Because that's how our courts should work.Going through a divorce hearing? Feel like you'll likely be taken to the cleaners? No problem! Take a poll! Ask something like, "Judge Johnson has been happily married for 29 years to a woman named Hilda. Do you think Judge Johnson can be fair to me in my divorce hearing, especially when my wife's name is Hilda?" You are off the hook!The fact is, the lawyers who decided to conduct a poll in an effort to disqualify a judge should themselves be subject to legal sanctions. How much more out of line could they possibly get? How much more disrespect could they possibly exhibit -- not just disrespect for a particular Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court, but for the Court as a whole? Isn't there acode of ethics for lawyers? Maybe something about not disparaging the judicial system, or attacking judges?
For several months now, the forces opposed to the reelection of Justice Spike Maynard have engaged in a full-scale public relations campaign to discredit not only Maynard, but Benjamin as well, in the hopes of throwing enough mud at anyone anyone remotedly connected to Don Blankenship to sully the whole court system and allow either Menis Ketchum or Bob Bastress (or, their last choice, Margaret Workman) to benefit from the fallout.It could end up working, but probably not. Why? Because all mud is not equal. Voters are generally smart enough to tell the difference between real mud and manufactured mud. There are those who feel Warren McGraw was the victim of a mudslinging campaign in 2004. But the Tony Arbaugh case and the "Rant at Racine" were not manufactured controversies. The facts of those instances were simply presented to the public as they existed. Turning the recusal process into a political football is a different matter, especially when Maynard has already stepped aside. If Maynard was not up for election, his decision to recuse himself from Massey cases would not still be in the news. But letting it fade from the headlines would not serve the purposes of forces desperate to hold onto control of a court whose anti-business rulings have long kept everyone from insurance companies to manufacturers from doing business in West Virginia. And so, we have national media interests being drawn into West Virginia to put their spotlight on the issue, we have Justice Larry Starcher holding an unprecedented one-man show to keep the recusal issue front and center, and we have lawyers conducting push polls to urge another justice to step aside in a case that is already over. The public will figure it out, but a lot of damage will be done in the meantime. 