repubgazette8-13-07tablegamestiebobgoulddondems

The news Saturday that longtime political activist Bob Gould had died was a shock to both Republicans and Democrats who have been involved with the strategist and attorney for many years.

The suddenness of his illness and how quickly it claimed him serves as a stark reminder just how tenuous and unpredictable life can be.

Just four weeks ago, Gould was at the state Republican meeting in Huntington, representing presidential contender Rudy Giuliani. Apparently, he felt ill at an August 3 Giuliani fundraiser at the Greenbrier, and only last Monday was diagnosed with liver cancer. By Saturday, he was gone at the age of 48.

Sen. Donna Boley, a longtime Gould friend and supporter, told The Associated Press, "He was just a good friend, an intelligent guy, very politically astute."

Bob was general chairman of the West Virginia Republican Legislative Committee from 1993 to 2001. The RLC's communications director at that time was Mark Coyle, who emailed me this comment: "Bob Gould was the best thing that happened to the Republican Party in the 1990s. The party made so much progress under his leadership. He inspired hundreds of us to get involved in the Republican Legislative Committee and try to bring back a two party system to West Virginia. That goal is now within sight."

On a personal level, I did not know Bob well until the last two years. As he was leaving the RLC in 2001, I was coming on board with the state party, and we did not cross paths very often. Plus, I was not overjoyed with his occasional forays into supporting Democrats, including Joe Manchin in 2004. But he later explained to me, "I spent most of my life as a diehard Republican, but after 2000 I began to see shades of gray where before everything was black or white."

When Rob Capehart became chairman in May 2005, he asked Gould to help sort out the party finances. Bob began emailing me asking for help understanding what had happened over the past few months of 2004 at the party, and from there we began corresponding on politics in general, slowly but surely building a friendship.

After a column I wrote here reviewing the results of the 2006 election, Bob emailed me and offered his own perspective. In spite of the fact he had worked for the Pat Robertson for President campaign in 1988, he had grown disillusioned with the religious right's grip on the GOP, and made the case to me that Ronald Reagan was more a Goldwater Republican than a Jerry Falwell Republican.

After I replied, and expressed some agreement and some disagreement, he wrote back, offering a lengthy and intelligent dissertation on the GOP, and where it stands today.

I am tempted to share the entire email, because it offers an excellent example of Bob's thinking and his ability to put that thinking into words both concise and slyly humorous. But since it was intended as a private email and I cannot now ask his permission, I will summarize it by saying simply that Bob was not enamored of what the Republican Party has become, and was much more a fan of Goldwater's than of the current president.

One line I will share from Bob is this one, summarizing his opinion of conservatism from Goldwater through Reagan: "Goldwater no doubt recognized that Reagan's ability to articulate a conservative argument was as valuable as his own ability to think one up in the first instance."

I don't agree with that subtle knock on Reagan, but I think it's a great, funny, well-written line.

In Huntington just four weeks ago, I spent about 20 minutes in one on one conversation with Bob at a reception hosted by our mutual friend, national committeeman Jim Reed. We both appreciated the fact we were able to engage in a positive and productive dialogue, even though we continued to disagree here and there.

Bob was excited about Giuliani, and was working hard on behalf of the former New York mayor. Four weeks ago, there was no sign of illness, no hint that this relatively young man would be dead 28 days later. The news was a shock to everyone. Bob Gould was a gentleman, a hard working strategist, and a thinking man's political guru. I respected him and was looking forward to a growing friendship. His many acquaintances who have enjoyed his friendship for years are fortunate indeed.

Bob is survived by his wife Denise, two daughters and a son. Funeral services are scheduled for Thursday in Charleston.

Kanawha County should not have been a terribly difficult place to pass table games legislation. The only county of the four that has so far said no to table games is Jefferson, where traffic problems are truly a nightmare, Republican and Democrat registration is not egregiously unequal, and the economy is strong enough that more jobs at the local track were not that vital to anyone.

But Kanawha County is hungry for jobs, two to one Democrat (and heavily labor union influenced), and regarded as much as a home to "progressives" as a hotbed of religious fundamentalism.

And still, after at least $2 million spent (despite the claims of the pro-gambling forces that it was less, the amount of TV, newspaper and direct mail advertising tells the tale), endorsements by every local newspaper, and active support by the most high profile politicians, a mere $7,000 opposition effort resulted in a virtual tie when the votes were counted Saturday night.

What is extremely clear is that if the "vote no" side had been funded with one-tenth -- or one-twentieth -- of the money spent by the "yes" side, the issue would have been soundly defeated.

The "yes" side's 33-vote margin is entirely negligible out of the 45,000 ballots cast, as it would be if the "no" vote was leading. What this election comes down to are the roughly 500 challenged or "provisional" votes that will be examined Friday and possibly into Saturday -- by a Kanawha County Commission that voted 2-1 to endorse table games. Nice. Maybe the commission should have thought of the need to appear impartial before taking sides.

For the same reason I am not a fan of early voting, I am somewhat uneasy about the idea of those provisional votes sitting somewhere for so long before they are officially examined. I trust Vera McCormick, but she has to go home sometime every day.

Now, this week will be spent by both sides attempting to discern where the provisional ballots came from and how they will lean. One theory is that most of them will be "yes" votes, and may come primarily from track employees pressured into voting even though they were not properly registered, or ended up voting in the wrong precinct. Of course, non-registered voters won't be counted, which therefore favors the "no" side.

All of which serves to demonstrate how futile it is to attempt to guess how many votes might be valid and how the valid ones might fall. The margin will still be razor thin and a recount is almost guaranteed.

Whatever happens, the result is an embarrassment to the gambling forces and every person or entity who joined its team. Delivering victories for the gambling interests, with all its money and political support, should be as guaranteed as a West Virginia Democrat political consultant having a winning record running races against Republicans. In other words, winning is expected.

But a smart, energetic, well organized volunteer opposition essentially matched the deep pocketed gambling proponents vote for vote.

Assuming, after all is said and done, that the "yes" vote still comes out ahead, the "no" side should still be proud. Without the endorsements of the newspapers, without the ability to put a high-profile politician on endless TV ads promoting its position, and without the bottomless pit of funds available from the gambling forces, it nearly pulled off the upset of the year -- and who knows, it still might.

Don Blankenship's recent lawsuit against the West Virginia Democratic Party is based on one of the most outrageous charges Democrats leveled at him during the 2006 campaign.

During last year's campaign, state Democrat Party Chairman Nick Casey issued at least one apology to Massey Energy (refusing to apologize directly to Blankenship) for issuing a press release claiming Blankenship was importing Mexican workers.

Blankenship's lawsuit is in regard to another advertising campaign by the state Dems that said Blankenship called the deaths of miners "statistically insignificant." In fact, in addition to the advertising, the Dems pulled another stunt by sending a questionnaire to every Republican who had received a contribution from Blankenship, asking a series of questions.

One of the questions was, “Just weeks after the deaths of miners in several accidents, Don Blankenship spoke to the Berkeley County Republican Club. According to the Herald-Mail in Hagerstown, Maryland, ‘Blankenship also reportedly said that the fire, at Aracoma Coal’s Alma No. 1 Mine [a Massey subsidiary], and the January 2 explosion at International Coal Group’s Sago Mine ... were rare events and statistically insignificant.” ... "Do you believe Don Blankenship is correct when he says those deaths are ‘statistically insignificant?’"

Now clearly, even from the Democrats' own convoluted wording of the set up and the question, what Blankenship was quoted as saying was that the "fire" and the "explosion" were rare events and statistically insignificant -- not the deaths themselves, as the Democrats claimed when they posed their question.

Proving defamation can be difficult in the political arena, but the fact that the Democrats changed the subject of the comment from "fire" and "explosion" to "deaths" might just meet the legal standard necessary to win.