West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Via Ken Ward Jr. at Coal Tattoo, there is a moving piece on NPR about the ongoing grief of those killed because they were Upper Big Branch miners:
But Gene Jones believes speaking out is critical, especially as public memory of the tragedy fades. Jones, 50, lost his identical twin Dean in the explosion.
"We're just going to be forgotten," Jones says, while mine disasters are "going to continue and continue and continue to go on. We need it fixed."
snip
Gene and Dean Jones were so close in their mother's womb doctors detected just a single heartbeat.
"I was 10 minutes older than Dean," Gene said. "It's like part of me is gone."
"I think about him every day," Gene said from a conference room at Appalachian Power in Beckley, where he works as an electrical engineer. His hazel eyes welled with tears. "So I work a lot not to think about it."
An obituary Gene wrote for his brother that includes an image of Dean, broadly smiling, sits on the table. If it wasn't for Dean's mustache, the twins would look exactly alike.
Still, when Gene looks in the mirror he sees his brother. "When people see me they see me and Dean," Gene adds, referring to Dean's widow Gina and their now 14-year-old son Kyle. "When Kyle sees me he sees his daddy some and when he listens to me talk, he probably thinks, 'Whoa, that's my dad!'"
Nick Rahall voted in support of the Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act. Alan Mollohan did not show up to vote on it. Shelley Moore Capito voted against it. The bill after all, would close loopholes that allow mines repeatedly in violation to continue to operate unsafely. The lives of the miners have less value than the profits of the mine owners and their shareholder dividends.
Ward reprints an excerpt from the moving obituary Gene wrote for his brother that highlighted the relationship Dean had with Dean's son Kyle.
His beautiful son, whom he loves with every fiber of his being, is also waiting. They will have dinner together and then they will spend the evening together. They love "The Andy Griffith Show." He has purchased his son all the episodes on DVD, and they watch them over and over. They love watching old westerns, the kind that he grew up watching as a boy. They love the Steelers. He has filled his son's whole room with Steelers' memorabilia. They love WVU football and basketball. They love to wrestle and play and their beautiful golden retriever joins in the play. They are constant companions, bonded in a way that most do not know. His son is sick. His son has cystic fibrosis, a progressive and debilitating illness, for which there is no cure. He has spent many sleepless days and nights pleading for his son's life and health. He adores him and wants to be there for him. He wants to comfort him in hard times and laugh and play with him in good times. He wants his son's life to be full and blessed. He will lead him safely to manhood. They will blow out the candles together on his May 1st 14th birthday; since last year his son was too ill to have a birthday cake. They are best buddies. His greatest ambition was to be a good father.
His greatest ambition was to be a good father. There's little I can think of more important or that has more value than being a good father.
As Gene points out, the more than $12 million that Massey CEO Don Blankenship will receive for simply retiring from the company is four times more than the settlement offered by Massey to the families of the dead. Blankenship's putting profits over the lives of the people was more valuable to Massey than the lives of the miners.
In a way, it's really the story of America in the 21st century. From the tax cuts for the wealthy that will lead to a budgetary trap down the road that will lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare to the telecom immunity supported by Sen. Jay Rockefeller that allowed Bush administration officials and telecom executives immunity for breaking the law to spy on all of us, Americans are losing out to the powerful. The wealthiest get away with crimes of such scope that it is hard to fathom. The rest of us are losing our financial security, our hope and our liberties and many are cheering on our collapse because they cannot comprehend how they have been swindled.
"We're just going to be forgotten," Gene Jones says, while mine disasters are "going to continue and continue and continue to go on. We need it fixed."
Jones could just as well be talking in general about the middleclass and the poor as well as about miners.
The current system is about propping up the wealthiest and making sure the scales of justice are tilted in their favor to the point there is no justice.
Dean Jones was a good human being. But if the people in power truly respected him and the other 28 miners, the Robert C. Byrd Miner Protection Act would have passed unanimously so that no other teenage sons would have to miss their fathers because the mining company put profits over people and those responsible for doing so would be given jail sentences instead of tax cuts and millions in bonuses.
The American Dream still exists for those fortunate enough to be in the wealthiest 2 percent who control half of all the nation's wealth. For the rest of us, the disasters are going to continue and continue, but it's not going to get fixed.
Activist icon Mother Jones once said pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.
Peace be with the Jones family and all those who died to provide higher profits to cover Blankenship's exit bonus.
Rep. Alan Mollohan, who lost the seat he held for nearly three decades in a Democratic primary, is looking into a comeback bid for 2012.
The West Virginia congressman, an Appropriations Committee cardinal whose father also served in the House, has already opened a campaign account with the Federal Election Commission and informed his top political allies in the state that he is pondering another run.
snip
"He has been around everywhere - a lot more places now than before the election. If he had been this active before the primary, he would have won," said Marion County Commissioner Butch Tennant, a Mollohan friend and ally. "Everyone I talk to thinks he ought to run again."
"I think Alan has been a public servant for so long - it's in his blood," added Tennant. "He's going to be lost not being in the House."
In the weeks since I lost the Democratic primary, many friends and supporters have let me know how disappointed they were in the outcome. I appreciate every single one of those calls and visits - ironically, one of the few positive things about losing an election is being reminded of just how many friends you have.
At some point in these conversations, I am almost always asked how I'm doing. And I answer, honestly, that I am doing fine. I was disappointed in the election results, naturally, but I can accept losing an election.
What I cannot accept is any notion that I ever abused the trust my constituents gave me for more than a quarter century. The fact is that during my 28 years of Congressional service, I have never violated my public trust. I have never used my official position for personal gain. Yet my opponent in the primary election, Michael Oliverio, used a four-year-old dishonest Republican smear campaign as the centerpiece of his race. So, as I prepare to leave office, lingering questions about my ethical conduct float in the wake of the last campaign.
My reason for writing today is to set that record straight, once and for all. That is my sole purpose in writing, and I hope this letter receives your fair consideration.
How it started - the battle over ethics rules in the House . . .
This attack against me began more than four years ago, after I played a pivotal role in the Ethics Committee's investigation of then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
At the time, I was the senior Democrat serving on the Ethics Committee. After several ethics complaints were filed against Mr. DeLay in 2004, the Ethics Committee unanimously agreed on October 6, 2004 that Mr. DeLay had in fact violated House ethics standards on several occasions.
Although this was not a partisan action - every Republican and every Democrat serving on the Committee agreed that Mr. DeLay had violated House ethics standards - our votes so outraged Mr. DeLay and other national Republican leaders that they took a series of steps in an effort to make sure that Mr. DeLay would not be further sanctioned.
* The Republican leadership replaced the Republican Ethics Committee Chairman and three of the five Republican committee members with more partisan figures.
* The new Republican Chairman fired the committee's Chief Counsel and tried to replace him with his personal Chief of Staff.
* The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, tried to change the Ethics Committee rules to make it impossible for the Ethics Committee to do its job.
This transparent attempt to save Tom DeLay's political career at the expense of a working ethics process was highly controversial, both within Congress and on the editorial pages of the national newspapers. As the ranking Democrat on the Committee, I was both the leader and public face of the opposition. On March 10, 2005, my fellow Democrats and I voted to keep the Ethics Committee from organizing under the weakened rules. I took every measure I could to fend off the partisan attack on the ethics process.
This was not a role I sought, but it is one I accepted. I believed in the ethics process, and I was convinced that the Republican leadership's attack ultimately posed grave danger not only to both parties but, more importantly, the Congress itself.
So began several months of stalemate and increasingly bitter rhetoric. Resolutions were debated, speeches were delivered, op-ed pieces were published, but the Speaker and his leadership team refused to back down - until finally they began to lose the support of some of their own members. Reading the writing on the wall, Speaker Hastert finally relented on April 27, 2005 and reinstated the existing rules. The impasse over the staffing issue dragged on through June until the Republican Committee Chairman backed down over that as well.
The right-wing retaliates . . .
We had won, but at what cost? I was about to discover one very personal answer.
My efforts were strongly resented by the Republican leadership, and they began a major, negative campaign designed to destroy my political career. Republican Speaker Hastert visited Parkersburg and openly said that "they [the national Republicans, including Karl Rove] were going to play offense with Mollohan."
And play offense they did. Karl Rove, political operative and adviser to President George W. Bush, recruited Chris Wakim in the White House to run on the Republican ticket against me in 2006. In October of 2005, Mr. Wakim bragged about being asked to come to the White House to be recruited by Karl Rove. Mr. Wakim commented at the time that, in words or effect, he asked Mr. Rove, "how can I beat Congressman Mollohan?" Mr. Wakim said Mr. Rove responded, in words or effect, that "when we get done with Mollohan you [Mr. Wakim] will win easily."
That signaled the beginning of a multifaceted smear campaign, employing all the tools of the propagandist - lies, half truths, false association of facts, tabloid journalism, and name calling.
There is an established game plan for this sort of campaign. It begins with exhaustive negative research. Such a negative research effort was undertaken against me by the so-called National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) - which advertises its mission as "promoting ethics in public life" but is a demonstrably right-wing attack organization. The NLPC receives much of its funding from the Scaife Foundation, well-known for its support of right-wing political causes.
The NLPC researched my wife Barbara's and my investments, and they scoured my Financial Disclosure Statements and my appropriations to nonprofit organizations in West Virginia. The NLPC then constructed a narrative - a fictionalized story that combined perfectly legal investments and perfectly appropriate appropriations in a way to suggest that we used federal dollars to enrich ourselves.
They shopped this storyline to the national press and persuaded the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times to write long articles detailing our investments and my appropriations. The Washington Post quickly followed suit.
The Justice Department launches an investigation . . .
The NLPC also made a complaint to the U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC. The NLPC refused to make its complaint public - and even admitted under questioning that "its contents might not be accurate" - but, after the high-profile articles in the national newspapers, the Justice Department had little choice but to pursue an investigation.
It is important to understand at the outset that the Justice Department never contacted me and there was never any allegation of wrongdoing. There was only an ugly, and false, insinuation that something inappropriate must have occurred. Having nothing specific to examine, the U.S. Attorney undertook an exhaustive review of our investments and my appropriations. They looked into every investment and every detail of my financial life. They examined every appropriation I directed to West Virginia.
I'm sometimes asked why the Justice Department spent so much time on this investigation if there was no inappropriate activity on my part. The question answers itself - you always spend more time looking for something that just is not there. And for four years - three under the Bush Administration and one under the Obama Administration - the Justice Department looked. And looked . . . and looked . . .
And finds nothing . . .
. . . and came up with nothing - because there was no wrongdoing to find.
On January 25th of this year, the Justice Department confirmed as much and said that the investigation was closed and that no charges would be filed.
"Case closed," you might think - figuratively and literally. That's certainly what I thought. I looked forward to a reelection campaign decided on real issues that affect people's lives - jobs, health care, the economy.
I had misjudged the quality of today's political discourse. Rather than accept the Justice Department's conclusion, Dick Morris and other right-wing fringe elements theorized - or even reported as fact - that the Justice Department dropped the investigation in exchange for my vote for the health care bill!
Talk about a no-win situation - if the Justice Department filed charges, there would obviously be evidence of some wrongdoing; these right-wing bloggers were now suggesting that the Department's decision not to file charges must be evidence of some underhanded deal.
The media abandons its role ...
The first time I saw this link between the Justice Department probe and the health care vote, I almost laughed out loud - surely no one could possibly believe such nonsense! But, outrageous as it was, this particular slander persisted and even crept into the conventional media, especially the editorial pages of the Ogden newspaper chain.
In retrospect, I should not have been surprised. The Ogden papers - covering the Wheeling, Weirton, Parkersburg, and Elkins markets - had long since abandoned even the pretense of balanced reporting on my race. They had instead linked arms with the NLPC and the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and spent months on a blatant and profoundly dishonest campaign to discredit me.
The Morgantown Dominion Post, owned in part and controlled by John Raese, had played a comparable role in 2006, when Republican Chris Wakim made this right-wing smear the centerpiece of his campaign. John Raese was at the time running against Senator Byrd for the United States Senate (and is today running to succeed him).
Never once did the Ogden papers - or the Dominion Post four years earlier - question the truthfulness or the motives of the NLPC or the NRCC. This was particularly reprehensible in the case of the Ogden newspapers, since they pursued their attack well after the Justice Department had cleared me.
This smear campaign cried out for genuine investigatory journalism. There is a real story here - who started this attack, what their purpose was, who backed them financially, what their political goals were - but the two dominant newspaper organizations in my District not only didn't answer those questions, they didn't even ask them.
The "watchdogs" market their lists at the expense of truth . . .
This hostile media regularly sought validation from credible "watchdog" organizations. Two figured prominently in this smear - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Neither group had cause to attack me, but both allowed themselves to be used by those who did.
CREW's role was especially irresponsible. Dedicated to "promoting ethics and accountability in government," the organization operated in relative anonymity for a number of years before coming up with a new marketing device - it would publish an annual list of the "most corrupt" Members of Congress and disseminate that list across the country in a series of press releases.
It was a brilliant public relations coup. As any visit to the dentist's waiting room will show, we're all naturally drawn to these sorts of lists - the best books of the year, the richest persons in the country, the best-looking stars in Hollywood, the most corrupt politicians in Washington. The only problem is that in compiling its list, CREW relies almost entirely on published news articles - in my case the exact same articles that had been engineered by the NLPC and its right-wing sponsors and that predated the Justice Department decision to close the investigation.
CREW's "most corrupt" list draws attention to its legitimate mission, but only by sacrificing any fairness towards the individual. It willingly became part of the mindless echo chamber that perpetuated questions about my ethical conduct well after the Justice Department had emphatically answered them.
The Center for Responsive Politics employs a similar media-driven gimmick with an annual list of the wealthiest Members of Congress. Its most recent list counted me as the 24th richest Member of the House, with an estimated net worth of more than $13 million. That figure gave weight to the central theme of the four-year-old attack against me - that I had somehow enriched myself through inappropriate earmarks. There's only one problem with that $13 million figure - it is wildly inaccurate. I wish that Barbara and I were that well off, but I assure you that our net worth is much, much smaller.
The CRP gets its information from the financial disclosure forms Members of Congress are required to complete every year. Those forms require Members to list their assets and liabilities in wide ranges. The information is intended to guard against conflicts of interest and is not useful in calculating net worth. As the CRP concedes, all it can really deduce from the financial disclosure forms is that my actual net worth could lie anywhere between a negative $268,000 and a positive $27 million.
In an effort to appeal to its media audience - which values simplicity above accuracy - the CRP selects the mid-point of the range and, consequently, reported our estimated net worth as the $13 million figure. While our actual net worth is far closer to the low end of the range, the CRP's annual list enabled editorial writers to call me - inaccurately - the 24th richest Member of the House, worth up to $27 million. It's easy to understand how someone reading a newspaper in Wheeling might lift an eyebrow at those figures.
A few final thoughts . . .
In conclusion, the smear campaign ran against me in this year's Democratic primary is based on the lie that I enriched myself by benefiting from appropriations dollars.
The source of this lie goes back more than four years when Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove, resenting my service on the Ethics Committee during the Tom DeLay investigations, decided, in Speaker Hastert's words, "to play offense with Alan Mollohan."
These operatives employed a right-wing attack group - the National Legal and Policy Center - to research my personal financial life and my appropriations work and then construct a narrative suggesting that "something" must be bad about Alan Mollohan.
The NLPC shopped this narrative to the press, which, of course, is always eager to find the next political scandal. The NLPC also made a complaint to the U.S. Justice Department, which, in this highly charged political environment, undertook an investigation.
The Justice Department investigation did two things. It gave the smear campaign a patina of credibility, and, since the Justice Department never releases information about ongoing investigations, it essentially froze the entire narrative in place for as long as the investigation was underway. That made the entire matter ripe for political exploitation - a tool to be used during a political campaign.
In 2006, the Republican candidate made that tool the centerpiece of his campaign to unseat me. He failed.
In 2010 - even though the Justice Department had by then exonerated me - Mike Oliverio picked up that very same tool and made it the centerpiece of his campaign. Ironically, this package of lies, built by Republicans for a Republican candidate, was successful only when used in this Democratic primary.
I have a 28-year relationship with my constituents. Aside from my family, it is the most important and the most enduring thing in my life.
Again, my only purpose in writing is to assure you that I have never dishonored that relationship. I have never, not once, violated my public trust.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this letter.
I am both surprised and disappointed by this outcome. My biggest disappointment is not that a long-time incumbent lost a primary--overall, I think our party is stronger when we have contested elections--but that he lost it for all the wrong reasons.
Fourteen-term U.S. Congressman Alan Mollohan has lost his primary battle against state senator Mike Oliverio for the Democratic nomination in the First District.
Oliverio had spent much of the campaign attacking Mollohan's record and ethics, and that apparently resonated with Democratic voters, as Oliverio took an early lead when the vote totals started coming in on Tuesday night. That trend continued throughout the evening, and with all precinct reporting, Oliverio held a 12-percentage point lead.
Heavily aided by the conservative agenda of deep-pocketed media moguls (the Ogden/Nutting and Rease outlets), Oliverio has succeeded in running against a reliable Democrat incumbent.
To win the trust of West Virginia first district voters and earn a position in Congress, Mike Oliverio now needs run for something.
Updated: So, why did Rep. Alan Mollohan lose?
Here's what I think. There's lots of reasons.
Added: First off, If I had thought Rep. Mollohan was as corrupt as Oliverio and the press made him out to be, I would have wanted to vote him out, too.
1) Voters are angry because the economy in WV-01 still sucks
2) Unemployment is WV-01 is unacceptably high -- Congress bailed out banks, but isn't doing anything about 10% unemployment.
3) A politicized Bush DOJ left a time bomb that finally exploded. Even though every investigation was closed, Mollohan was tainted by further innuendo. Over the years, those expensive legal fees drained campaign coffers, too.
4) Having no opponent in 2008, Mollohan didn't have the campaign apparatus established that he needed to survive a close campaign.
5) Oliverio had enough money to get his message out. Unpaid media was very kind to him in building a distorted view of incumbent--this is rare situation for challenger vs. incumbent, esp. in a primary.
6) Where was Obama/OFA? Dean's 50 state strategy was much better at building capacity in every district. Obama/Kaine deserve some blame here, too.
7) Mollohan's votes this cycle were not the reason. Mollohan could have voted the same was as Republican Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (WV-02) on every vote and Oliverio could have still run the same campaign and received the same help from conservative quarters.
Another one from the comments 8) "WVinians are oddly susceptible to RW talking points." Rep. Mollohan has reaped a bitter harvest sowed by fellow West Virginia politicians. One reason that West Virginians are so susceptible to right wing talking points is because our own Democratic party leaders (see: Gov. Manchin) are prone to using them when they view coal interests as endangered. Live by federal government bashing, die by federal government bashing.
Update from Carnacki:
John Cole at Balloon-Juice has a good take on the corner that Oliverio has painted himself into.
There really isn't a whole lot there to fire up the Democratic base, and I just don't see how he tacks left heading into a general election. As it is, a lot of people in the liberal/progressive wing might look at this general election as a race between two Republicans. Again, I have never personally met the man, so I have no "feel" for him, but I know people who say he is a decent fellow.
snip
Whatever happens, it is going to be a close race. Any time before the last few years when the national GOP went completely teabag insane and drove me from their ranks, and I would have voted for McKinley without a second thought. I don't think I can vote for a Republican and give John Boehner and those clowns any power whatsoever, which really is a shame, because my gut tells me McKinley is a decent man. Having said that, Mike Oliverio has his work cut out for him to get me to hold my nose and vote for him. Considering I don't know much about him except for the things I don't like (the anti-choice stance, the anti-cap and trade, the willingness to sabotage leadership before even being elected), maybe there is something there I can rally around. I guess I have no other choice.
Supporting Oliverio because we feel we have no other choice is hardly a way to turn out the vote. It'll be interesting to see if Oliverio reaches out to this blog and to other Democrats or if he'll just try to appeal to right wingers who are going to toss him aside for a real Republican like McKinley.
We've had some questions about the voting records of Congressman Alan Mollohan and State Senator Mike Oliverio, battling in a tight race for tomorrow's Democratic primary election for West Virginia's first congressional district. We want to take a snapshot of the last year and highlight their legislative record on LGBT equality.
* Congressman Mollohan voted for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the first federal law to recognize sexual orientation and gender identity.
* Congressman Mollohan is a co-sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act that would repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.
* In stark contrast, State Senator Mike Oliverio was a co-sponsor during the 2010 legislative session of a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality in West Virginia. The legislation would've enshrined discrimination against LGBT people into our state's founding document.
This is an important election in the first district. Please consider all of the facts and PLEASE VOTE.
By a unanimous vote of the TWV Editorial Board, 14-term Congressman Alan B. Mollohan is the clear choice as the Democratic candidate based on a solid career of political service that has earned him a number of critical leadership positions in Congress - most notably that of the third ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. With the announcement Wednesday that Rep. David Obey, the current Appropriations chair, will retire at the end of this term, Mollohan, if re-elected, would rise to the number two position in Appropriations.
Voters in West Virginia need look no further than the accomplishments of Sen. Robert C. Byrd to realize what a powerful position that an Appropriations leadership position can be. Certainly, Mollohan has modeled himself to some degree after Sen. Byrd in this manner.
Alan Mollohan's record of economic development in the 1st Congressional District is unparalleled in terms of his vision, his ability to create private-public partnerships, especially in high tech, and his leadership that enabled him to steer millions of dollars in federal earmarks to diversify the economy in North Central West Virginia.
Following Sen. Byrd's success in relocating the FBI fingerprint facility and its 3,000-plus jobs to the region, Mollohan has followed suit by enticing other federal agencies such as NASA, NOAA, the National Energy Technology Lab and the Department of Defense Biometrics Center to locate along the I-79 Corridor.
Mollohan was instrumental in the creation of the West Virginia High Technology Consortium that has served as a hightech business incubator that currently employs more than 1,300 people- with hundreds more to come within the next year. As a result, the high-tech sector has attracted over 200 high-tech firms to the region that did not exist a little more than a decade ago.
Certainly Congressman Mollohan deserves much of the credit for transforming our economy from one dependent on extraction and manufacturing to one that has weathered the current economic recession much better than most. Otherwise, we could have much higher unemployment, foreclosures and permanent job loss than we have suffered. Our economy is still based on energy, but has evolved where health care, high-tech, higher education and government jobs represent an ever-increasing share of our diverse economy.
To those who accuse Mollohan of turning his back on coal during the vote on Cap and Trade, we think that his endorsement by the United Mine Workers speaks volumes as to his commitment to coal. It's much better to remain at the bargaining table and have influence on the final outcome of such policy than it is to create a standoff. In the end, Mollohan voted against Cap and Trade.
Finally, to those who continue to sling mud in an attempt to raise questions regarding Mollohan's ethics even though the Department of Justice closed the case without any formal charges filed against him following a detailed three-year investigation, that speaks for itself. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty - no matter how many times you call someone corrupt. We have great confidence that the Department of Justice completed its mission with professionalism and integrity and Mollohan was exonerated.
Mike Oliverio's Dangerous Plan for Law Enforcement
His "nice start" would slice funding from local law enforcement, other Justice Department programs
Morgantown, W. Va. - Congressman Alan B. Mollohan's campaign demanded more information from Michael Oliverio about his proposal to cut federal law enforcement funding in West Virginia.
"This is the wrong time to gamble on public safety," Pam Van Horn, Mollohan's campaign manager said. "We were all reminded this weekend that we live in a very dangerous world. Michael Oliverio's answer is to cut resources for the law enforcement professionals we depend upon to keep us safe."
Oliverio recently told a West Virginia newspaper he would slash $30 billion in an 'across-the-board' cut of all federal programs. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and other Justice Department programs would shoulder approximately $285 million of those cuts. Oliverio called his plan "a nice start," implying he would support additional cuts in the future.
"How much would Michael Oliverio take from the COPS program, which has provided grants to each sheriff's department in the 1st District and police departments throughout the state?" Van Horn asked. "These grants have allowed law enforcement to upgrade equipment that has kept officers safe and have provided technology that has made it easier to catch criminals."
The COPS - or Community Oriented Policing Services - program is part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, which provides financial and technical assistance to local law enforcement agencies.
"Alan Mollohan knows how important these grants are to local police and sheriffs, particularly in tough economic times," added Van Horn. "Alan Mollohan is working to deliver these grants to 1st District law enforcement. Michael Oliverio wants to cut them."
Mollohan has directed more than $5 million in COPS grants to local law enforcement agencies over the past five years. Oliverio, in contrast, said that he would have voted against a supplemental appropriations bill last year that provided COPS funding for Clarksburg, Fairmont, Morgantown, Wheeling and six other 1st District police departments to hire a total of 15 additional officers.
Meeting in Wheeling this afternoon with sheriffs and police chiefs from throughout the 1st District, Mollohan pledged his continued support for law enforcement officers and their work.
His "nice start" would slash billions from Social Security, Medicare and Older Americans Act programs
Congressman Alan B. Mollohan's campaign called on Michael Oliverio to release details about his plan to slash Social Security, Medicare, and other programs critically important to seniors in West Virginia.
"All we know is that he has indicated that he would cut billions from Social Security, Medicare and the Older Americans Act," said Pam Van Horn, Mollohan's campaign manager. "Clearly, this would cause tremendous hardship for West Virginia's seniors.
"Michael's plan would cut Social Security by more than $7 billion, but we do not know exactly what that would mean. Does he envision across-the-board cuts to every senior's monthly check?"
Oliverio's commitment to Social Security has also been called into question due to his role as State Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which backed President George Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security.
"Why is Michael Oliverio leading an organization that wants to gamble our retirement security on Wall Street?" asked Van Horn.
Oliverio's plan also would require a $4.5 billion cut from Medicare.
"Again, he doesn't tell us how he would achieve this drastic cut," said Van Horn. "Would it be an across-the-board reduction in doctor reimbursement rates which will make it even more difficult to find care in rural areas? Perhaps he would cut reimbursement altogether for some services? Would he decrease prescription drug benefits? He owes the voters, especially the seniors, of the First District an explanation."
Oliverio's plan would also cut millions from Older Americans Act programs that provide important nutrition, transportation and in-home services to seniors. Last year, West Virginia received $13.2 million for programs authorized under the Older Americans Act. Many senior centers would be unable to maintain services without the federal support.
Oliverio has suggested that these proposed cuts are, "a nice start", implying that he would favor additional cuts.
"We are all struggling in this economy and Michael Oliverio's plan would only make things worse for our seniors", concluded Van Horn.
Mike Myer, the illustrious incredulous editor of the Wheeling newspapers, has finally gone off the deep end. Now he is openly printing conspiracy theories about Congressman Alan Mollohan.
In his desperation, Mike Myer demands that Mike Oliverio be nominated in place of Mollohan for the WV-01 congressional election. From ACORN to "cap and trade", Mike Myer shows that he is no longer a rational or competent journalist. This degradation has steadily occurred over the past ten years, and he has finally hit rock bottom. From today's editorial:
Questions persist about ethics and campaign finance issues. A Justice Department investigation of him was ended earlier this year - in January, just as President Barack Obama's administration was working to gain votes for its health care bill. Mollohan voted for it.
Yesterday, there was excitement around the Internets as "leaked" Oliverio campaign polling numbers were discussed. I didn't post about it because the numbers looked unbelievable to me and, frankly, any campaign can leak a couple of numbers without any details anytime they want to generate a little bit of supporter buzz.
In response, Rep. Mollohan has done something that campaigns rarely do. He's released the entire details of a campaign tracking poll--the entire details including all of the polls questions, the poll methodology, and results. These are the essential details required to make sure the pollster isn't manipulating results through question order or question wording.
Congressman Alan B. Mollohan's campaign today released poll results showing that Mollohan is leading his opponent in the Democratic primary by 9 percentage points.
The poll shows Mollohan ahead of Mike Oliverio 45% to 36%, with 19% undecided. It was conducted by Frederick Polls, a highly-respected, national research firm. It was based upon interviews with 400 likely primary voters and was completed April 21-22, 2010.
The Mollohan campaign publically released the question, sequence and methodology used by Frederick Polls to conduct the survey.
"These results show that the voters of the First District are not buying what Mike Oliverio is trying to sell - a right-wing agenda to cut federal support for Medicare, Social Security, and veterans and pass even more 'free-trade' laws that have already sent thousands of our steel and manufacturing jobs overseas." said Pam Van Horn, Mollohan's campaign manager.
"West Virginians are looking for answers on jobs, health care, retirement security, education, and the other issues important to their families," Van Horn added, "and that's exactly what Alan Mollohan works for each day in the United States Congress."
Mollohan is not only solidly ahead of Oliverio in the head-to-head match-up, his favorable rating is also 10 points higher than Oliverio's. Pointing to his high favorable rating among the undecided voters, Keith Frederick, president of the polling firm, said that, "Mollohan is also in good shape to gain enough of the undecided voters to achieve victory."
Van Horn dismissed poll results recently released by Oliverio's campaign as "just the latest sign of Mike Oliverio's shaky grasp on the truth. First, he broke his promise that he was running not 'to tear Alan Mollohan down.' Then he pretended that he doesn't chair an organization working to privatize Social Security and restrict workers' rights - when his group's agenda has been well documented in the public record. And now he releases results from a self-serving poll conducted by his campaign manager."
Van Horn emphasized that Keith Frederick's poll was carefully structured to eliminate poll information bias.
"There are many ways a pollster can ask a question to get whatever result he wants," Van Horn said. "He can sample some parts of the District more heavily than others, he can fail to limit responses to likely Democratic primary voters, or he can bias the responses by providing false information before asking the head-to-head match-up question. Keith Frederick is a nationally-respected pollster, and he is not going to attach his name to anything less than an honest poll."
For those interested, I've uploaded the PDF file the Rep. Mollohan campaign released from Keith Frederick's poll. The details show that Rep. Mollohan is in good shape, but cannot let up in the final two weeks of the primary campaign.
There are a small opening here for Oliverio -- Mollohan is below 50% and Oliverio still has room to improve his name recognition. But, that's a nearly impossible opening to exploit via negative campaign advertising. Oliverio will have to present an alternative positive vision for WV-01 to win over undecideds and make a name for himself. He's running out of time to do that.
Meanwhile, Mollohan needs to close the deal with those undecideds and make sure to get out the vote.
In order to help better acquaint readers who may be out of the news cycle, I have put together (to the best of my ability) a bit of a preview for the district congressional elections that will occur in the fall.
The primaries will be in early May, and there hasn't been a lot of buzz (at least to my knowledge) about them. I only found out a month or so ago that The first district was receiving a democrat to challenge.
So here we go
Let's start with the First Congressional DIstrict.
Current seatholder: Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
The long-time serving Democrat, Mollohan, first got elected into the house in 1983, meaning he has served roughly 27 years at this position. In 2008, Mollohan ran unopposed. Mollohan has seen his share of controversies, and will also see a democrat contending for his seat in the primary. This will be his first Democrat to challenge him since Harley Staggers Jr. in 1992.
Challenger: Michael Oliverio II
Oliverio has worked his way up from the bottom. He was elected student body president at WVU. Eventually, Oliverio ran for a seat in the house of delegates and was elected in 1993, and in 1995 assumed office in the West Virginia State Senate where he currently remains representing the 13th district.
Oliverio has had a tendency to focus hard on the national debt, and how to attend to and fix it.
It should be interesting to see how this one plays out, although I would predict a Mollohan victory given the difficulty of unseating a 14 term incumbent.
Other Challengers on the republican side include Mac Warner, Cindy Hall, Tom Stark, Sarah Minear, David McKinley, and Patricia Levenson. Further information will be provided in the coming months.
WV Second Congressional District
Current Seatholder: Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Captio is the daughter of the infamous Arch Moore Jr. and has held the seat since 2001. She was elected after Former Governor Bob Wise vacated the seat for the governor position She is the only Republican Congressional representative for the state and she intends to keep her seat. Capito is running for re-election during a good time for Republicans, polls show democrats are favored to lose more than they gain this November. She is considered safe in her district. Last time around, Capito won by a comfortable margin against Byrd state director Anne Barth.
Challenger: Virginia Graf
35 year veteran as an educator who has served as a school principal and is focused on improving education in the district. Graf is very active in volunteerism and political organizations throughout her community. Graf has a steep hill to climb if she wants to take this seat. Democrats are not the most popular delegation, she is facing an incumbent Republican, and the district is considered safe for Capito.
WV Third Congressional District
Current Seatholder: Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Rahall is heading into his 33rd year in the House, being elected in 1977. He succeeded Ken Hechler when he ran for governor. Rahall and his district are considered by CQ Politics to be a safe democrats, and him being a 33 year incumbent will very much improve his chances.
Challenger:
Rahall could be facing opposition from any of the following
Bruce Barilla (D)
America's Christian Heritage Week Founder & Hotel Worker
Lee Bias (R)
Nurse Anesthetist
Marty Gearheart (R)
Sign Company Sales Executive, Ex-Teacher
I saw this link on Justin Williams' Facebook (WVYD President) and thought it was pertinent for these rough times of opposition towards healthcare.
I'll post the link at the end of this but here is a few examples of how healthcare will help us here in the mountain state. This list was compiled by the Democratic Policy Committee.
Provide tax credits for up to 20,000 West Virginia small businesses to help make coverage
more affordable.
Prohibit insurance companies from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for the
386,449 children in West Virginia, starting this year.
Close the donut hole and improve other Medicare benefits for 372,000 West Virginia
seniors.
Reduce Medicare premiums for the 300,400 West Virginia seniors who are not enrolled in
Medicare Advantage and will no longer subsidize these private insurance plans.
Ensure affordable coverage options for 256,000 West Virginians who are uninsured and
41,000 West Virginians who purchase health insurance through the individual market.
Ensure immediate access to affordable insurance options for as many as 35,466
uninsured West Virginians who have a pre-existing condition.
Provide tax credits for up to 204,000 West Virginians to help make health insurance
more affordable, bringing $3.3 billion in premium and cost-sharing tax credits into
West Virginia during the first five years of the health insurance Exchange.
Reduce family health insurance premiums by $1,750 - $2,510 for the same benefits, as
compared to what they would be without health reform by 2016.
Provide access to Medicaid for 161,355 newly-eligible West Virginians, and provide
$3.7 billion in federal funding for the cost of their coverage.
Create 1,700 - 2,700 jobs by reducing health care costs for employers.
If Democrats and independents needed any more reason to get behind our guys, Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, the wildly careening Sarah Palin has targeted them on her "hit list."
Palin, who dropped out of being governor of her state in order to cash in on being a reality TV star and occasional Faux News commentator, apparently wants to "fire" them.
Considering Sarah Palin couldn't bother to finish a single term of the job the people of Alaska gave her to do, Palin is in no position to tell other people in other states how to conduct their affairs.
It's funny how Palin's type of "populism" is intended to hurt working class people and help big businesses. Also.
The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society - the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. ...
Right wingers like Palin claim Mollohan and Rahall went against the will of the people despite the fact polls show only 24 percent of the public approve of the way the Republican Party handled the healthcare reform issue.
But the truth is Mollohan and Rahall listened to the people. The people denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Young people unable to afford insurance yet not able to be covered by their parents' insurance. The people pushed into bankruptcy even though they had insurance. The people whose premiums are skyrocketing.
Every working class man, woman and child is going to benefit from this reform passed into law.
Update
The West Virginia Democratic Party has responded quickly:
Former Vice-Presidential candidate and tea party darling Sarah Palin has named twenty congressional races where she will be helping Republican candidates. Among the races that the former Alaska Governor intends to use her resources to flip are those of our Congressmen Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall.
It's time to send a message to out-of-state politicians and special interests that there tactics will not work here. Please donate to your State Party to help fight the attacks today!
Never the most emotionally mature or stable of people, Sarah Palin is going off the deep end.
The words and the rifle scopes used on the map say a lot about "violence is not the answer."
Sarah Palin may not be a serious, viable candidate for anything, but her coded words and inflammatory rhetoric are very dangerous. She derailed the debate on the HCR with her "death panels", divided the country with her "Real Americans" speech and now appears to be calling for an armed retaliation against elected representatives of the people.
I'll be waiting for Insurance Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, in her role as a member of the Civility Caucus on Capitol Hill, to denounce the uncivil words and illustrations from Palin.
Rep. Nick Rahall and Rep. Alan Mollohan had our backs on the healthcare reform vote and we need to remember that as they campaign against Republican opponents this election season.
The corporate interests are aligning against them because Rahall and Mollohan stood up for the people of their districts.
Nearly 20 percent of the people in Mollohan's WV-01 and more than 20 percent in Rahall's WV-03 are currently uninsured. This measure will help the vast majority of them obtain healthcare coverage as well as make life easier for the elderly on Medicare in addition to lowering the deficit for all of us.
This isn't the healthcare measure many of us wanted and think Democrats should have worked for, but it is a step in the right direction to improve the lives of many people.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
