Ron Paul As Winston Churchill

As most of you know, I am leaning towards Sarah Palin or Rick Perry at this point. I think that they combine visibility, conservative ideals, and electability.

That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.

In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.

Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.

This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll: What Does This Mean?

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul has taken CPAC's presidential straw poll. Is this a statement on the state of the conservative movement? Does this mean anything for Representative Paul?

Probably not. CPAC is a gigantic gathering of conservatives and libertarians that takes place every year. It attracts the most dedicated, but has in recent years been struggling to find its identity. Its economic conservatives and libertarians want it to go one direction and social conservatives prefer it would go another.

Poll results went as follows:


Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 30 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson: 6 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 5 percent
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4 percent
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann: 4 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3 percent
Former talk show host Herman Cain: 2 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: 2 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune: 2 percent
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman: 1 percent
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour: 1 percent
Others: 5 percent

This list of names is definitely not exhaustive of those who can, or might contend for the presidency in 2012. Governors Jindal, Perry, and Perdue of Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia could still emerge. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is also stronger than his 1% might indicate.

Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both heads of different organizations that send their supporters to CPAC, so they naturally will vote for their patrons and heroes. However, Romney is persona non gratis to much of the conservative movement for his support of government health care. Ron Paul's ideas on economics and domestic policy have gained favor. Most conservatives would not argue that the Federal Reserve needs greater oversight. Support for the gold standard has also picked up recently. However, his rigid stance on foreign intervention keeps him on the outside for a conservative movement that cherishes the liberator of Grenada. His son, recently elected in Kentucky, has emerged as a much more moderate voice on this subject. Eventually Rand Paul could make a much better libertarian Republican presidential hopeful after some seasoning.

In the next election, a Southern governor will probably step up and break from the pack. Perdue might be held back by the fact that Georgia's economy is currently much less than peachy. Jindal, however, has stood up to Obama. Rick Perry is perceived as soft on immigration, but has battled the EPA and the Department of Education. The economy of his Texas has outperformed most states. Economics and states' rights should be at the forefront in 2012, helping active and successful governors to potentially launch strong challenges for the nomination. Sarah Palin remains in any discussion, but the governors who stayed at the helm will always have an advantage over her.

In essence, CPAC's poll represents the different factions that are diehard enough to travel to Washington and spend money to have a great time and socialize with other up and coming conservatives. However, it is not accurate to see them as a true bellcow for the movement.

Simply Put, We Are On the Verge of Becoming a Banana Republic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtvHAqK8P14&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch the video above, a clip from C Span. Rep Ron Paul (R) 14th Texas is questioning Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve. The Fed Chairman admitted that the federal government has printed money to cover expenditures, a practice called "monetizing the debt." Lyndon Johnson's administration did this as well and it helped to create the dire stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Obama's irresponsible administration is doing the same. Monetizing the debt inflates the currency tremendously, eroding the value of people's savings. In a sense it operates as a tax because the government spends money at the expense of wealth held by the people.

Scary times, folks. Scary times.

This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private

If you look at a piece of US paper money, there is a disclaimer on it somewhere claiming "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." As any Ron Paul supporter will correctly explain, that means that those pieces of paper are money and have worth because the government says so and for no other reason.

For a long time, that backing meant something. One could put full faith and credit into the money because the government was always able to support the currency. The obligation of the United States government to pay its debts, much like the money itself at one time, was as good as gold. As any individual knows, when one takes out too many loans, or fails to pay their bills on time, their credit is undermined. Spending money frivolously causes most of the problems that result in this state of affairs.

That is where the United States is at right now. China questions our credit. Automobile dealerships and medical facilities question our credit. The "cash for clunkers" deal is approaching fiasco status because the government is not paying the credits due to the dealers. Medicare is habitually behind on its payments. These problems undermine faith and credit in our government's handling of the economy.

That goes back to those little pieces of paper we carry around with us. What happens when the faith and credit extended to our government are replaced with suspicion and fear? Our currency then loses value, causing inflation. Lenin did say that high taxes and inflation were the perfect combination with which to destroy the political influence of the middle class.

Regardless of why this is happening, the danger is real. Credit, once lost, is hard to regain even for the United States of America. Admittedly this process has taken many years and presidents to hit this stage. However, Obama is severely exasperating the problem by proposing new costly initiatives instead of trying to scale back the burdens on taxpayers and the system itself.

Over stepping TSA officials meet a 25 year old that knows his Constitutional Rights

What Got Lost In the Convention Furor

A lot has been said and written about the West Virginia presidential nominating convention good, bad, and ugly. Some expressed pleasant surprise, others complete dismay. Thanks ought to go out to the team that made it happen. They received a thankless assignment and achieved their goals. They made money, got the state party some attention, and made the West Virginia GOP a real factor on the most important primary day. Beneath the big picture some sore feelings emerged, but at this point it looks as though reconciliation is likely.

The big question no one asked is why did John McCain do so poorly in West Virginia? Those who did not attend might reason that the more evangelical candidate, Mike Huckabee, had the inside track in a heavily Protestant state. Not true. The power of public speaking played a large role here.

Some performed well. Mitt Romney gave a flawless delivery both at his morning breakfast with supporters and later on the floor. He gave a great speech that few Republicans could possibly disagree. Romney has a strong presence in person and one can understand why his supporters back him with such passion.

Others did not. Ron Paul gave a somewhat rambling address. Just when he made a strong point about values that libertarians and Republicans share, he would haul out an extremist comment or historical errors. Historical errors are forgivable. Romney claimed that John Adams wrote the Constitution when Adams was actually serving abroad. That's fine because Romney did not base his policy plans on those errors. Paul asserted that Congress passed laws forbidding "entangling alliances." That actually came from Washington's Farewell Address and many historians believe that he only meant that for the temporary period in which the US would be vulnerable to foreign intrigues. Paul then blundered by forgetting that the United States Navy, not privateers, defeated the Barbary Pirates. His reference to being a Baptist seemed forced.

McCain's guest speaker, former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, looked like a great singer who kept hitting false notes. He seemed congenial and had I been a Louisianan I would have enjoyed his speech. Roemer proclaimed that LSU was the greatest college football team in the nation and implied that he'd rather have been in New Orleans than Charleston. Later he made a small joke about Presbyterians while mentioning the different denominations that helped Hurricane Katrina victims. In doing so he omitted the West Virginia National Guard who played a very important role. A delegate behind me asked if he was trying to get people to vote against McCain.

Mike Huckabee spoke extremely well. Coming from a poor small town background in an impoverished mountain state, he knew how to speak to West Virginia Republicans. Contrary to Democrat claims, many current West Virginia GOPers came from poor and difficult backgrounds. Huckabee joked about Lava soap, a product often used to get dirt or grease off the hands. He claimed that it was not until he was about twenty that he understood that a shower was not supposed to hurt. Huckabee was warm and endearing and swayed many delegates to at least see him as a vice presidential possibility.

In many ways the convention proved a success. For me personally it was a fascinating experience. As a student of the history of politics, this was a rare opportunity to witness how our candidates were chosen before the era of primaries. Hopefully the hard feelings that emerged during the convention will pass quickly so we can get to the business of getting our state behind the next president

No Convention Deal, come on...

The Romney camp was outflanked by a misuse of the rules. Or I guess we could call it the Washington interpretation of the rules, or just darn good strategy. How I know? Several people asked me for directions to room 105, where McCain supporters journeyed to and then returned from convinced to vote for Huckabee. Granted Huckabee's supporters could have simply convinced the McCain people to reconsider their positions and been overwhelmingly persuasive to 95% of McCain followers in just about an hour. However, I happened to be standing next to a McCain supporter who had refuted efforts at a conversion to Mitt Romney even quoting that his integrity would be open to question if he switched his vote for political reasons, when he was approached by one of McCain's people and told to vote for Huckabee. That settled it, the fix was implemented, and so the vote went. I have left out names, but would be happy to provide them if denials continue.

What bothers me is not the "deal". Rules allowed for such a deal, and a well timed lunch hour gave the needed break to provide organization from each side. Not to mention, that I am not sure that WV votes even matter as far as this race is concerned. What bothers me is the willingness of the Republican Party leadership to entangle themselves in a nationally publicized mess. McCain and Huckabee are denying involvement in the proceedings...executive privilege already? The leadership from the McCain-Huckabee team gets to take credit for the deal when the time is right and McCain gets the nod and can reward their courageous action. The rest of us are left looking just as bad as the democrats we bash for voter fraud and corruption from Charleston to Washington. Let's be honest, do we republicans actually want to distinguish ourselves, or do we want to keep playing the valiant underdog in each campaign? We are a conservative state, but can't get local and state Republicans elected!? I know the arguments of old school democrats that live conservative but vote democrat, but I have lived here for several years and NEVER heard a republican stand up and advocate their platform in a meaningful way.

The Republican Party is not going to out-maneuver the Democrats in WV. It's not in our blood and is contrary to the message that was on the large banner at the convention.


We advocate less government then design a convention that is so laden with political bureaucracy that we were set up from the start. The well timed lunch was announced as a time to trade horses. At the very least the McCain people could have hidden their intent a little better and wait until McCain was out of the race to dump into the Huckabee camp. But that would have left the second vote up to the delegates and that is something we can't have. So a backroom (room 105) deal was made and the convention was settled. Not to mention that some constituents didn't even know that their primary vote had been superseded by a convention until yesterday; leaving most of the spots for the usual suspects, Party loyalists, executive committee members, and a few hand-picked delegates. A slight tinge of disdain was even evident when I discussed the Ron Paul delegates who had, at the last moment, changed their political affiliation to republican and slipped into a delegate position. Consequently, Ron Paul supporters were the only group in the convention with any level of diversity in their ranks.

Republicans win elections by sharing their message, not through clever political maneuvering. In ideological battles, we win. The American spirit resonates truest in an open market with limitations on government. Those limitations allow individuals to prosper in the endeavors of their choosing, whether those are family, faith, financial, service, or other. It may be too late for this election cycle, but next cycle we might have a chance to band together and come up with a plan and an agenda for this state much like Newt Gingrich came up with in the mid-90s. A coherent message could give us the opportunity to bolster the Republican Party to a position where real change can occur in our state.

The Plot Thickens . . .

So, our great convention experiment has concluded. If nothing else, it has been an eye-opener. Of course, most of the talk is about "The Deal". I have an unique perspective on The Deal, which I will share in the near future. However, I note--with no small degree of glee--the following, as reported in Lawrence Messina's AP wire report:

‘‘There was no backroom deal. There wasn’t even a frontroom deal. There was no deal,’’ [Huckabee] said.

McCain also denied that there was a deal.

‘‘I didn’t have a conversation with (Huckabee) or any of his people about anything to do with it,’’ McCain said at a news conference in Phoenix. ‘‘It’s a bit insulting to Governor Huckabee, who won that, by alleging such a thing.’’

But Paul supporters claimed Tuesday evening that Huckabee’s campaign bought their support with the promise of three West Virginia delegates.

‘‘That’s not true,’’ said Huckabee spokeswoman Alice Stewart.

John Tate, national political director for Paul, insisted that there was a deal even after learning of Stewart’s denial.

--end quote--

First--I'm sorry, Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee, but there WAS a deal.

Second--Part of that deal was for Ron Paul to be bought with 3 national convention delegates.

Third--Ahhh.....what is that? The sweet smell of poetic justice. More to follow. . . .

Final Vote Tally from the WVGOP Convention

Here are the actual votes from the Convention earlier today...

Second Ballot

MIKE HUCKABEE - 567 VOTES (52%) (+192 from first round)

MITT ROMNEY - 521 VOTES (47%) (+57 from first round)

JOHN McCAIN - 12 VOTES (1%) (-164 from first round)
RON PAUL - ELIMINATED (-118 from first round)

First Ballot
MIKE HUCKABEE - 375 (33%)
MITT ROMNEY - 464 (41%)
JOHN McCAIN - 167 (15%)
RON PAUL - 118 (10%)

Huckabee Wins Brokered WV Convention

After first round of voting Romney lead followe by Huckabee, McCain, and Ron Paul finsihing in last place. This removed Ron Paul from the process. The next vote was between Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.

Huckabee's delegates worked to pick up the Ron Paul vote, and brokered a deal with McCain crew to garner their vote. The deal worked, in the the second round of voting Huckabee picked up 52% of the vote clinching 18 of West Virginia 30 delegates.

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee were both present at the convention and gave speechs to the over 1000 delegates. McCain was the only candidate not in attendence.

McCain Wins New Hampshire, Obama Clinton battling

Republican (24% Reporting)

1) McCain 37%
2) Romney 29 %
3) Huckabee 12 %
4) Giuliani 9%
5) Paul 8%
6) Thompson 2%

Democrat (26% Reporting)
1) Clinton 40%
2) Obama 34%
3) Edwards 17%
4) Richards 4%

Republicans on to Wyoming, Democrats to New Hampshire

Saturday Republicans head to the Wyoming Caucus ahead of the New Hampshire Primary.

With 78% Reporting from Iowa

34% Huckabee
25% Romney
14% Thompson
13% McCain

Huckabee's strong win has surprised a lot of people, mainly at the expense of Romney. It is unclear how the virtual tie between Thompson and McCain will play out. 2 surprises; a stronger than expected 5th place finish by Ron Paul, and very low finish by Giuliani with only 4% of the vote.

With 96% Reporting
38% Obama
30% Edwards
29% Clinton
02% Richardson

Juan Williams pointed out that in Iowa, a state with 95% of the population being white, Obama's strong win over both Edwards and Clinton shows that he is a viable national candidate and race will not play a major roll as some expected. This will make Obama a more viable candidate in the eyes of many voters. The 3rd place finish by Clinton could be devastating to her campaign.

Ron Paul Redux

In my last commentary on Ron Paul, I was twice invited by "anonymous" to read Ron Paul's site. They apparently thought I had not done this in the first place. I did go back and look again at his positions and came away with the same feeling I had before. Some of his ideas are solid, but a few would put the country in danger.

Smaller government that puts more freedom into the hands of the people represents a positive good. We definitely need to roll back liberal cuts in property and education rights. As far as domestic ideas on individual rights are concerned, Ron Paul has good ideas. Fortunately Fred Thompson and other Republican candidates share Paul's desire to protect property rights, gun rights, and the right of every unborn child to live.

Paul's foreign policy ideas are, however, disastrous. They run absolutely contrary to the actions of the Founding Fathers when they assumed the presidency. Paul believes that military force ought not be used without a direct declaration of war by Congress. Again, the Founders themselves did not believe that this was reasonable. George Washington launched three wars against the Shawnee Nation and after his presidency supported an undeclared war against France launched by John Adams. Washington's Farewell Address warning about entanglements referred to alliances with Europe and most likely was meant to be a short term warning. Washington's actions throughout his life reflected those of a man who was flexible and adaptive to changing situations, never dogmatic.

Congress did not declare war against the Barbary Pirates in either the Jefferson or Madison administration. Each one of these men supported military action without the direct assent of Congress. Madison and Washington wielded powerful influences over the creation of the Constitution. If any men understood what it meant, these would be two. Jefferson advocated a very limited role for the chief executive, but still sent the Navy and Marines into action to protect US interests.

Paul's position on Iraq has no basis in reality and shows an appalling lack of any kind of sense about geopolitics. References to creating more enemies simply do not hold water and do not reflect the shifting and complex nature of society and politics in the Middle East. National Security means that the US needs to be involved in regions throughout the world. If a grease fire started in your kitchen, would you put it out immediately, or wait until your entire home was threatened? "No win police actions" and other uses of the military that Paul disdains head off more dangerous conflicts down the road. If we had the same foreign policy in the 1930s that we do now, millions of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved. Paul has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, much less Munich and Pearl Harbor.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, neither the Canadians nor the United States want a European Union style system. Canada very jealously guards its cultural and political independence from possible US encroachment. That being said the EU represents a powerful economic competitor as a unified economic zone. Paul points out that France has blocked sales of US products. So be it. The best way to react is through a coordinated response with our primary trade partners. The European Union already shows signs of strain due to its increasingly socialistic regulations and is no model to follow. When BMW shows that Spartanburg, South Carolina is a better place to manufacture cars that their own country, it demonstrates that our system works. That being said, it is right to remain vigilant to make sure that Eurosocialism does not creep into our methods of doing business.

When it is all said and done, Paul is an idealist. Ideally the world's nations conduct their affairs reasonably, each nation peacefully advancing their own interest. In such a world Paul's ideas on foreign policy would be fine. The world has never reflected such a state. In both warfare and trade, the rest of the world does not play by the rules we would like to follow. We must follow a variety of strategies to protect our economic and political interests. Paul's ideas do not reflect reality. It is hard to tell what is more of a threat, Paul's dangerously ineffective idealism, or Obama's absolute vacancy. Likely we will never find out in either case.

*************************************************************************

By the way, some over the years have bemoaned the fact that big money often exercises influence over politics. This is especially true in West Virginia. For the most part, convention delegates whether committed or uncommitted paid their own fees and travel expenses. The exception lies in Paul's delegates. As was reported by Gary Abernathy and Vic Sprouse, Ron Paul's campaign paid many of the delegate fees. Some of the travel expenses were also covered for Paul delegates. Imagine that, the outsider candidate trying to purchase a convention victory in West Virginia. They did nothing illegal, but it does explain why they hold a lead in "committeds." Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and others could not afford to send a bunch of folks on a paid junket to Charleston.

Paul's campaign may be one of outsiders, but they learned some inside tricks in West Virginia politics fairly quickly.

Giddiness Over Iran

The media is giddy. Democrats are giddy. Even Iran is Giddy. What is the source of all this giddiness?

The National Intelligence Estimate laid what has been touted as a bombshell, that Iran has not actively tried to produce a nuclear weapon since 2003. Harry Reid of course used it to promote Bush as a warmonger trying to start a conflict with Iran for no real reason. The media, Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul, the Iranian president and every other opponent of Bush's policy will pile on, once again touting a Bush failure, but hold on a second.

Seems to me that this 2003 date seems vaguely familiar. Why on earth would Iran select 2003 as a year to fall into line with the world's demands (minus France, Russia and all else making money off of Iran) to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. Did Iran just pick this day out of the clear blue? The Democrats and the media may have missed it, but I doubt thinking people have.

Cause and effect. We invaded Iraq in 2003 over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Even the mullahocracy has a sense of self-preservation even though they discourage it in others. They understand the possibility of the United States targeting their regime next and shut down their program.

For four years they have not had an active program, but that does not mean they do not pose a threat. Iran continues to produce for its nuclear reactors the kind of enriched uranium that can be used for weapons. George W. Bush's policy in the Middle East once again has borne fruit. First Libya committed to disarming, now we see that Iran did the same. Only continued pressure and the threat of force will keep Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Once again President Bush should receive the credit for removing a potential threat to the United States before it becomes too dangerous.

That Ron Paul Thing

Depending on who you ask, Ron Paul is either a minor blip on the Republican radar or a force with the capability to derail both our state nominating convention and the presidential race (at least as far as Republicans are concerned.) Paul runs for the Republican nomination on ideas of isolationism and staunch economic libertarianism. His supporters tend to show tremendous zeal and uncompromising enthusiasm for their man and his stands.

Count me as one not worried. Ron Paul's ideas sound like the platform of James A. Garfield or some other GOP nominee from over a hundred yeas ago. Less government and less regulation I can support to an extent. However the Great Depression proved that free trade is essential to maintaining prosperity and security for America in the world. Paul's supporters want to return to the old "Fortress America" concept of isolation. Who would they rather guide the affairs of the world? Russia? China? In an age of ICBMs and terrorists, America will never be safe in an isolated cocoon. The evil doers of the world hate the example of freedom we set. No amount of non involvement would save us.

Paul does have zealous supporters and gained a strong foothold in West Virginia's state Republican presidential convention. However, as Gary Abernathy points out, the declared delegates are all Paul will get. Paul's supporters will not go uncommitted. It is unlikely that more than a small handful of uncommitted will choose a non mainstream candidate except as perhaps a protest vote. Republicans do not tend to protest.

Nationally some worry about Paul forming a third party and siphoning votes from the GOP nominee. The fact is that someone like Paul runs in every presidential election and that party has remained in existence a very long time. The Libertarians are not, as some put it "Republicans that smoke pot," but they do share values with free market GOPers. At the end of the day, as usual, many Libertarians will choose what they see as the lesser of two evils. They will vote against Big Government Hillary.

Paul does have committed and hard working supporters. They have effectively marketed him in the new media. Over time mainstream candidates in both major parties will study Paul's campaign and try to emulate the positive features. However, Paul's campaign (if indeed he does move to a third party candidacy) will likely not pose a strong threat to Republican chances IF the nominee can charismatically and effectively stand behind true GOP principles this spring, summer, and fall.

Potomac Highlands Funding Presidential Candidates

The following information is from official public records of the Federal Election Commission


Democrats

• Hillary Clinton has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands

• Amy Carpenter, Romney Employer: American Woodmark Contribution: $75
• Kermit Garrettson, Keyser Employer: Keyser Inn Contribution: $350
• Robin Dolly, Moorefield Employer: Mountain Medical Contribution: $1000
• Joanne Webster, Mathias Employer: Information Requested Contribution: $500
• Victor Wulf, Baker Employer: Retired Contribution: $250

• John Edwards has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Robert Mayhew, Romney Employer: Information Requested Contribution $2300
• Barack Obama has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Robert Erber, Baker Employer: Information Requested Contribution $200
  

• Bill Richardson has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Robert Alcock, Lost City Employer: Lost River Woodworking Contribution $250

Republicans

• Mitt Romney has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Jeffery Hott, Franklin Employer: Hott's AG Service Contribution $350
• Edith Shankle, Bloomery Employer: Retired Contribution $1250
• Fred Dalton Thompson has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• David Maher, Milham Employer: Self-Employed Contribution $250
• John McCain has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Carl Smith, Moorefield Employer: Retired Contribution $300
• Ron Paul has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• Jack Mullen, Keyser Employer: Starcast South Contribution $800
• James Landis, Peterburg Employer: Conquest Publishing Contribution $1000
• James Gillmore has received contributions from the following persons in the Potomac Highlands
• David Bookman, Romney Employer: Retired Contribution $500

All records are public and on file at the Federal Election Commission

WVGOP Convention Format Favors.......Ron Paul?

Much has been written (much less has been understood) about the West Virginia GOP's new convention format for selecting at-large national convention delegates. I won't try to explain the entire process right now, but basically each county (based upon a formula) is allocated a certain number of delegates to the state convention. Those delegates to the state convention, in turn, will meet in Charleston on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 to cast votes for one of the 10 Republican candidates that have elected to participate. The winning campaign will then name 18 individuals to serve as West Virginia's at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention.

For purposes of this post, the important thing to understand about the state convention is that victory will go to the candidate best able to mobilize and turnout its supporters. Fund raising doesn't matter. National polls matter even less.

The winning candidate will identify the number of "public" delegates available to each county, and will find (through e-mail lists, coalition groups, or other networks) enough people to fill those slots. There will likely only be a handful of counties where there are competitive elections in the races for Delegate to the State Convention; in most of the counties, anyone who files to be a delegate will likely be a delegate. In that scenario, whichever campaign recruits delegates to file for the state convention can just rack up those votes. The very serious campaigns will even consider paying the $25 filing fee for their people to run.

In addition, I suspect that most counties will end up forgoing the county caucus process and select county "public" delegates strictly online. In this way, the Ron Paul campaign may have an advantage. It is becoming a recurring storyline through the campaign how Ron Paul is a phenomenon on the Internet; he has a network of very dedicated followers who flood message boards and online polls. If he has enough people in the state to put up some delegates (which is a monumental "if"), I would suspect that he also has enough people to show a significant online presence for purposes of voting.

I have a feeling that we'll have a good idea who will be the winner of this convention on November 30. That's the last date to register to run for delegate, and its the last day to register to vote online. In counties where there is no county caucus (which will likely be most counties), that's the end of the game.

We might just see that this new experiment has provided a golden opportunity for a dark horse.

WV Republican Presidental Convention Participants

The following candidates have signed on to participate in West Virginia's Presidential Convention on February 5th, 2008.

• Sam Brownback
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Duncan Hunter
  
• Alan Keyes
  
• John McCain
  
• Ron Paul
  
• Mitt Romney
  
• Fred Thompson
• Gene Zarwell