Media and losing Candidates try to discredit WV Tea Party

May 1, 2010
W.Va. Tea Party hopes to sway 1st District race
West Virginia's Tea Party movement wants a say in which Republican candidate gets the primary nod to challenge for the 1st Congressional District seat now held by Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan.
By Lawrence Messina
The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- West Virginia's Tea Party movement wants a say in which Republican candidate gets the primary nod to challenge for the 1st Congressional District seat now held by Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan.

That race may be the state's highest-profile contest this year where Tea Party members could prove an influence. The movement has groups scattered around the district that have held candidate forums, rallies and other events. The gatherings have, at times, drawn hundreds of potential voters, along with most, if not all, of the race's six GOP hopefuls.

The issues touted by the groups' leaders reflect those embraced by the movement nationally: they denounce passage of federal health-care legislation, oppose the Obama administration's attempt at "cap and trade,'' and decry the surging of the federal budget deficit and debt.

"We advocate preservation of God and constitution and family values,'' said Sandra Staats, director of the Parkersburg Tea Party.

To the movement, the 66-year-old Mollohan is an ideal target. Seeking a 15th term, Mollohan helped pass health-care reform and pursues the sorts of federal earmarks that fiscal hawks denounce. And while he voted against the bill meant to address carbon emissions, opponents argue he entered that fight late and has failed to support West Virginia's coal industry.

"It's pretty much a uniform feeling among our people that Mollohan has to go,'' said Ryan Kennedy, co-founder of the North Central West Virginia Tea Party.

Kennedy said a number of his members have gravitated toward Morgantown developer Andrew "Mac'' Warner and Wood County businessman Tom Stark.

Former GOP chairman and state lawmaker Dave McKinley and Sarah Miner, also a former legislator, have their supporters within the group as well, Kennedy said. As a result, the group has not endorsed a single candidate.

Kennedy added that his group has endorsed state Sen. Mike Oliverio, Mollohan's challenger in the May 11 Democratic primary. Many of his group's members are Democrats or independents who plan to vote in that open primary, he said, noting a recent radio appearance by Oliverio.

"He said a lot of things that probably would be very welcome at a Tea Party rally,'' said Kennedy, a Clarksburg lawyer.

Staats said most Parkersburg Tea Party members favor Warner. While Stark and fellow Republican Patty Levenson and Cindy Hall have campaigned as outsiders, they have not resonated with members as Warner has, she said.

May 1, 2010
W.Va. Tea Party hopes to sway 1st District race
West Virginia's Tea Party movement wants a say in which Republican candidate gets the primary nod to challenge for the 1st Congressional District seat now held by Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan.
"We call him the people's choice,'' Staats said. "He doesn't have the money and he's not a politician, and he's running against people who have a lot of money and are politicians.''

Warner had raised $165,700 and spent $148,000 of that as of April 21, leaving him with $17,677 three weeks before the primary. But the 55-year-old married father of four has also been beset by the woes of the family's development business, which has been in bankruptcy and at odds with Morgantown officials over its rental-housing holdings.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, he has campaigned on his term as an Army officer as well.

The race's money leader has been McKinley, who has raised or given his campaign nearly $555,000. He's also racked up endorsements from the Ogden Newspapers chain as well as National Right to Life and its in-state counterpart, among other groups.

And with the primary still weeks away, the National Republican Congressional Committee anointed McKinley as its choice months ago. But Staats said her members consider him the sort of career politician they oppose.

"They think he's pretty much the same as Mollohan,'' she said. "He's not the one who has the backing of the tea parties, at least here in Parkersburg.''

McKinley earned howls at a mid-March candidate forum held by the Wheeling-area Tea Party, when he was the only candidate present who would not pledge to read every bill before any votes. While some applauded his explanation, which cited his experience in the Legislature, other candidates earned louder cheers for challenging his response.

"He got slammed for it,'' Staats said.

As perhaps evidence of Tea Party influence, McKinley issued a five-point plan for "congressional reform'' three days after that forum, which included posting each bill online at least 72 hours before a vote.

In a statement, McKinley cited Warner's business troubles to question support of his candidacy by Parkersburg Tea Party members. He also called the group "very anti-coal,'' referring to a February forum it held on the mountaintop removal method of mining.

"I was also pleased to be the only congressional candidate to speak at the Morgantown Tax Day Tea Party event and was greatly encouraged by the response of the crowd,'' McKinley said. "I also attended the Wheeling Tax Day Tea Party and had a great reception as I went through the crowd.''

Associated Press deliberately left the part out, where I clearly stated that Parkersburg Tea Party does not endorse candidates.

Candidate David McKinley calls us "anticoal" because of one educational seminar. We try to have open minds and listen to all views.

Candidate Tom Stark tells the public that the Parkersburg Tea Party has been taken over.

Gee, you would think we were running for congress, by all the mud being slung at us!

We must be doing something right!

Views: 15


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service