West Virginia has always been counted as one of the most reliably Democratic states in the nation.  Until 1996 there has been nothing to indicate that such is not still the case.  However, a remarkable phenomenon occurred here in the presidential election in 1996.  While the rest of the nation was voting for Perot and other third-party presidential candidates in far less numbers than was the case in 1992, West Virginia ran exactly counter to that trend.  Whereas in 1992 they had only given Perot 16% of their votes, in 1996 Perot and other third-party/independent presidential candidates received 11% of the vote from West Virginians.  I have my own pet theory about why that was the case.  Take a look at this passage from the Almanac's discussion of this small state:
 

...in a computer age it is no longer isolated; with low wages, good work habits, low land costs, West Virginia has even developed a software industry in the corridor between Morgantown and Clarksburg. Governor Cecil Underwood, elected in 1956 and then again in 1996, notes that he started building the Interstate highway system 40 years ago and now is building a "technology superhighway system."

 
    Senior Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has become an institution in our nation's capitol, as surely as the Washington monument or the Jefferson Memorial.  Whether it is his encyclopedic knowledge of Senate history and rules (he wrote the definitive history of the Senate), whether it is the erudite quotes of the greats of humanity, Shakespeare, Gibbon, Dante, whether it is championing and defending the rights and prerogatives of the parliamentary body in which he serves and which he loves, there is no doubt that Robert Byrd is an American original, one of a kind, a sort of human national monument.

    He also stands for everything which appals the American Reform Party.  From his Olympian attitude toward the high office which he has achieved, to his meticulous and relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar for his constituent state of West Virginia, Robert Byrd is a pork-barreling, privilege-grabbing affront to the true spirit of democracy.  I have no illusions that this human support beam of the highest deliberative body in our country can be dislodged; he will serve in his current capacity until he or his body decides otherwise.  But the style of governance which he represents, where local parochial venal interests outweigh the national good, must be challenged, if only symbolically, by ARP.  I suggest a deeply respectful campaign conducted on a very high level, where there is profound discussion of the proper role of a representative in a democratic republic such as ours.  I have no doubt that Senator Byrd will conduct himself well in such a fight.  He will no doubt eloquently proclaim the historical and democratic justification for his parochial policies and regal style.  We must be prepared with, if possible, almost as eloquent a case to the contrary.

    In order for this approach to work, we need to find someone of unquestioned probity and dignity, perhaps not even a politician but rather a universally respected authority on our nation and on democracy, perhaps a famous author or thinker.  Whether one exists, and whether that person lives in West Virginia, and whether residency requirements will permit someone from outside of the state to change their residency this close to an election remains to be seen.  But as I see it, our challenge to Robert Byrd should be regarded as our way of symbolically telling the nation that our cause is not just about winning but about standing up for our vision of a more honest nationally responsible approach to leading the American people.

    While the preoccupations of the junior Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Jay Rockefeller, are no doubt praiseworthy, such as product liability reform and health care, he has a great blind spot where the question of fiscal responsibility is concerned.  He opposed the Kerrey-Moynihan entitlement reform proposals, for example, and received Concord Coalition ratings of 8%, 10%, and 22% for the years of 95, 96, and 97 respectively.  The Taxpayers for Common Sense in 1998 scored him below his own party's average in the Senate, at 40% (the Democratic Senate average was 43%).  With a record like this, it is hard to see how this Senator could ever be helpful in the pursuit of ARP's legislative goals.

    Nevertheless, there is no one of any stature in the state that I know of who could believably take on this scion of one of the nation's wealthiest families in his home state.  I suggest therefore that we run a flag-planting campaign, the goal of which would be to surpass the total of the last GOP candidate to run against Senator Rockefeller;  the total in that instance was 23%.  Senator Rockefeller is up next for election in 2002.
 

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    The Democratic incumbent here, Alan Mollohan, suffers from an incredibly low fiscal responsibility rating from the Concord Coalition, in the 1st percentile for the last year, 1997, in which Concord has released figures.  His primary focus and preoccupation has been bringing home the bacon to his constitutents, a true Byrd disciple.  There is little of national importance or use in his record, nothing about fiscal discipline, and nothing about entitlement reform.

    As a result, I am recommending to ARP that they do not support Congressman Mollohan for re-election in 2002.  As for whether or not there is someone who fits the ARP mode available in the district who might be interested in taking on Mollohan, I have to report that I came up empty.  I suggest for now we consider this seat as a platform for a flag-planting ARP candidacy only.  Our goal should be to cut Mr. Mollohan down to size and win not less than 20% of the vote.  That should be enough to hold Mollohan to 50% assuming the Libertarian candidate wins the same 15% total Libertarian Kerr won in 98.  The Republicans fielded no candidate last year and probably will not in 2000 either.
 

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Robert Wise, Democrat, is notable, in terms of fiscal issues, for one unusual position.  He supports the creation of a capital federal budget as separate and distinct from the figures on the revenue side, as I understand it.  And pursuant to that aim he sponsored a version of the balanced budget amendment at one point which incorporated that concept.  Despite this flirtation with innovation, his record on fiscal issues is of a wretched piece with that of his fellow West Virginian lawmakers.  He sank to an all-time low of 2% in fact according to the Concord Coalition in 1995.  The GOP ran a candidate against Wise in 98 who did wretchedly, -- picking up only 21%, leaving Wise with a crushing 73%.  Libertarian candidate John Brown picked up the remaining 6%.

    Now the word comes through that Wise will not be running for re-election to this district.  Instead he intends to seek the governorship.  So far there are three people among the Democrats here who have hinted at their availability.  They are ultra-liberals Ken Hechler and state Sen. Jim Humphreys, and State Sen. Martha Walker, who is described as a moderate, pro-business Democrat.  Among Republicans, only one figure has emerged.  She is Delegate Shelley Moore Capito, and she is running as a self-described moderate, sort of unusual these days, when every Republican from Jim Jeffords to David Duke is describing him or herself as a conservative.  While we have insufficient info here (we still officially list this district in the flag-planting category), nevertheless both Walker and Capito may bear some watching.  If we do wind up having to run a flag-planter, I suggest that our goal should be to best the the GOP total in 98, that is to say, we should shoot for a 25% showing with our concern being solely to establish ourselves as the new kid on the block, nothing more.