Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
Just around the corner on February 27 is the Special Election primary vote to fill the CD8 seat vacated by Trent Franks. The Republican and Democrat winners of that election will go head to head on April 24. Then they will go right back to campaigning for the permanent seat in the August primary. Franks was generally semi-conservative even though some tea partiers saw him as a very conservative lawmaker. We disagree due to his alignment with the likes of McCain and Flake and bowing to their pressure on some important issues in his time in the House. Nonetheless, Franks is a decent guy and people in CD8 liked him and feel at a loss at his resignation.
Here is the very crowded Republican field in no particular order:
Clair Van Steenwyk
That makes 12 Republicans and three un-named Democrats in a district that is unlikely to elect a Democrat. Let's take a look at who these candidates are (we included websites when we found them):
Chad Allen – a business owner from Goodyear, has no political experience and the standard line up of issue positiions.
David Lien – Minnesota native where he ran for office is a very blue district and lost. Served as city councilman for four terms in a small Minnesota town and served in various positions in the MN Republican party. Lives in Glendale. A very long shot.
Richard Mack – Popular former Sheriff of Graham County, AZ. A political activist, he is known for his role in a successful lawsuit brought against the federal government of the United States which alleged that portions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the United States Constitution. Loved by many but disliked because he's not the perfect candidate.
Sylvester, Dilley, Dolgos, Yates are also rans and will not affect the election in any major way.
Clair Van Steenwyk – Professional candidate described by Seeing Red Arizona as “ego driven, perpetual candidate promotes his online radio show” Routinely garner's a few votes but has never finished any race higher than last place.
Steve Montenegro – Former AZ House member, favors NPV even still, takes his orders from CQ (Constantin Querard) We cannot figure out why Franks endorsed this man when he endorses the end of America with the National Popular Vote. Despite what he claims on any given day, he still supports NPV. This job needs someone with critical thinking skills and Montenegro doesn't have that gift.
Debbie Lesko – supported by all the progressive Republicans, we would take a wide berth around this candidate. Like Montenegro, has collected plenty of donations from those you would not want to chat with at a cocktail party.
Phil Lovas – It's true he was an early supporter of Donald Trump. It's true he worked hard on Candidate Trumps campaign. So did some our our team members but we don't consider that is the best resume` for a Congressional job. His singular issue seems to be “Elect me. I worked for Trump.” His wife is a bundler for progressive Republicans like McCain and was on the payroll of devious Robert Graham, AZGOP Chairman. Pass on him.
Bob Stump – Our first introduction to Stump was some years ago when he followed his well-liked father on the Arizona Corporation Commission. Unfortunately, the younger Stump, now running for CD8 was caught up in a corruption scandal while in that position along with Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns: Click Here and Click Here
With this information, it should be clear who would best represent CD8 in an honorable manner. Wouldn't that be something!
PLEASE KEEP COMMENTS BRIEF OR START A NEW DISCUSSION. THANKS. TEAM AFA
The very reason that you use to eliminate Clair is the reason you should elect him he knows the constitution and he will where the Dem's out. I heard that Mack suggested sending the kids out front at the Bundy Ranch standoff. I just trust Van.
Wouldn't you say that Richard Mack *also* knows the Constitution, has already publicly fought for it...and won? Seems as if he has had far more actual experience in that area and proved his worth "in the trenches".
Randy Miller makes an offer below, and it's certainly a viable one. Or, you can consider this:
There's much more to this candidate than he and his team continue to present to the public, so it's appropriate to consider the rest of the story. To begin, Mack's a carpetbagger who doesn't live in CD-8. Yes, I also know that's not a bar to running for the CD-8 seat, but to me--and from comments posted online by others--it's an issue, and I won't vote for him or any other carpetbagger. Before anyone takes exception to my referring to him as a carpetbagger, let's review some of his history that's conveniently missing from his campaign literature and the biography his campaign published.
-- He was, in fact, elected twice as the sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, before he was then defeated in 1994, and in all those elections he was a Democrat.
-- In 1998, he ran for sheriff of Utah County, Utah, as a Republican, and he lost--beaten in the primary. Note his carpetbag began picking up some mileage.
-- Then, in 1999 he ran for Provo City Council, a non-partisan post, but was again eliminated in the primary. Pattern of losing? I think so.
-- Then as he was gearing up and filing to run for governor of Utah, in 2004, as a Libertarian, Mack said "No way I could be in the Republican Party anymore." Since his supporters don't refer to him as "Governor," it's easy to know the outcome of that campaign. He lost--or he quit!
-- Time to drag his carpetbag again, as he returned to Arizona to run for U.S. Senator in 2006--still as a Libertarian. If nothing else, he was consistent in this race too--as he lost.
-- Loading up his carpetbag once again, Mack went to Texas where he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 21st congressional district in 2012. For Mack, it's clear the "anymore" in "No way I could be in the Republican Party anymore" was more short lived than a dictionary definition suggests. In this campaign he returned to the Republican Party and ran as a Republican. As you might expect, after reading his history, Mack lost in the primary.
-- Carpetbag time again, as he's back in Arizona, living in one congressional district, but running for office in another.
Let's review: He's been a Democrat (the only elections he's ever won, until he lost), a Republican who publicly turned his back on the Republican Party, a Libertarian, and back to being a Republican as he's pursued elected office. He's also given his carpetbag quite a workout as he's tried to get elected in Arizona, Utah, Arizona, Texas, and back to Arizona.
Conclusion: The reason Mack's a prolific author--and not a career politician--is he's a prolific loser of elections. And, his past actions show that despite him running as a Republican this time, he'd be a better fit to run in the Chameleon Party. That's the party with the motto "Whichever Way the Wind Blows--Go There!"
Finally, it's fair to point out that the National Rifle Association (NRA) recruited Mack to be the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit the NRA wanted to bring. That, by the way, is a common practice for advocacy organizations to gain standing in the court system to further their aims. And that's way different than Joe Citizen, county sheriff, independently and privately suing the U.S. Government--which is the version Mack and his supporters present.
George Moriarty, You don't have a clue, you are to young. People get discussed with the Republican party when there are people like McCain, Flake, Romney and other before that just put a do it their way or no way and take over. So people run as another party. Richard Mack is the best Candidate for this job. None of the rest of them could cut the mustard.
So, Kay Reardon, how old would a person have to be not to be too young and to have a clue?
Want to check a candidate? Try this questionaire.
Dear candidate/Representative/Senator ______________________________. Do you agree:
The purpose of government is to secure people’s unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and an opportunity for Happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Yes no
To be lawful government must comply with the principles and policies set forth in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights when interpreted in the spirit of providing American’s life, liberty, and an opportunity for happiness? Yes No
Any government Act that’s diminished or destroyed any Americans ability to enjoy a Right is an unlawful Act that must be corrected in order for government to be lawful? Yes no
4. Federal action has exceeded the clear bounds of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and thus violated rights guaranteed the people” as alleged by thirty governors? Yes No
5. The governor’s pledge “to restore to the states and the people the prerogatives and freedoms guaranteed them under the Constitution” must be supported? Yes No If yes will you do so? Yes No
6. The Constitution's 10th Amendment stating "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution .... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is incontestable evidence that the only lawful powers of the Federal Government are those specified in the Constitution? Yes No
7. States created the federal government as their AGENT and possess the ultimate authority and responsibility for the proper interpretation and implementation of the Constitution? Yes No
8. Two threats to the Constitution are a Constitutional Convention and bankruptcy of our states? Yes No If yes will you support legislation designed to minimize or eliminate these threats? Yes No
9. To fulfill the governor’s pledge the US must control its own destiny which requires modifying or terminating its membership in the United Nations and returning to a wealth based medium of exchange meeting the spirit and intent of Art. 1. 8:5 of the Constitution? Yes No If yes, will you introduce legislation dedicated to these changes? Yes No
10. The Emergency Banking Act of 3/9/33 that made Americans official enemies of the Federal government and gave dictatorial powers to the Presidency must be repealed? Yes No
11. Treaties, a purview of the President with the consent of the Senate, cannot lawfully create law as Art. 1 Sec.1 of our Constitution vested all legislative powers in the Congress? Yes No
12. By applying doctrines of “interposition” and “nullification,” states can reject Federal legislation with which they disagree. (see South Carolinas 1832 Ordinance of Nullification) yes no
13. The 1946 change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure denying citizens their 5th Amendment right to Common Law Grand Juries was/is un constitutional and must be nullified? Yes No If yes will you introduce or support such action? Yes No
14. The 17th Amendment was fraudulently introduced and adopted and must be rescinded? Yes no
Please send your completed questionnaire to my email at _________________________ or my home at _______________________________. Should you have questions please call me at ________________.
Any/every candidate would respond the same--and exactly as you'd want them to, so your questionnaire would lead full circle back to the starting point. In the end, it will be necessary to consider what they've done--or not done--and project that to the potential for future behaviors. All candidates have flaws, and anyone who hasn't done something to anger a subset of the population probably hasn't done anything at all. The task for voters is to weigh things as they are, align actions according to their importance as seen by the assessor, and make a final decision. Sad as it is, all of these candidates will garner some votes. Sadder still is some will vote without having vetted the candidates and will cast their votes based on superficial observations. I'm reminded that in 2010, 10 candidates vied for the CD-3 Republican nomination, and Ben Quayle--the most ineffective representative I've had in my life--won the primary with 23 percent of the vote. Making that harder for me to swallow is the clearly unelectable candidates collectively took 25 percent of the vote. I'm hoping and praying for a better outcome this time.
You are correct, Randy. That is a rumor that never seems to want to die. We inspected videos endlessly, interviewed some who were there and thoroughly covered the entire Bundy/Finicum situation and posted some of the videos. In no video is there anywhere that anyone pushed kids out in front. What kids were there were kept well away from the action.
Didn't sound at all like Mack in the first place. Literally did not make any sense whatsoever.
The site, I understand for Sheriff Mack is the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) :