Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
When Congressman Franks made the announcement to resign his position as the Congressman in CD8, he said he had learned he was the target of an investigation regarding "inappropriate" behavior. It turns out that "inappropriate" behavior is that he was looking for someone to be a surrogate for a baby, much wanted by Franks and his wife. Their twins were born to a surrogate. Many of our population were born to surrogate mothers. This is not the least unusual. It's also not unusual for the surrogates to get paid for this service. In fact, about 100% of them get paid - it's only the amount that varies. There is nothing illegal or strange or secretive about this method. It does not rise to the level of harassment to ask!
There was a time when couples who could not have children of their own would adopt. When abortions became rampant, no babies were available in big numbers, so couples went out of the country to adopt, an arduous process that can take years. Meanwhile, a child in desperate need of a family sat in an orphanage as they grew out of babyhood, then passed their toddler days during an important time in their lives. This is the time the strongest bonding can take place and often greatly affects these kids later in their lives.
So what is the big deal about this? Two women belatedly came forward to say Franks' asking them "made them uncomfortable." Apparently, Franks took their "no" for a final answer. This is NOT harassment: Facing aggressive intimidation;
Rep. Trent Franks: "Thursday evening (Dec 7), my wife was admitted to the hospital in Washington, D.C. due to an ongoing ailment. After discussing options with my family, we came to the conclusion that the best thing for our family now would be for me to tender my previous resignation effective today, December 8th, 2017,” according to Franks Communications Director Mitchell Hailstone.
Gov Doug Doucy will call for a special election to replace Franks and potential candidate names are popping up all over the place, including Republicans Peoria Mayor Cathy Carlat, former Gov Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman, LD21 Sen Debbie Lesko, LD20 Sen Kimberly Yee, LD13 Rep Steve Montenegro, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former commissioner Bob Stump, former legislator Phil Lovas, Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers and GOP lobbyist, former Republican legislator Stan Barnes and former candidate Clair Van Steenwyk. In the meantime, some of Frank’s supporters think he should run again and others say Speaker Paul Ryan urged Franks immediate resignation to make things easier for Ryan and Senate Speaker Mitch McConnell to continue their anti-conservative shenanigans without Franks assured conservative vote. And some folks think Ryan and McConnell’s need to resign in lieu of their un-kept promises and Anti-Trump behaviour. And then there is the question lingering in the air as to whether Franks misbehaved or are we getting distorted versions. Regardless, Arizona getting a black eye when two of the congressional delegations (Franks and Dem Raul Grijalva) are facing some pretty ugly allegations. – ft
In our view, this is a long list of the wrong people. Not one name on this list can live up to Trent Franks' reputation! A couple might be admitted to the Freedom Caucus but we know not everyone in that caucus is a Constitutionalist with the clout and know-how to persuade others to their side. Folks, we are in trouble in Arizona. This is a conservative district so we might get a Republican but that might be a Republican in the vein of McCain or McSally.
Has anyone noticed the amount of money McConnell has "secretly" spent to get rid of Roy Moore because he's a "for the people" candidate?
Scuttlelbut is that Franks had an affair while in DC that McCain knew about (possibly even set up?) so that he held sway over Franks.
All rumor but possibly the reason Franks gave up and quit so easily.
Let me add here that I am very saddened by Trent Franks departure since his strong conservative presence was and is desperately needed in Congress.
Methinks that had Franks had an affair it would have been between two consenting adults. If we kick out every Congressman or Senator who diddled while in DC, we could actually drain the swamp overnight. Unless he never told his wife, this would not be a good reason to resign, a better reason to repent. The fall of man is universal.
In politics all it takes is for someone to "say" anything that would garner attention to their own self-interest causes. The ash heap of history is riled with all this kind of innuendo. Trent Franks should have thought more about the WHY and told us about the benefits for a "surrogate" birth mother. Many would have thought it meant that he was to have a sexual arrangement to impregnate either of those women who said NO to him. He missed a beautiful opportunity to proclaim the benefits of this type of childbearing for those who can't have their own births. Instead we get more political intrigue for congressional chaos against true conservatism.
Whatever the scuttlebutt, rumor or fact, Trent Franks has been one of the solid votes in prolife and freedom caucus issues and we should all thank him for his service in this regard. Many go to office, John McCain and Jeff Flake for two, pretending to care about our side of the issues and promptly vote the other side. I think we owe Trent Franks a really big thank you and job well done for the votes and work he has done over the years we know was on the right side. None of us is in a state of perfection while here on this earth. For myself and those who remember the good he has done, Thanks for your service and those votes and actions you performed to Make America Great Again Trent we appreciate your sacrifices over the years. Please remember it is the likes of John McCain who don't want this guy in office, that tells us a lot about how Trent votes and who doesn't like those votes doesn't it?
John S Powelson
Well said, John Powelson. We have lost one of the good ones and now people in that district have to replace him with one equally good. Not an easy task.
Good article and excellent observations. You were too nice to say it but I will: expect Clair Van Steewyk to throw his hat in this ring. Expect him to say he was urged, implored by many friends who called on him to run before the ink was dry on Franks resignation. He seems a nice guy and knowledgeable but really, he's run for everything except dog catcher and never gotten enough votes to move the needle on the most sensitive gauge. For this important election, Clair, pick a good candidate if there is one and work for THEM.
In the wake of Representative Franks' resignation, Clair Van Steenwyk did not instantly jump at the chance to put himself and his wife back in his political opposition's crosshairs. [Not all the candidates can claim having waited for the ink to dry on the resignation.] Although he was encouraged to run for the vacancy from the start, Clair's first reaction was to urge others not to rush to judgement. Then, he respectfully waited until the day before the governor's required, special election proclamation to post his decision to run again for the privilege of representing CD8 in the U.S. House.
If running and losing is the sole gauge by which we judge the efficacy of a candidate's future prospects for winning, there are some high-profile public servants who would never have held office—one Great American who comes to mind is President Ronald Wilson Reagan. . . . [Didn't Representative Franks, himself, try, and fail to win the office 2 or 3 times?]
There are two candidate types who jump into the shark tank for the purpose of winning the privilege of raising the right hand and swearing an oath of office—the most important part of which is the solemn promise to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America!
1. One candidate runs for personal gain. The fire that burns in his[her] heart is a black fire of deceit and personal ambition. This candidate is a follower who will bend with the political winds—not exactly ideal for an electorate seeking to preserve and defend our Liberty under God!
2. Another candidate runs because there burns in the heart, a Passion for our Liberty under God, and His Sovereignty—guaranteed by the limited government enshrined in our Constitution for the United States of America! and, manifest in the Self Governance without which our Liberty is lost!
Liberty's Flame smolders until God stokes it into a raging fire that drives this candidate to "damn the torpedoes and steam full-speed ahead!!!"
This is the candidate who longs to work in defense of the Constitution—in the Name of Liberty—for Our Families, Our State and Our Nation under God! This candidate is a leader who loves God's Great and Good Gift of Liberty!
When you see him, or her, valiantly charging into the Dragon's Fire without regard for the wisps of smoke rising from campaign armor, look closer—that smoke isn't caused by the dragon's bluster—it is the outward manifestation of the raging Fires of Liberty fueling and driving him, or her, onward!
I would much prefer to vote for this candidate than for any man or woman whose heart burns for personal gain through public office.
Many Americans still know the foundation upon which our Nation stands. The Fires of Liberty burn in all their hearts! But, not all Liberty-loving Americans are driven to run for office—this doesn't mean One is better than Others—it just means we all have different purposes in this crucial War to Restore Our Independence under God!
I believe that the Citizens of CD8 will faithfully test the candidates to see in-whom the raging Fires of Liberty burn brightest, as they choose wisely a New Warrior to take their Cause to Washington! They just might discover Clair Van Steenwyk is that Warrior—
Addressing the claim, "he's run for everything except dog catcher . . . ," as far as I know, Clair has run for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. . . .
In the 2016 Primary: Representative Franks received 59,042 votes, spending $360,898.55. If my math is accurate, that's at a ratio of $6.11 per vote received.
Clair Van Steenwyk received 24,042 votes, spending about $3,500. I believe that's approximately 14.5 CENTS per vote. That "needle on the most sensitive gauge" did, indeed, move to show Clair receiving close to 30% of the vote, garnered for a comparatively infinitesimal amount of money.
Those statistics, and Clair's previous $/vote ratios, are what make campaign experts "in-the-know" sit-up and take notice . . . and, clamor for him to share his secret, as they breathe a sigh of relief that he has not yet spent $360,898!
[Just for a little perspective, at 14.5 cents per vote and $360,898, a candidate's vote count would be 1,683,893 greater than Governor Ducey received to take the governorship in 2014.]
If we are going to Revive & Keep the Republic, we must stoke the Fires of Liberty—not douse them—and let the voters of CD8 decide if Clair Van Steenwyk is the leader they want to send to Washington.
Thank You for the Information, as it’s nice to see someone noticed the facts of why I've entered into races and by the way I've run against the Incumbents and Ladder Climbers in AZ and against the so called SWAMP / SEPTIC TANK managers in the GOP, they've never aided me, and that also says something.
My desire is to look at who's running now and their real voting records in AZ on issues like the National Popular Vote, SB 1469 or Amended HB 2184 stripping Douglas of authority in spite of being warned by many their votes violated AZ Constitution, and so much more, there's much more to being a so called conservative than fiscal issues but most of that goes unnoticed and not held accountable for.
Thanks again not sure the #'s are exactly accurate believe Rep. Franks spent about $270,000 to my $3,500 but we still didn't do badly considering the odds and opposition from the GOP. I'm hoping any with comments will use their real names and faces as I've found most who hide behind fake ID's I've never put any trust in. God Bless You All; Clair VAN Steenwyk
You're welcome. It's important to seek facts in order to see the Big Picture. Sometimes we forget that we all have unique personalities and we need to look beyond personalities to see the underlying motivators behind actions. The key is, are we all seeking to revive our Constitution and the Republic? If so, we have common ground, and we need to work to dig through the bells and whistles that distract us to zero-in on our common goal.
The issues you name are good measures to use to begin to understand who a person really is in the trenches for those potential candidates who have experience in the state legislature; other issues can be found to understand those with other experience, e.g. former governor Brewer and the unlawful imposition of Obamacare in our Great State! There is so much that violates the AZ and U.S. Constitutions!
I found Rep. Franks' 2016 Campaign Disbursement figure on the Federal Elections Commission Web-site, here: https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/house/?q=Trent+Franks&cycle...
You just have to change the Election Cycle to 2015-2016, from 2017-2018, and the figures come up.
All very nice, Itasca. But the point is that Clair has more experience running as a candidate than anything or anyone in AZ. But he has no experience in winning. If he even came close I'd have a different POV but this is a very critical election for AZ and that is what we all should care about. I reckon there will be a ton of ppl in that election so as to allow the primary winner get the nod with 15-20% of the vote and that may not be the best person to advance the Trump agenda. That is what is important, very important. The voters WILL decide and the rest of us either benefit or suffer at the outcome. this election is not going to be run in a vacuum. Your math is impressive but irrelevant. It's not personal altho I have heard him speak a few times and he just lacks the ability to connect for several reasons. Steve Forbes comes to mind. Smart, informed, critical thinker, money to burn. Coudn't win. Think that over!
Clair could use his knowledge to help all of AZ get a conservative Representative the Freedom Caucus will beg to join them because they can use his/her talents to move ppl to their side. See, it's not about Clair it's really about America.
If, as you say, one particular candidate has no chance of even coming close to winning, Why take the time and "ink" to target him?
Especially considering that you would have that same person help CD8 elect a conservative Republican who would advance President Trump's agenda.
What it seems to really be "about" is the difference between "conservative" and "constitutional conservative." The two are NOT cut from the same cloth!
[Campaign experts know that it is quite likely that a candidate who spends $3500 against $360,898—receiving nearly 30% of the vote—is only matching-dollars away from winning, or, giving you your "even came close" scenario. . . .]
Itasca: No one was targeted on this discussion. Everyone has a right to their opinion here.