AZGOP Chairman Robert Graham, Federal Election Tampering and/or Primary Election endorsement of Trent Franks – you be the judge?
“AZGOP Chairman Robert Graham’s Decision To Remove CD8 Candidate Clair Van Steenwyk from AZGOP West Valley Victory office “without giving the candidate an opportunity to explain his side of a confrontation with another PC at the office” (as reported on the Thursday afternoon van-the-radio-man talk show) has created a lot of chatter the past couple of days. Did Graham jump the gun before he talked to all involved, including Van Steenwyk? Or was he influenced by reports of reactions to Van’s alleged attempts to dominate the volunteer’s weekly Tuesday morning meetings?” View at MCRC Briefs (Maricopa County Republican Committee) for August 1, 2014
The questions asked are:
1 “Did Graham jump the gun before he talked to all involved, including Van Steenwyk?”
2 “Or was he influenced by reports of reactions to Van’s alleged attempts to dominate the volunteer’s weekly Tuesday morning meetings?”
First: the title of “Van the Radio Man” was coined by JD Hayworth years ago and it stuck. Van’s political radio show interviewed Republican candidates, politicians, activists and religious parties. All you current and former politicians and candidates who Van had on his show at YOUR request because it was the show to be on for years; where are you now? Remember all Van has done for the Republican Party at his own expense?
VOTE FOR Clair Van Steenwyk United States Representative Arizona Congressional District 8
Huckabee said this past Saturday night during the free portion of the “Franks Victory RALLY” “””If you don’t like the sight of your own blood, don’t run for office.”
Back to the subject at hand AZGOP Chair Graham, I thought your excommunication of Clair Van Steenwyk (Van) from the Republican Party had to do with Van and his Campaign Manager (Ron) TAMPERING (defacing) a Trent Franks campaign sign? How did it get framed (pun intended) as ‘Van dominating volunteers’? That is the key question along with why you didn’t go with your first determination to justify the action, or, you change the reason, why not the action?
Let’s rephrase the MCRC Brief question 1 to: Is Graham with the assistance of other progressives “jumping the gun” with a little semi caucus primary action? “Resolution Urging the Institution of Caucuses to Nominate Candidates for General Elections. This resolution urges each county party and district organization to adopt resolutions supporting a caucus process for selecting Republican nominees for general elections.” Note grahamgop in the address http://www.grahamgop.com/uploads/2/7/8/7/2787190/res._to_replace_primary_election_w_caucus.pdf IN OTHER WORDS THEY, THE PARTY LEADERSHIP WANT TO SELECT WHO We The People HAVE AS A CHOICE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION – just like it seems here with Graham’s action against Clair Van Steenwyk.
Here this will help convince you of THEIR plans for your participation in elections. These are strike everything bills, WHAT”S THAT: dead bills past the time new bills can be introduced that are used to ‘strike everything’ and insert under cover of a bill name that doesn’t match the new content – you know kind of like the ACA switch the U.S. Senate did
Check this one out, they changed the required Primary Nomination Petition Signatures from .5% to 1% of the number of votes cast from the proceeding election. They did this just for the 9 U.S. House Districts. Van has been asking State Representative Carl Seel as to why for about 5 months now – why don’t you ask Seel about it because he won’t answer. SENATE BILL 1198: Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session 2012; Bill Overview. “……. whose nomination petition they are signing equal to at least
one‑half of one per cent but…..”
Van is topping (going over the top of) Franks signs with TERM LIMIT FRANKS signs – that’s domineering as well a bold. Domineering is NOT going to meetings and participating with other Republicans, elected PC’s or volunteers – think hard on this one Graham – do they not have the ability to make a choice and don’t they actually welcome Van at these meetings? I get it, they’re Trent Franks supporters, possibly Van haters that have your ear to include Legislative District (LD) leadership individuals – want names?
Besides aren’t the majority of those in the ‘Tuesday morning meetings’ at the West Valley AZGOP Victory Headquarters: 10050 W. Bell Road, Suite 26, Sun City, Arizona PC’s (Precinct Committeeman). How does being an elected PC rate as being a volunteer? Confusing so let’s make it simple for you Chairman Graham, we’ll call them volunteer’s and move on.
Chairman Graham, why no call to Van prior to making “the decision” that basically kicked Van out of the party (not my words), why no call or ‘email’ to get his side of the story after all that would have been showing good business practice to cover your employer’s ‘liabilities’. You just tossed a Qualified FEDERAL Primary Ballot Candidate for Congressional District 8 out on the street taking away their ability to have available campaign material for any voter that may come to the office seeking such candidate information – as Franks continues to enjoy – exclusion by mob rule.
Graham, you never said to Clair Van Steenwyk when you finally called him late that all he had to do is apologize – you may have indicated to others that you did – but you did not – you are not telling the truth. OOPS defamation, perhaps – try me.
I get it, incumbent Trent Franks, Van’s opponent endorsed you for the AZGOP Chairmanship in 2012, the position you now hold that allowed you to restrict Van’s access to voters by removing his ability to have available campaign material for voters that walk in. Let’s look at it from a different perspective, could this be construed as defrauding the voters by denying them – isn’t it your job to be impartial(?). And you just held an AZGOP Victory 2014 (Huckabee endorsement) Rally for Trent Franks at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort this past Saturday. Why wasn’t it held in the West Valley, in Trent Franks District? By the way the dinky speakers stunk, next time you need to pop for a slightly better sound system.
MCRC’s two questions: 1 “Did Graham jump the gun before he talked to all involved, including Van Steenwyk?” That’s more a statement than question but the first pic answers that….. 2 “Or was he influenced by reports of reactions to Van’s alleged attempts to dominate the volunteer’s weekly Tuesday morning meetings?” No, the volunteer BS was a convenient means to justify a long desired action with a cause that was changed from sign tampering to ‘verbal abuse’ once the legal ramifications were pointed out to Chairman Graham – my opinion (not an opinion) based on what I know.
Graham, you even failed to respond to Van’s email where he asked for clarification and conformation.
VOTERS ““You be the judge””