Pro-Trump Candidate Explores Primary Challenge to Fitzpatrick

Veteran and former Bucks County Assistant District Attorney Dean Malik formed an exploratory committee to consider a primary challenge of Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) as a pro-Trump candidate.  

Malik said that he has been approached by people in the district who are “dissatisfied by the representation in the 8th Congressional district” asking him to run for the office.  

“I have always been interested in a leadership position,” Malik said in an interview with PoliticsPA.  

Malik’s main issues with Fitzpatrick are his vote against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and his opposition to Trump during the election.  Fitzpatrick said before the 2016 election he would not be voting for Trump.  

“This is a big undertaking and I want to be sure I have the grassroots network and the fundraising in place before I enter the race,” Malik said of a timeline for an announcement.  

“It is difficult to set a definite deadline, but a decision will likely be made in the next couple of months.”  

Fitzpatrick is a member of the NRCC’s Patriot program, which helps incumbents “build strong and winning campaigns through goals, benchmarks, and accountability” according to its website.

Malik is the second candidate to openly consider a challenge of an incumbent Republican Congressman by a candidate staking out a pro-Trump stance.  State Representative Justin Simmons (R-Lehigh) announced a primary challenge to Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Lehigh) before Dent announced his retirement.

Fitzpatrick did not comment for this story.

41 Responses

  1. The problem with all these Trumpers in the Republican party is that they woke up last year, voted for the first time in years, and now think they should run the show. It’s frustrating dealing with people in my own party who are incapable of second level thinking. Let’s be real, Trump is more likely to know Entertainment Weekly inside out then the Republican party platforms.

    1. This ad-hominem, broad-brush attack is grossly incorrect, and it reflects an ongoing anti-Trump posture that events have contradicted; watch The Donald today and recognize why he was elected.

  2. Dean Malik is a fraud. Every one of us in the Quakertown community who’s suffered the pain of the opioid crisis are disgusted that Malik chose to personally enrich himself over our pain. Malik is the criminal defense lawyer for the kingpin of the recent heroin ring takedown in upper bucks. Malik even accused DA Weintraub and his office, who has been an absolute hero in the opioid fight, of “demonizing” Malik’s thug client. I’m not politically active, but will be should this guy run, as will everyone who’s been devastated by the opioid crisis. I want him to look us in the eye and explain how it’s ok for him to feed his family through the profits of those selling heroin to our kids. Whatever the “patriot program” is, I hope they spend a ton of money telling the rest of the county what we know about him in upper bucks.

      1. I encountered Dean yesterday @ the Bucks County Court House, and he confirmed my above-stated concern [during a brief chat] that this critic is undermining the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra that is central to American jurisprudence.

    1. You aren’t politically active, but know of this extremely niche political site and view it often enough to have seen this post? I call bs.

  3. “Trumpers” and the Freedom Caucus have very little in common ideologically. For over two years now, Conservatives have tried to warn that Trumpism was not conservatism. And at this point, having recently cozied up to Pelosi and Schumer, Trump is no longer even attempting to disguise this reality.

    At the national level, the Republican Party is in disarray. The only saving grace is that D.C. Democrats have become so out of touch with the rest of the country that, remarkably, they’re not a serious threat to retake Congress.

    1. You have a great deal to learn about Republicanism, sir. Our party was founded on trade protectionism and sovereignty.

      1. Umm, no. That’s not why the Party was founded.

        And popular as protectionism may have been during the mid-to-late 19th century, there’s a plethora of scholarship thoroughly demonstrating that protectionism was never successful. It brought about – and will always bring about – colossal economic costs for consumers and for the broader economy.

        As one observer noted:

        “[P]rotectionism not only imposed large and expected costs on U.S. consumers – dwarfing any possible gains to protected industries and workers – but also (and more unexpectedly) failed to achieve even their most basic objectives.

        Multiple studies of U.S. import restrictions between 1950 and 1990 found that each measure analyzed imposed on average $620,000 per year (2017 dollars) in additional costs on U.S. consumers for each job supposedly saved or created in the protected industry at issue.”

        We already have one party that favors a controlled economy and believes Americans require protections from their own actions and decisions. We don’t need two.

        1. I fear your ignorance is irreversible, as evidenced by your truculence in denying the common truth that the trade protectionism was a staple in the Republican Party at its founding, as well America’s at its genesis. Have you ever gazed upon the solemn faces etched into Mt. Rushmore? Each of those noble men were fierce protectionists. Perhaps you are familiar with the Industrial Revolution – yes, driven by massive and glorious tariffs.

    2. It is totally incorrect, as the Gorsuch nomination proves, that: “ ‘Trumpers’ and the Freedom Caucus have very little in common ideologically.”

      This invalidates the rest of the posting, notwithstanding the sprinkling of essential-truths therein.

      Protectionism has not been a major force ideologically during recent years, and it seems that [comparable to the Illegals-issue], both parties have “pro-/con-” contingents within their leadership/membership.

      In any case, Protectionism is not the motivation for people to are dismayed with Brother Brian to seek a realistic alternative to his being renominated.

      Trump’s having supported [once] “Chuck and Nancy” was a strategic move to motivate the GOP-leadership to achieve goals and, specifically, to discard the filibuster.


      Reference to why/how the Byrd Rule should be canned is prominent in the following essay composed by moi:

      p://ww w.americanthinker.c om/articles/2017/03/h ml

      The obvious implication is that this intervention [overturning Senate “tradition”] would not only affect how to reverse ObamaDon’tCare, but would also impact the rest of The Donald’s agenda.

      1. The “proof” you assert in your first sentence is a logical fallacy, and I suspect you know that.

        Setting aside that Trump cares little about judicial philosophy and merely cut a deal to win the support of Cruz and similarly unconvinced constitutional conservatives, the fact that so-called “nationalists” and conservatives across the country happened to agree on one judicial nominee does not negate their deep divide on policy issues.

        European-style nationalism is irreconcilable with American conservatism. Period. The fact that each’s approach to a particular issue of governance leads to similar policy position at the end of the day – especially as compared to the position staked out by a Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris – is more than anything a coincidence. Conservatives got there through a defined ideology. “Nationalists” get there through simple tribalism whose priorities vary by the tribe.

        As for the Schumer/Pelosi thing, your explanation is surprising. That’s something I’d expect to hear from one of the Trump cultists, the crowd that insists Trump is playing seven dimensional chess at all times, that refuses to question a single decision of his, etc. Trump has few hard principles, and revels the aura of unpredictability. He gave away the farm to Schumer/Pelosi because he didn’t realize he was giving away the farm. And as long as he got good press coverage from the “Fake News” media – he did – that’s good enough for him.

        1. 1. Please provide one quote from any member of the Freedom Caucus that supports your view that they disagreed ideologically with the Gorsuch nomination.

          2. Please provide one quote that undermines the view that Constitutional Conservatives and The Donald concur on lotsa issues in addition to the Gorsuch nomination [deregulation, tax reform, etc.]

          3. Please provide one quote that supports your view that The Donald’s version of populism is incompatible with Constitutional Conservatism.

          4. Please recognize that THIS Trumpster harbors concerns with McMaster and his alleged-expunging of anti-Islamofascist rhetoric…and THIS Trumpster is unclear about Bannon’s policy differences [Afghanistan and Comey], undermining your broad-brush, ad-hominem attack on the independence of this visceral attack on your entire meme.

          1. And, when you fail, you are invited to rewrite your pontifications accordingly.

            {furthermore, you are invited to DROP your pseudonym or explain why you hide behind it}

  4. Fitz wins the primary against Worthington or Malik. Dems don’t have anyone strong enough to challenge him either. Moderate district or not Fitz has been navigating it correctly from a political standpoint. With that said the crazy wing of the Republican Party ( Trumpers, and the freedom caucus ) can only do damage by trying to primary Fitz, and they’ll lose too.

  5. Jim Worthington, owner of the Newtown Club and manager of Donald Trump’s presidential win in PA’s eighth congressional district is considering a bid to run against Brian Fitzpatrick. Jim has the complete endorsement of those who voted for Trump in the 8th Congressional and Trump won the 8th Congressional. Support Jim Worthington for Congress.

  6. Fitzpatrick would crush this guy in a primary. Fitzpatrick will easily win the general too – Dems hopes rest on Trumps mixed reviews, but Fitzpatrick will substantially outperform Trump. Combine that with another total loser Dem candidate like the last couple (such as career politician Harrisburg insider Santar-Zero) and Fitz is good to go.

  7. If our PA Congressional delegation doesn’t start showing some spine and get behind President Trump’s agenda, there will be Hell to pay in the Primaries! I know it’s the GOP leadership in both the House and the Senate that are “gumming up the works”, but if the PA Congressional District supported President Trump in a stronger way, perhaps the tide will turn.

    I know the Republicans never expected Donald Trump to win, and thus never planned to actually have to “govern”, but Trump did win and it’s way past the time for the GOP to flex it’s muscle in Congress!

      1. That Republican Trump has been a solid conservative his while life, hasn’t he? Pull your head out of it. Inability to compromise and negotiate leads to nothing getting done. Bucks County and the Congressional District are more left than they are right in their political views and registration. They are holding onto this seat by a hair. Take what Republican votes you can get from this guy and encourage your neighbors why Republican positions are better. Voting out moderates because they are moderate doesn’t help Republicans – only Dems.

  8. This loser couldn’t even manage the 1,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot last time. Don’t hold your breath this time.

  9. The logic of this claim is lost on me; a quality replacement for Brother Brian could actually strengthen GOP support in Bucks County…particularly if he/she has demonstrated support for The Donald [who is now unabashedly helping the economy recover from BHO].

    1. Not true Doc – BHO saved the American economy. The Donald has done nothing but make himself wealthier.

        1. FYI – when President Obama took office – the Republican destruction of the economy was in full swing. The stock market was crashing and people were losing jobs by the thousdand. These are the facts. President Obama saved the US economy. Trump is simply reaping the benefits of President Obama’s excellent governance. That is the truth. You are simply spouting Breibart and FoxNews/Newscorp fake news.

          1. Wizard my sky is Blue with white clouds – I live in the real world not the Breibart/FoxNews world. Try it sometimes.

  10. Oh, this would be fantastic. I hope to see more Bannon-Mercer-backed Trump candidates in moderate seats like this. Let them self-destruct in the primary. Worst case scenario, they get elected and join a faction that refuses to govern.

    1. As I wrote with regard to the “Keystone” kop comment, a quality candidate could flourish, here and nationally.

      1. Well Jim the Republicans nor Trump have a replacement for Obamacare – they conned people. Obamacare is actually the plan proposed be Heritage Foundation and was part of Bob Dole’s healthcare plan when he ran for President. You see – the Republicans never had a plan. If they did – Republican states like Texas, GA, Tennessee, Mississippi,South Carolina and others would have adopted it. Those states have uninsured rates from 15 – 11% . Prior to Obamacare – Texas had an uninsured rate of about 25% and the others weren’t much better. PAs uninsured rate is 6%, Vermont -4% and Mass – about 2%.

          1. Again – you clearly are a Republican operative. Obamacare provided protections against pre-existing condition and maxing out from benefits. Is it perfect – no, but it is so much better than any Republican/Trump plan. Again – Not one single Republican run state offered any legislation to help its citizens obtain quality, comprehensive healthcare. Ask HHS Dr. Price why his state has one of the highest uninsured and what did he do to help lower the uninsured rate. NOTHING!!!!

Comments are closed.

  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen