Ex-Texas US Rep. Blake Farenthold, who left office amid harassment allegations, dies at 63
Former Texas Republican U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, who left Congress amid sexual harassment allegations, has died. He was 63.
He died in a Corpus Christi hospital and suffered heart and liver problems in recent years, Steve Ray, his former longtime political consultant, said. Farenthold's wife, Debbie Farenthold, confirmed that he died Friday.
Blake Farenthold was elected in 2010, upsetting long-serving Democratic U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz. Seven years later, Farenthold announced that he wouldn't seek reelection.
In a video he posted on his campaign's Facebook page at the time, he denied a former aide's three-year-old accusations, which included that he'd subjected her to sexually suggestive comments and behavior and then fired her after she complained. He apologized for an office atmosphere he said included 'destructive gossip, offhand comments, off-color jokes and behavior that in general was less than professional.'
He said in the video that if he stayed in Congress, he would have spent months trying to vindicate himself.
'We all make mistakes,' Ray said Saturday. 'He made some mistakes.'
Ray described him as a 'techie' who was interested in the internet and technology before getting involved in politics.
'He did a tremendous job as congressman for this area,' Ray said, noting that Farenthold cared about fighting crime and promoting transparency. 'His heart was really always in the right place.'
Before becoming a congressman, Farenthold was a sidekick for a conservative radio talk show host, Ray said.
'When he decided to run, nobody in the world thought he was going to win,' Ray said.
When he left office, he started his own radio show until he died.
In addition to his wife, Farenthold is survived by two adult daughters, Morgan Baucum and Amanda Lawrence, Ray said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
In his own words: Trump's Iran strike tests his rhetoric on ending wars
During his campaigns for president, Donald Trump spoke of the need to stop engaging in 'endless' or 'forever wars,' and said removing 'warmongers and America-last globalists' was among his second-term foreign policy priorities. Trump's move to strike Iranian nuclear sites risks embroiling the United States in the sort of conflict he once derided. Like other recent American presidents, Trump said he would not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. In recent months, he had held out hope that diplomacy could avoid the strike he announced Saturday. Trump's consideration of military action had opened a schism among his 'Make American Great Again' movement and drew criticism from some of its most high-profile members. Here's a look at some of Trump's rhetoric before his announcement Saturday about the strikes: 2024 campaign Trump often drew lines of contrasts with his Republican primary opponents. In January 2024, at a New Hampshire rally, he referred to former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who was U.N. ambassador during Trump's first term, as a 'warmonger' whose mentality on foreign policy is, 'Let's kill people all over the place and let's make a lot of money for those people that make the messes.' During a Jan. 6, 2024, rally before the Iowa caucuses, Trump told supporters that returning him to the White House would allow the country to 'turn the page forever on those foolish, stupid days of never-ending wars. They never ended.' Rolling out his foreign policy priorities during that campaign — something Trump's orbit called ' Agenda 47 ' — he posted a video online in which he talked of how he was 'the only president in generations who didn't start a war.' In that video, Trump called himself 'the only president who rejected the catastrophic advice of many of Washington's Generals, bureaucrats, and the so-called diplomats who only know how to get us into conflict, but they don't know how to get us out.' First term In his first term, Trump often referenced his anti-interventionist pledge. During his 2019 State of the Union address, he said, 'As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.' There were frequent clashes with some of his advisers over whether or not the United States should take a more involved stance abroad. That included his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton, with whom Trump had strong disagreements on Iran, Afghanistan and other global challenges. As Turkey launched a military operation into Syria targeting Kurdish forces, Trump in October 2019 posted a series of tweets citing his anti-interventionist stance. 'Turkey has been planning to attack the Kurds for a long time. They have been fighting forever,' Trump posted Oct. 10, 2019, on the platform then known as Twitter. 'We have no soldiers or Military anywhere near the attack area. I am trying to end the ENDLESS WARS.' A week later, he reiterated his position: 'I was elected on getting out of these ridiculous endless wars, where our great Military functions as a policing operation to the benefit of people who don't even like the USA.' 2016 campaign Candidate Trump was vociferous in his disdain for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling them both mistakes. 'We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place,' Trump told CNN in October 2015, referencing Afghanistan. 'We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have the oil,' he said of the Iraq War during a March 2016 town hall hosted by the same network. During a primary debate, Trump engaged in a terse exchange with Jeb Bush particularly over U.S. military action in Iraq, launched by President George W. Bush, the Florida governor's brother. 'We should have never been in Iraq,' Trump said in February 2016. 'They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.' What about earlier? Trump's press secretary said Wednesday that the president's beliefs that Iran should not achieve nuclear armament predated his time in politics. And his earlier writings indicate that, while candidate Trump has said he opposed the Iraq War, those sentiments were different before the conflict began. In his 2000 book 'The America We Deserve,' the businessman wrote that he felt a military strike on Iraq might be needed, given the unknown status of that nation's nuclear capabilities. 'I'm no warmonger,' Trump wrote. 'But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
With US airstrikes, Trump aims to deliver a decisive blow to a weakened Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump with his decision to order U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear facility is gambling that direct U.S. involvement can deliver a decisive blow to a weakened Tehran while managing to avoid bringing the U.S. into an expansive regional conflict. Trump announced the strikes on three Iranian enrichment facilities — Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan — and said that a 'full payload of BOMBS was dropped' on Fordo. 'All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump added in his post. 'Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' It remained to be seen whether the attacks mark the totality of direct American involvement in strikes against Iran or the opening salvo of a larger campaign. The decision to directly involve the U.S. comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. The strikes are a perilous decision for the U.S., as Iran has pledged to retaliate if it joined the Israeli assault. The stakes are also high for Trump personally — he won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. U.S. and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and the U.S. 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground, including at Fordo. It was not immediately clear if the U.S. bombers did in fact drop the bunker busters on the Iranian facilities. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States in advance that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic would 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the damage inflicted by the bombings. Trump has vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would motivate the country's leaders to give up their nuclear program peacefully. But Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis have said their offensive has already crippled Iran's air defenses, allowing them to already significantly degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. But to destroy the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, Israel had appealed to Trump for the U.S. bunker-busting bombs, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which uses its immense weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets and then explode. The penetrator is currently only delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber, which is only found in the American arsenal. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, and is believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The U.S. in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and U.S. bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, U.S. and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Trump decried the Obama-era deal for giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behavior. Trump has bristled at criticism from some of his MAGA faithful, including conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. Vice President JD Vance in a lengthy posting on X earlier this week defended his boss, while acknowledging that 'people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.' 'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,' Vance wrote. He added, 'I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals.' ___ Madhani reported from Morristown, N.J.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump wins immediate praise from Republicans in Congress after announcing strikes on Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans — and at least one Democrat — immediately praised President Donald Trump after he said Saturday evening that the U.S. military bombed three sites in Iran. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Texas Sen. John Cornyn called it a 'courageous and correct decision.' Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin posted: 'America first, always.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Wicker posted on X that 'we now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies.' The quick endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump had publicly mulled the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that 'This is not Constitutional.' Many Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say. The Senate was scheduled to vote as soon as this week on a resolution by Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine requiring congressional approval before the U.S. declared war on Iran or took specific military action. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, posted on X after Trump's announcement: 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop.'
