Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Giuliani Enters Staff Sweepstakes

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) has hired Republican National Committee political director Mike DuHaime to lead his exploratory effort for president.

The news of DuHaime's hiring comes just six days before a Giuliani fundraiser in New York City designed to serve as the kickoff for the "testing the waters" phase of his presidential bid. It also signals a willingness by Giuliani to reach outside of his close-knit (and long serving) circle of advisers for staff talent -- a necessity if he hopes to run a credible race for national office.

Prior to his post at the RNC, DuHaime served as northeastern regional political director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. In the 2002 cycle, DuHaime was the executive director of the New Jersey Republican State Committee.

DuHaime "is a great talent," said Tony Carbonetti, a senior Giuliani adviser. As for future staff hires, "we intend on being competitive throughout the country" and the DuHaime move is a "first step towards that," Carbonetti said.

National polling on the 2008 race regularly shows Giuliani at the top of the heap of GOP presidential contenders. He carries almost universal name identification as a result of his work following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But many Republican strategists are skeptical that Giuliani, who favors abortion rights and gay marriage gay rights measures, can win the party's nomination since the majority of primary and caucus voters tend to be considerably more conservative.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 13, 2006; 12:44 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House Democrats Extend '06 Gains to 30 Seats
Next: Sen. Tim Johnson Out Of Surgery


Evan Bayh has dropped out, and he understood he could not raise much above the 1% in the national polls. Obama and Edwards benefit from the Anti-Hillary feelings from the Dems.
Who the heck is this John Cox guy? Sounds more like a Ross Perot with big bucks who thinks he can buy his way into the Republican establishment without paying his dues. Sorry, ain't gonna happen, dude.
Rudy is too liberal and McCain has burned too many Republican brides in DC. If either gets the nomination, I will shave my head.
As far as Hildebeast goes, the Dems can have her and then they can say goodbye to the White House in 2008.

Posted by: SAM | December 17, 2006 2:48 PM | Report abuse

So Guiliani was a popular NYC mayor and NY attorney general. New York isn't an overly conservative place and Guiliani's not a really conservative guy, at least socially. It really looks like the top tier's for the Republican nomination right now are: McCain, Romney and Guiliani in that order. I think this is still John McCain's race to lose. It looks like President Bush is okay with McCain being his successor. 2 members of Jeb Bush's staff joined McCain's PAC just this week. McCain also picked up the CEO of Univision to his team this week, as well as the CEO of the NYSE. McCain also picked up a number of other big money donors. The Mass. governor Mitt Romeny has also picked up many big donors and has a huge financial tool already in place...the Church of Latter Day Saints. Romney is gonna have the money to compete, and is trying to fill the vaccuum of the social conservative vote. He also has great credentials b/c he actually balanced a budget in Mass., has been a very successful business leader and b/c of his work with the Winter Olympics in Utah in 02'. He has not alot of foreign policy experience, however. If Romney were to win the nomination, Guiliani or (yes Tina) Condi Rice would be an excellent running mate for him. They make up what he lacks in National Security experience.

Now, looking at the early primary states it looks like McCain is definately the front-runner. I think McCain and Romney will compete close for Iowa. McCain and Guiliani will compete close for New Hampshire. McCain and Romney will compete close for South Carolina. McCain, Romney and Guiliani propably have a shot at Nevada...but McCain is from that region so he has an advantage there as well. If you will notice, McCain is going to be very competitive in all of the early primary states. Look at his organization that is already being put into place in these states for proof. I think for Guiliani and Romney to stay really competitive in the races, Guiliani will have to be ready to win New Hampshire and Romney is going to have to win in Iowa. With McCain's organization in SC, including the backing of popular US senator Lyndsey Graham, McCain will win in SC and being more local will pull out a win in Nevada. At least, it looks as if he's building the right organizations to win in those 2 states. Iowa and New Hampshire will be interesting.

Were going to have the best primaries for the Rep. and Dem. nominations we have had in my lifetime! There are also rumor's that if the Republican's nominate a real Romney or Brownback, Bloomberg/Lieberman may be an independent team. Were in for a political junkies dream!

Posted by: reason | December 17, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

What the GOP elites fail to realize is that the Primary and Caucus voters are not looking for a Giuliani or a McCain, they are looking for a Reagan Conservative. They are honestly looking for change, but change towards the conservative vision of Ronald Reagan, not a technocrat or bureaucrat or the same folks who lost us the House and Senate in November.

It's great that Rudy's winning the Name Recognition Primary (i.e. the polls.) Super. But once his social views become known, fuggetaboutit.

What the party elites - and apparently the media elites, too - don't see coming is the quiet steamroller that former Cook County GOP Pres. John Cox has created.

The Cox Machine has state chairs organizing 33 states and has volunteer ground troops in all 99 in Iowa, in NH's heavily-populated Southern Tier, and throughout South Carolina. He's got staff on the ground in all three states, as well as OFFICES set to open in all three in January.

For the social and fiscal conservatives who are FED UP with Washington insiders and their big-spending, semi-liberal platitudes, John Cox is becoming a very attractive alternative.

Posted by: Stephen A. | December 16, 2006 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Mr.Giuliani just recieved a lengthy and forceful endorsement for President in '08 from Richard Brookhiser, editor of The National Review. After listing a number of the well-ventilated caveats regarding conservative revulsion at his positions regarding gay rights, gun control, being pro-choice, the messy public divorce spectacle with the Mistress, etc., he floated an interesting notion of why Mr. Giuliani may well have misled the FBI back in the 1970's when vetted during applications for various positions at the Criminal Division of the Justice Department: He "repressed" his father's criminal history and possible involvement with the Mafia. What was not mentioned by Mr. Brookhiser was Giuliani's not describing the death by shooting, of his first cousin Lewis D'Avanzo by the FBI.Judge Harold Tyler, for whom Giuliani worked when he was Associate Attny General, told author Wayne Barrett, he saw the FBI report and that none of that information was included. Did Giuliani deceive? See "Giuliani Time", a feature documentary released theatrically in 2006 for further elaboration.

Posted by: Emmett Grogan | December 14, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Andy R for allowing me to come in and express why I support Condi. Did you know that in the first 2008 poll by Human Events that she came in at 30%, and that was larger than Rudy or McCain?
She has been favored at the CPAC events, where many conservatives gather to discuss the future of the Republican party and the efforts of including conservative viewpoints in DC.

For the past 2 years, Condi has been in the polls at over 15%, that is proof of support by thousands, not just me. She is the inclusive part of the Republican party, like Mike Steele and Ken Blackwell.
She has a chance to run and should be allowed to run since the people want her.
Pity on the people who donated to Frist and George Allen. They had hoped both of these men who run, and they did raise millions for that effort.
Condi has another year to work on foreign policy, and if she is successful, then she gets credit.
She is a strong woman, like Margaret Thatcher and yes, I would be satisfied if she was VP. But she has to run and show what states she would bring to the electoral college, and that takes putting her on the ballot.
There are groups in various states right now raising money to get her name on the ballots for 2008.
That is the right of our political system, and the naysayers will not stop it.
Thanks for letting me come in to show the facts about the efforts to get Condi to run and accept the support by the people.

Posted by: Tina | December 14, 2006 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it would be best to ignore me if you have such weak arguments that a simple 10 second search on the Internet dismantles your point of view. also if you tend to argue or make positions based on some sort of editorial result form the NYT, then the facts and conclusions I present will not generally coincide with your results. for example, that dingbat Paul Kruggman has predicted 9 of the past 5 recessions and has been telling us we are all doomed to economic morass for several years now. At what point does one stop lying and misleading and just admit that they don't know anything? when will he admit that he tries to manipulate numbers to suit his purpose and that many are on to his game and he is totally discredited now - a laughingstock.

Ignoring an argument you don't like is a sure sign of your intellectual weakness. you and drindl can be very happy in your ignorance and hyperbolic chanting.

I see no one acknolwedged that noname is a fool and knows not his name or any military facts. but that is an inconveneient truth. no one acknowledged the UN lowered its moronic global warming predictions by 25%. all these stories just go down a Lib rat hole when the facts don't coincide with the moonbat worldview. you obviously prefer to remain in your own little delusional universe. so best to ignore the impending outdoors and hide under the bed. Wait, isn't that your Iraq strategy? I understand much better now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that Guiliani is hiring someone with a track record of losing? Last time I checked, when DuHaime was Northeastern Political Director for Bush in 04, Bush lost every Northeastern state.

Posted by: Adam | December 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Granted, his "facts" are usually half-truths mixed with innuendo wrapped in disdain"

Nice summation, BlueDog. A keeper.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | December 14, 2006 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Looking back at comments...In light of some talk and the inevitable speculation of a 50/50 tie in the senate, the time is right for the media to momentarily focus on third parties and their potential. I mean, if the 2008 election is just going to be the muddy information overload that it already is now, something fresh would be amazingly victorious. I guess I'm just a bloomberg supporter.

Posted by: jojo | December 14, 2006 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Might "JimD in FL" be Rep. Jim Davis who just lost for the governorship? You just got outspent badly so the loss is no shame. Maybe try for the Senate in 2010 and/or for Tampa Mayor (if you wanna challenge Iorio, you truly could) and you could make a comeback. Reguardless, you still need constructive criticism. Simply air more commercials. Of course, fundraising might need to be better, which is somethin you could work at.

Posted by: JP of FL | December 13, 2006 11:37 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 13, 2006 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Yeah, I know KOZ from pre-election days. He's fun to tweak. No, I don't expect to "win" any arguments, and I tend to agree with him about the level of sleaze in Congress, Dem's included. His comment about Mollohan is a case in point. As for "knowledgeable", well that depends on what you call "knowledge". He's certainly emotional, as is William, but then so are several of the Dem's and Moderates online. I find him "stimulating" at least, amusing at best. He makes for an interesting day and forces me to examine and better articulate my own positions. Granted, his "facts" are usually half-truths mixed with innuendo wrapped in disdain, but then, I'm sure he feels the same about me. So be it. All the worlds a stage and he strikes me as a frustrated bit player yearning for a larger role. Poor KOZ, no one takes him serious. Oh, but now he has a compatriot, William. He's even more rabid. Check his recent posts on earlier issues, very rightwing. He makes KOZ look tame. Even more entertaining.

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the late post. Blue Dog and others, I highly recommend ignoring KofZ. He (or she?) will engage a subject and you can build a solid argument with him, but he always goes back to the echo chamber by the next day. From my experience with him, I believe it is his intention to disrupt discussion here by A) trying to make people angry and drop to his opening level or B) drawing out long rehashed discussions, such as the corruption comparison. He is knowledgeable and experienced. You aren't going to make an argument he hasn't heard. Unfortunately, you also can't change his mind or his behavior. Hence my recommendation.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 13, 2006 7:02 PM | Report abuse

William: I think Obama's answers to those questions will come out and will make him more appealing, not less. We already know where McCain stands (i.e. whatever position will best suit his personal political aspirations) and the only way he will win the nomination is if the hard core Christian conservatives stay home. The party (well, those in charge at least) didn't want him to win the nomination in 2000, so what makes you think they'll let him win it this time around?

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again you miss the point regarding Rudy and his domestic issues. The issue is not that he got divorced. The issue is that he lived in Gracie Mansion with his mistress while he was still married (oh yes, his wife lived there too) and THEN announced his plans for divorce at a news conference without telling his wife he was planning to file for divorce or that he was planning to make that public announcement. Is that the type of man you admire? But I guess its par for the course. Repubs seem to have a thing for self-serving, egotistical, "my way or the highway", dictatorial type individuals.

Its not the Dems who have an issue with his personal life. It is the "Moral Majority" who will have a problem with it. And yes, the moral majority are repubs. We are simply pointing this out. In fact, the Dems are saying that IF he was able to win the nomination, in spite of all of his personal transgressions, he would in fact be a formidable candidate. But that's a BIG IF, given your party's tendency to try to act as our moral police.


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

koz and william -- yawn. do either of you guys have a life?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree with whoever said that Clark is badly under-estimated. He is loved by the liberal base since he opposed Iraq from the get go, but he could also appeal to a lot of moderates in the South and midwest.

I think Evan Bayh is badly underestimated too.

If Obama runs, he is quickly going to have to drop his "above politics" charade and hit back at his fellow Dems who are hitting him.

Also, he will have to answer tough questions. What will he do about Social Security? What will he do about North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria? What will he do to keep the US competitive in a global economy?

He will also have to take stances on issues, and this will lead to him losing support from either his liberal fans, if he moderates his views, or from average people, if he chooses to stay far left.

What does he believe should be done about immigration? Does he believe in tax cuts or will he try to raise taxes? Does he support the death penalty? Gun control?

He will also have to answer for his far left voting record in the IL senate, where he voted against a law that prevents child molesters fromk being released early from prison. He also voted against a law requiring schools to filter porn from their computers, and requiring porn shops to be at least 1000 feet away from schools. This is just a taste of his ludicrous voting record.

If Obama runs,people will quickly see that he is also slogans and no substance, and he will rapidly be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Posted by: William | December 13, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Tina, Condoleeza Rice will not run, because she will not get to nomination, forget about winning the general election.

Aside from the fact that a lot of the GOP base in the South and other places will not vote for an African American (and yes, this is sad, but true), she represents EVERYTHING that is wrong with the Bush administration.

She represents the Iraq fiasco. We shouldnt have gone in in the first place, but if we pull out now, the terrorists will have won, and we will look like we were defeated. It will be much worse than the aftermath of Vietnam.

No one knows her positions on social issues, since she has no voting record.

She has screwed up our foreign policy by shredding the NPT with that treasonous nuclear agreement with India.

She is basically one of the architects of the Iraq war, which the voters rejected in 2006, and she is EXTREMELY unpopular with both the ENTIRE country AND the GOP base.

The Republicans screaming for a Rice or Gingrich candidacy are the GOP version of the Democrats who want Obama or wanted Feingold to run, and who supported Howard Dean in 2004.

So forget Rice, and focus on a realistic candidate.

Believe me, I am not criticizing you, I am only stating the obvious.

We need to return the GOP to its 1994 roots, and the philosophy of Reagan.

Rice stands for the 2002, neocon GOP reputation.

We have a lot of good people, but most of them will probably run in 2012, not in 2008. Sanford, Blunt, Thune, DeMint, Coburn, etc.

Posted by: William | December 13, 2006 6:05 PM | Report abuse

noname - you should really lay off the total ignorance schtick. Just because you have absolutely no knowledge of military affairs, and your friends think you are really cool since you have called for immediate and total surrender of all US forces, doesn't make you or Streisand any sort of expert. In fact the US military has billets for 2, 923,966 personelle over all the services. and the rough number in Iraq is something like 140,000. now some really easy math. 4.78%.

that is where I get my stats. numbers don't lie like zany Libs do.

You dems should really try on some facts occasionally. you just seem so silly, obnoxious and stupid with your current all insult, all the time approach.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Blue dog, if you insist on remaining totally clueless and making your self seem as dopey as drindl and noname, I won't be able to stop you from embarrassing yourself. But as a service to the rest of the population, I will instruct you on some actual facts, not the fantasy preferences you imply.
rummy - yes great three week invasion. also reorganized a giant bureacracy into a leaner, forward looking machine - the Pentagon. you may have heard of it. they are the guys who you are hoping lose the war.
foley - sleazy and untoward yes, illegal no. there is no law against two adults sending each other dirty messages. It's not as if his roomate was running a brothel or something. And he resigned instantly, something the Dems have never done.
Due process - you mean like tom Delay got, he is still in due process but somehow out of congress. perhaps a different standard of expectations for each party? the evidence points to yes.

juicy contracts - please explain how Con. Mollohan went from a net worth of about 300K to about 300 M in the last two years while salaried at $165. Maybe he used Hillary's cattle future broker. Or maybe not. there is that due process thing for the Dems so he can hang around a while longer.
Leaking secrets - this seems to be a specialty of the Dems. think about Leaky Leahy. Or Alcee your man from FL who leaked wiretapping results for money. Or Rockefeller who warned about an impending invasion, just in time to hide WMDs.

notice, no insults, just facts. care to tap dance around this some more.
anyone with eyes and ears can clearly see that the Rs clean house and evict anyone with even a whiff of dirt. the Dems, well they do something else.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"You have misconstrued the facts to suit your case."

No, I just choose not to live in a state of constant self-reinforcement. Reid's issue is old news with no meat. You admit he broke no laws, but compared him to Ney, not me. You're the one trying to claim where's there's smoke, there's fire. Problem is, no one can see the smoke. And we're not done with Tom D. yet, talking about smoke.

Aww, c'mon KOZ, I always like bringing up subjects with you. You're so easy to get riled up.

Wish I could stay and chat, gotta go take care of a sick child. See ya on the Fix!

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

' but considering that only about 5% of our forces are in Iraq, '

this guy is a 'laughable moonbat' alright. gee, wonder where he gets his stats? pulls em out of his butt?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Rummy did a great job at realigning the cold war attitude into something else."

What, exactly did he do so great? A three week invasion? Or the 3 years of fiasco afterwards.

Foley - No laws broken? Are you sure? Statute of Limitations expiring doesn't mean no law was broken. Willful Negligence by Speaker Hastert maybe? For failing to take appropriate action?

Jefferson? A sleeze, scumbag, filthy lying cheat who I think should be kicked out of Congress and go Directly to Jail, but, gee, there's this thing called "Due Process".

Net worth jumping after juicy contracts? Haliburton maybe? More scum, or are you refereing to some Dem.

Leaking secrets? Valerie Plame? Oh, you're talking about letting the American people know about the easing of restrictions on law enforcement rules regarding GETTING wiretaps. Had me confused there.

Daft? Resorting to insults again? Is that the best you can do?

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

You have misconstrued the facts to suit your case. Dirty Harry did not realize his gain because he was in the marklet for a long time as you did. He made instant money becasue he applied pressure to the zoning board to change a residential property to a commercial one. the profit was realized immediately after this change. the facts which have been printed in the local paper show that the board denied the change before dirty Harry used his name and influence to convince them.
There is no crime in unduly influencing a zoning board, but is this the shining example of congressional profiteering you want to emulate and put on display in your leaders. I guess it is since corruption is running rampant in the Dem party. but as long as you think it is OK.

since you are so insistent on facts, please point out the conviction entered into the record for tom Delay. and please indicate the broken law for foley. You are probably sorry you ever brought up this subject since the Dem position and reality is so utterly weak and disingenuous. but keep defending it. Makes a great campaign promise to break, as you well know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what law did Reid break? Ney plead guilty to Bribery. Are you saying Reid took a bribe? What did he do in return for the fight passes? As for his land deal, how do you figure doubling or tripling your profit over 10 years is crooked? I did that also with my real estate investments because of the booming market, does that make me a crook? C'mon KOZ, what are your "facts"? Yeah, Reid's a tough old SOB, and he's not exactly my cup of tea, but where's the beef? I don't remember any DA's or Prosecutor's going after him. Could that be because there's no case to be made? Or does Reid have the entire federal court system under his control too?

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

tom Delay - indicted by partisan DA for political purposes. Foley, didn't seem to break any laws. you may THINK they are shady but what do you think about 90 G in the fridge? what about net worth jumping by millions after some juicy contracts? what do you think about leaking wiretap secrets? what do you think about manipulating zoning boards? having two pacs?

I know, I know - no comment. Let them serve out their term until they have to report to jail.

but if we gops used that Delay and Foley would still be in congress. See the difference or are you daft?

Here's something goulish to consider.

"Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a hospital, his office said.

If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could halt the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate. Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the November election. South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican."

I personally wish him a speedy recovery but know that if the shoe were on the other foot, you Dem gouls would not be so charitable.

It's not over till I say its over. - Bluto

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I am not saying that is was improper to shrink the military, in fact, Rummy did a great job at realigning the cold war attitude into something else. It would seem this process has reached its pinnacle and it is now time to consider going in the other direction. so what is the problem? We react to circumstances. but considering that only about 5% of our forces are in Iraq, I am not convinced there aren't resources in Korea of DE that could be moved, if needed. I would leave those decision to generals who actually know what they are talking about.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 4:59 PM | Report abuse

KOZ says of the GOP...

"they still do not generally elect known crooks and scoundrels to congress as the Dems do."

No, the GOP crooks are unknown prior to election. It's only AFTER they get elected do we learn about them. Can you say "Tom Delay and Friends", children? How about "Mark Foley"?

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

If you want to talk about dirty Harry Reid, let's talk about his strong-arming of local zoning boards to benefit himself, his relatives, his donors and his friends. Ignore the small stuff like free sporting events that apparantly was awfully bad for Bob Ney but quite allright for dirty Harry. dirty Harry gets a property which doubles or triples in value, bob Ney gets a free lunch. Dirty Harry runs the Senate with shameless Dems defending him (and all the other dirty, crooked pols) while Bob Ney goes to jail.

I am not blaming anything on clinton. I am suggesting that Dem voters are gullible stooges who preach clean ethics and then elect and maintain the dirtiest of the bunch.

As for the statements made by the clearly laughable moonbats, taker a gander at their idea of rational discussion:

"make higher profits than any company in the history of the world"

and "you warp everything you touch. everything you say is a lie"

This is the state of Dem thought these days. and you may wonder why the Lib intellectual bank has a zero balance.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Gee, as I recall, the "Peace Dividend" KOZ refers to started in the early 90's as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, directly attributable to Reagan/Bush Senior policies. Then the GOP took over Congress in 94. Doesn't that mean the GOP holds some responsibility for military downsizing, since it is the Congress that controls the purse strings?

(What makes this rocket fly? Funding!)

Does 12 years of legislative control versus 8 years of Clinton (6 of which had to deal with a GOP Congress) equate to "It's Clinton's fault"? Sorry, that dog won't hunt, KOZ. Nice try, though.

As for Rudy G., oh please, get real. Southern and Western GOP voters are highly unlikely to vote for Rudy G. Evangelicals won't either. What's left? Big Business Republicans. It's McCain, folks. He's doing the necessary tap dance, he's checking all the blocks, he's compromised as needed in order to get Big Money supporters. Now, I can see McCain asking Rudy G. to be VP.

Posted by: BlueDog | December 13, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

oh yes, blame it on clinton. blame everything on clinton. so much for 'personal responsiblity'. you cons don't know what the words mean. you warp everything you touch. everything you say is a lie.

'The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for accepting free admission to ringside seats at three boxing matches in Las Vegas.

Robert Walker, the committee's chief counsel and staff director, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter there is "not substantial credible evidence" for the committee to conclude Reid violated Senate rules by accepting credentials to three fights between 2003 and 2005.

Walker said "it appears that acceptance of free attendance at the boxing events by Senator Reid from the Nevada Athletic Commission was a matter appropriately left to his discretion, as was consideration of any potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest arising from such attendance."

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

'Senator Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate Republican leader, says he will oppose key parts of the Democrats' 2007 agenda, including proposals allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices and repealing oil-industry subsidies.'

So I guess that's the republican agenda, hmm? All corporate welfare, all the time. Keep Medicare drug prices high and make sure that the bloated oil compnies, who this year make higher profits than any company in the history of the world, keep getting buckets of your hard-earned taxpayer money.

That's your 'small government' for you. It's all a con, folks, if you believe them you're a world class barnum & bailey sucker.

Posted by: drindl | December 13, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually it was clinton that began the slump in military numbers. Remember it was called the peace dividend.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Thirty-three members of Congress have written Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding that the FBI update lawmakers on the investigation into the anthrax attacks five years ago that paralyzed the nation with bio-terror fears.


The bipartisan letter escalates efforts by Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, and Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., to get the FBI to tell lawmakers what it has learned during the five-year case that remains unsolved. The FBI has refused, citing concerns about possible leaks.

The lawmakers said any leakers of prior information about the anthrax case inside the FBI or Congress should be punished but that such concerns do not justify keeping information from lawmakers so they could perform their required oversight of the FBI's performance.

The case remains unsolved five years later.

"As an institution, Congress cannot be cut-off from detailed information about the conduct of one of the largest investigations in FBI history," the lawmakers wrote. "That information is vital in order to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight."

--The anthrax was only sent to Democrats and was thought to come from government labs. Hmmm....gee that sounds like a repuglican, doesn't it?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

what was that big "apology" on 60 minutes after the Superbowl then? I will tell you what it was. the end of personal aspects of your sordid life being considered by Dems in an election. As in Cong Jefferson, Mollohan, Hastings, etc. will Gops follow suit this time around? they still do not generally elect known crooks and scoundrels to congress as the Dems do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Bush's surrogate dad vs. Bush's surrogate wife
Some members of the administration, including some in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, have argued that the administration needs to provide clear support to a strong Shiite majority government, but the State Department, led by Condoleezza Rice, views that as a recipe for perpetual civil war. Ms. Rice has instead advocated a proposal intended to woo centrist Sunni leaders to Mr. Maliki's side, including provincial leaders. Uh-oh -- Bush's surrogate dad is arguing with Bush's surrogate wife (surrogate mom?). No wonder the Decider can't decide.

Posted by: for you, tina | December 13, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone feel a draft? The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.... They're going to need it, apparently, because Bush has driven the military into this hole, and his New Way Forward appears to be to keep digging.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

'The San Antonio Express-News reports that Ciro Rodriguez (D) defeated incumbent Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) in a runoff - and that's great news for progressives. Bonilla has been one of the drug and food processing industry's most reliable shills, using his position on the Appropriations Committee to thwart efforts to let seniors purchase lower priced prescription drugs from Canada, and to stop Democratic legislation to force more inspections of our food supply.... Congrats to Rodriguez for defeating one of the worst corporate cronies in the U.S. Congress.'

This is why we are having an epidemic of food poisoning -- because deregulation and corporate tools Like bonilla [plus the do nothing congress cutting funds for the FDA]. Hundreds of peole have died and hundreds or thousands more will if funding to the FDA is not restoored.

Posted by: drindl | December 13, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Boring. I'm sick of hearing about random no-name operatives hired for exploratory committees. Nothing happened. Chris, if you need some filler these days, why not choose a random issue (iraq, health care, guns) and go down the list of possible presidential candidates and their stances (or at least try to figure them out)?

Posted by: jojo | December 13, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse


The difference between Guiliani and Clinton is that Clinton had his "snack" while already president and Guiliani had his before running. Had Clinton's "snack" played out before 1992, he would surely not have been elected Prez. It is rather difficult to compare the two given the timing of the indiscretions.

Posted by: VA-dem | December 13, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon that featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their evangelical faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded the MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in a military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.

On Monday, Weinstein held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce that he was asking the Department of Defense's inspector general to look into the video, and determine whether the people who appeared in it -- Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr.; Army Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, the former public affairs director of the Army; and Undersecretary of the Army Pete Geren -- had violated military regulations. He also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the government to find out who, if anyone, had approved the video shoot.

Posted by: "These people should be court-martialed" | December 13, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Condoleeza Rice has NEVER even RUN for office. Not for sherrif, not for dog catcher. She's a political appointee. She is also smart enough to know that there is no way she could win the conservative primary voters over. They didn't choose a decorated war hero (McCain) because of Karl Rove's shady assertions that McCain had a black child (he has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh). How on earth does anyone think they'll vote for an unmarried black woman who has zero track record of getting elected? Crazytalk!

Posted by: Willie G | December 13, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Can you tell me how both Shaun Alexander and Brian Westbrook could get me a combined 6 points for my fantasy team last week?

These are the real questions that need to be answered, not something that is happening two years from now.

Posted by: JNutting | December 13, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

'I guess divorcing your wife is worse than just having a little intern under the desk for a snack. '

Have you ever had a relationship with a human being? I'm just curious.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Even though cheney got on his knees and begged, the saudi king still made him dance. It's a pity that cheney and bush are so greedy for oil profits that they will kiss the ass** of kings and tyrants...
Since it was Saudi that was responsible for 9/11, i guess that would make them appeasers, wouldn't it? Or maybe traitors...

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority.

Violence between the two sects has exploded in waves of revenge killings since February's bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.'

Posted by: drindl | December 13, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

We have this exchange, of course, because Bronx prosecutors, interested in the DiTomasso's undisclosed renovations on Kerik's apartment, tapped Kerik's phone. On September 27, 2006, half an hour after wnbc aired news of the leaked transcript, Pirro appeared at a press conference so rattled that she left her wad of chewing gum stuck to the inside of the podium. The Kerik Kryptonite had struck again, diminishing Pirro's already slim chances of becoming attorney general and prompting a new federal investigation--this time, into her.

The Pirro scandal shows signs of coming full circle back to Kerik's mentor, Giuliani. Kerik's first call after his conversation with Pirro was reportedly to Giuliani Partners. The Daily News has reported that prosecutors have expressed interest in one current and one former employee of a Giuliani Partners subsidiary for their roles in the Pirro case--and that one has already been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. And the as-yet-unleaked reams of Bronx wiretap have fueled endless speculation about what Giuliani may have said. "You've got to believe he's on those wiretaps," speculates Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at the City University of New York. "This is not good for business, and it's not good for his presidential race."

People around Giuliani say they don't know what the damage will be. "It depends on what's on those tapes," says one former aide.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

JimD in Fla: An interesting persepctive but aren't the conservatives who vote in primary's obsessed with abortion and gay marriage? Isn't that their absolute litmus test? Isn't that why Romney is rapidly flipping his positions to accommodate them? Don't they in essence have the Republican party by the you-know-what?

I can't conceive of a scenario where Rudy can get the nomination but I think he could win the general if he ever gets there.

Posted by: Mike234 | December 13, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I don't want to give the impression Dennis Kucinich or one of his supporters posted that last entry. I mistook the name field for a headline field.

Posted by: kfitchard, Chicago | December 13, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I guess divorcing your wife is worse than just having a little intern under the desk for a snack. so now the Dems get morals? when do you have to return them to avoid the late fee?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Consider Jimmy carter, he would be good for one more term. you couldn't find a Dem who would surrender faster, although I know you want to. If he doesn't work out, Obama is most certainly his nearest replacement.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris, I saw that you answered a question about Kuncinich in your Q&A, but how come no mention on the FIX? I understand he's a long shot candidate and his candidacy is about airing issues he believes in rather than a legitimate shot at the White House, but doesn't that merit coverage. Kucinich making a fuss about the war, while other candidates say nothing does bring issues to the forefront that those candidates will certainly have to address. You could says Dean's candidacy was similar and he certainly became a legitimate contender. And finally isn't your responsibility (especially in a format like the fix, which reports on the minutae of politics) to cover every candidate regardless of how much of a long shot they are? If you don't, aren't you falling right into the trap of the "Big Bad Media" deciding who and what is worthy of coverage. I understand you have to make some editorial decisions, and Kucinich's every move isn't going to be on the front page. But the man did gain votes in the last primary election, up close to 10% margin in some of the early states. That's got to count for something.

As always, love the fix, read it every day.

K, Chicago

Posted by: Kuncinich | December 13, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

JimD, you are right about the winner-take-all aspect of most of the GOP primaries vs. the percentage-of-the-vote model the Democrats mainly use. Therefore, it's theoretically possible for someone to win the GOP nomination by garnering a steady 35-40% of the primary vote, assuming it's not down to a two-man race.

However, keep in mind that, since 1976, almost every nominating season in both parties has come down to a two-man (and in many cases a one-man) race by the time the primaries were halfway finished. The recent trend has been a presumed nominee (for all intents and purposes) selected by mid-March. I hope at least one party will resist the temptation to reach a consensus and coalesce around one candidate so early this time. How much fun is that? I would like to see them preserve a little suspense for a while.

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | December 13, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse

With Giuliani and McCain the frontrunners (Condi? Really?), I think this explains McCain's embrace of the Right in the last year or two. In the Republican primary, candidates will have to appeal to the moral conservatives, and this is one area where McCain has the upper hand with the adulterous Giuliani.

Hopefully for those of us who want a change to come to the White House in 2008, McCain's shift from the center will make him unelectable in the general. Giuliani, I think, would be more difficult to beat in November.

Posted by: GoBlue girl | December 13, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I would love to see Rudy run and see all of his skeletons come falling out of the closet. While living in Gracie Mansion with your mistress and showing up with her to official functions while you are still married may not be an issue for New Yorkers, the rest of America won't be so forgiving (not to mention, the media will have a field day with it). I won't even go into his use of racial profiling by the NYC police department, his bully tactics in terms of management style, etc, etc. Now that I think about it, that may actually HELP him with a lot of the neo-cons.

Oh, and did I mention the fact that he announced his filing for divorce at a news conference WITHOUT telling his wife first? What a classy guy!

I doubt he can win without heavily politicizing the events of 9/11 so that people see him as the guy that America saw on that day and not the mayor he was in the preceeding years.


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I think Giuliniani's entrance is bad news for McCain. They both appeal mainly to the same voters and Giuliani does not have the baggage with the Republican base that McCain does. Remember that the base is not all social conservatives. Many national security hardliners, fiscal conservatives and libertarians care very little for the social issues. If Romney and another candidate, like Brownback, split the social conservatives - and some will go to McCain responding to his vigorous courting - Giuliani could amass enough delegates to win via the primaries. I believe that the Republican primaries are largely winner-take-all, so if he wins a series of them with 35-40% of the vote, he could get the nomination. This is only likely if two or more other candidates remain active well into the primaries. He is very popular among a lot of Republicans and his positions outside of the social issues are pretty conservative. And, there are a lot of conservatives whose priority issues are definitely not gay marriage and abortion. I actually think that Giuliani's past endorsement of gun control is a bigger obstacle to the nomination. Now, if he does manage to win the nomination, I would bet on a third party challenge from the religious right possibly heavily supported by the NRA.

Posted by: JimD in FL | December 13, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Candidates for President's post: You hit the nail on the head with what major issues are there that desperately need fixing and the fact that the only solution would be political suicide for most politicians.

I believe that is the way conservatives wanted these things to play out. They want the deficit to get so bad that their arguement for cutting and eliminating most government programs becomes somewhat credible (of course, they'll not mention the fact that it was their policies that put us in this position to begin with). The conservatives have been gunning the for New Deal programs since they were enacted and would love nothing more than to see the full privitization of just about every aspect of the government (again, under the guise that the government can't afford to provide these programs).

If a Democrat is elected president, he/she will HAVE to raise taxes. Let's just hope he/she does it right after the innauguration so that the economy has a chance to respond before the 2010 mid-terms. If a Repub is elected president, then look for the elimination of even more government programs, the continued privitization of our military, and more tax cuts for the richest 1% of this country's population (its been almost 6 years and nothing has trickled down from the first round of tax cuts, I guess we need another round and 6 more years before we really see the positive impact, huh?). We'll be so much closer to that utopian two-class society!


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

While I agree with Tina that Condi has a shot at winning the Repub nomination, I do not believe she could be elected President (just as i don't believe Hillary could). She is a member of the Bush inner circle that lied and mislead us into this war and once the Congressional hearings bring these things to light, Condi's appeal will fade quickly.

Besides, she's another big corporate oil person who probably can't wait to get back into the private sector to reap the rewards of the energy policies we've enacted since 2001.


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 13, 2006 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The problems facing our country are so severe and the choices so bleak that I believe the following is true of our politicians and leaders: If they plan to make the choices and advocate the policies that are best for America, they will quickly become extremely unpopular.

Examples include the Iraq/foreign affairs situation - no good options exist; the federal finance situation - taxes need to be raised and/or spending so cut that any politician who makes positive decisions in this direction will be unpopular; health care - our health industry is so severely in need of reorganization that no politician could survive the event.

Therefore, if any politician declares interest in running for President in 2008, they should not be trusted with any important political decisions from now on.

We need these people - Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and any other interested parties - to get down into the business of fixing this country and pay less attention to their personal career hopes.

Posted by: Candidates for President | December 13, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama fan and Giuliani feels very dangerous to me. The word "infrastructure" cropped up a lot about 6 months ago, then went off the radar. But goodness knows America's existing infrastructure is falling apart and we need new infrastructure (such as mass transit) badly.

If this comes up as a major campaign issue, Americans might feel that a former mayor can deliver the goods on basic day-to-day stuff like roads & rails. Obama, where is your plan for improving our country's infrastructure?

Posted by: Amy | December 13, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

DuHaime is an enormous pick-up for Giuliani. He was raised in NJ politics, a rough and tumble place to earn your stripes in Republican politics. This is perhaps the biggest staff hire so far of the 2008 cycle.

Posted by: Dcjohnnie | December 13, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

It won't be too long before Guilani's GOP rivals make sure primary voters have all heard the name of his former police commissioner Bernie Kerik.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | December 13, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

You guys should give Tina a break. She is right that Condi has just as much name recognition as many of the other main contenders, lots of experience (although not good experience but I digress), and would cut into the democratic stronghold of the black vote. Now I dont' see her running but she would make a formidable VP for McCain or Rudy.

Also it shouldn't be lost that Condi's situation is very similar to someone that I have heard on this blog being pushed all the time. Al Gore.
Same name recognition, comparable experience, and both have said there not running.

Posted by: Andy R | December 13, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I hope Wesley Clark gets into the race (and does it right this time). It's hard to see any of the potential Republicans taking on a charismatic, articulate former four-star general and rhodes scholar. I hope he gets in early and really makes a play for it.

Posted by: JD | December 13, 2006 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm really surprised at how strong Giuliani's poll numbers have been in 2006. But it'll be interesting to see if they will hold, once we move into 2007.

Remember how well George Allen was doing in the 2005 polls of GOP insiders? Look where he is now. A year can be an eternity in politics.

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | December 13, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God Tina's back. Can't you get over that one trick pony?? Condi won't run and if she did we'll never forgive the 'mushroom cloud' speech. As an inner circle member of the Bush cabal that will be her legacy

Posted by: Anonymous | December 13, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Just in case Rudy and McCain fail to win the majority of votes in the Iowa Caucus, there is another GOP SuperStar who could be the 2nd choice for the Rudy and the McCain people, Condi Rice.

The recent Marist poll still has her at 15%, thats third place after Rudy and McCain. Likewise, when her name was listed in the Iowa polls in early 2005, the voters put Condi at the top, it was over 30%.

CNN reported on Dec 12, 2006 a recent poll asking Is America Ready for a Woman President?
60% said yes and 37% said no.

The second question was Is America Ready For an African-American President?
62% said yes and 34% said no.

The reporter said the Hillary has too much baggage and Obama does not have enough, he is an unknown. The discussion was about who the Democrats want as the Un-Hillary.
So that is interesting.

Back to Condi, she is busy getting the 6 party talks underway with N Korea at the table. She is also busy on setting up the new Way Forward Plan with President Bush for Iraq and the Middle East. The fact that Republicans and conservatives still see Condi as a contender for 2008 speaks for her efforts as Secretary of State. She is not ambitious or power hungry and does not need a husband clearing the way for her to run along with White House path.
Everything Condi has accomplished thus far has been on her work, her brains, and being allowed to participate in the policy-making of Presidents starting back in 1980.

Now the Democrats will try to tear down Condi, to bloody her up so to speak. And since this is one of the first comments, I anticipate reading some nasty remarks.

But this is going to be a wide-open race for the Republican nomination. It starts in Iowa, and there are Condi supporters in the state. We all believe she is the strongest contender and the one more supported by conservatives since George Allen and Bill Frist are no longer seeking the 2008 nomination. Yes, Condi has said she is not running, but no one can show a record of her saying that if nominated, that she would not accept.
If she wins the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd spot in the Iowa Caucus of January 2008, it will prove what I have been saying here at The Fix, Condi could be our next president.
And if McCain did win the nomination, then he might select Condi as his VP because of her wide-spread appeal to the people.

Posted by: Tina | December 13, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company