Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani's Finance Team

After setting a $100 million fundraising goal for 2007, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is filling out the team charged with collecting that cash for his all-but-declared bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Rudy Giuliani
As the former mayor of the nation's financial capital, Giuliani's campaign coffers are expected to be full. (Reuters photo)

The group will be led by Donna Henderson, who will serve as the campaign's national finance director. Henderson has raised money for a variety of Republican candidates and causes including the National Rifle Association and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. She replaces Anne Dickerson, who will move into a consulting role for the campaign. Dickerson was intimately involved in the major donor efforts during President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Tom McGill will be Henderson's deputy. McGill led the fundraising effort for former Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R) unsuccessful campaign for the open Minnesota Senate seat last year -- a race that saw Kennedy bring in $10 million. McGill also raised cash for the Bush reelection campaign.

The Giuliani finance team also includes Tom Benedetti and Abby Farris, whose fundraising firm did work for former Sen. George Allen (Va.), the Republican National Committee and the NRSC. Benedetti & Farris will head up Giuliani's mid-Atlantic fundraising efforts.

"This is a fantastic team and marks a significant expansion in our national finance operation," said Katie Levinson, Giuliani's communications director.

Given his political base in New York City, Giuliani is expected to be one of the financial frontrunners in the Republican race. After forming a presidential exploratory committee in November, Giuliani reported raising $1.4 by the end of the year and had $1 million left in the bank. Giuliani also showed nearly $500,000 on hand in his Solutions America political action committee, although none of that money can be transferred to a presidential account.

Money alone will not win Giuliani the Republican nomination. He must find a way to answer critics of his liberal social views without alienating more conservative voters who tend to decide the GOP nominee. Money can help Giuliani introduce himself (on his own terms) to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. And he appears well on his way to raising more than enough to do just that.

Here's a look at the other members of the Giuliani finance operation:

* Christine Walton: The southwest region finance director, Walton most recently raised campaign cash for Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) successful 2006 reelection bid.

* Gretchen Adent Picotte: Adent Picotte will be tasked with collecting cash from the donor heavy state of Florida. She has raised money for a variety of Florida Republicans, including former Rep. Clay Shaw and Sen. Mel Martinez (the current head of the RNC).

* Brent Lowder: No state has more political money for the taking than California, where Lowder will ply his wares. He previously raised money for Bill Simon's (R) 2002 gubernatorial campaign (Simon is a major Giuliani backer) and served as deputy finance director for Matt Fong's (R) unsuccessful challenge to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) in 1998.

* Carol Reed: Giuliani has close Texas ties among his political inner circle, and Reed will head up his fundraising in the Lone Star state.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 5, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Vulnerable '08 House Seats
Next: Minnesota Senate: Is Franken the Dems' Dream Candidate?


Zouk is half correct. I appologize for William.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Aahh! But, we do know you William.

We know you for what you are.

It's obvious how you think. No matter how much you deny some of those things.

You haven't realized yet that you are literally playing with the Pros here, and you are coming off as a rank amateur. Sophmoric may be correct both figuratively and literally.

The almost profanity is most unbecoming. KOZ would be disappointed.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

You two are bad examples for the other children.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 5, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"Except in this case, you like to see your posts posted to impress others."

And how, exactly, do you impress others on a message board where anyone can use any name and no one knows who they are?

You're an imbecile.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

And yet, you are too cowardly to post your own moniker.

Though I have a pretty good idea of who you are, considering the context and topic of my post that you responded to, and to whom it was addressed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

"The inclusion of so many obscure political names and arcane theories in your posts indicates that you are one of those people who likes to hear themselves talk to impress others.

Except in this case, you like to see your posts posted to impress others."

At least I don't pretend to know what goes on in other people's minds.

YOu don't know me, so don't pretend you know how I think, you worthless piece of sh*t.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"I eagerly await an answer."

You're not getting one.

You've hijacked enough threads and gotten them off topic already.

You're the equivalent of the troll who wastes everybody else's time. Proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially, with a tool such as the Internet now available.

The inclusion of so many obscure political names and arcane theories in your posts indicates that you are one of those people who likes to hear themselves talk to impress others.

Except in this case, you like to see your posts posted to impress others.

Your logic is so rife with holes that calling it Swiss Cheese would be understatment. The extrapolation of the findings of a single test given by a French scientist who's name you forgot, to the entire Scientist community was classic illogic. Plus, bad science to boot.

BTW I have over a half-century years of close observation of the GOP and the Democrats, as well as the recurring Third Parties. At best, you have a little over a decade. You are just beginning, but in your mind you have all of the answers. You are not even close.

When you feel the need to bloviate; bloviate somewherelse. You've been pick apart numerous times on The Fix already and don't even realize it.

If you have something positive to contribute, do it. But, don't waste our time with the obscure and arcane.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"The VAST majority of Republicans are either social conservatives or Reaganite/Goldwater conservatives, and are getting tired and disgusted of holding Bush's water."

I wish/hope that is true. When 28% of the country appears to support whatever Bush does darn-the-torpedoes, how many Republicans does that leave?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"The Reagan-Goldwater era represents about 20% of the existence of the Republican Party. Not its roots."

And according to YOU, who DOES represent the "roots" of the GOP?

I eagerly await an answer.

Show me ONE GOP politician who will not declare his admiration for Reagan, Goldwater, and their values.

According to you (and yes, I know who you are) social conservatives don't represent a significant portion of the GOP, and Reagan/Goldwater conservatives don't either.

What kind of crack are you smoking?

Who DO you think represents most of the GOP?

Pseudo-conservative people who only care about national security, tax breaks, and free trade?

Obviously you don't know much about the GOP.

The VAST majority of Republicans are either social conservatives or Reaganite/Goldwater conservatives, and are getting tired and disgusted of holding Bush's water.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"As a lifelong Republican, what disgusts me is that my party has swerved away from it's pro-freedom, Reagan-Goldwater roots"

A Lifelong Republican at 19? Give us a break, kid!

The Reagan-Goldwater era represents about 20% of the existence of the Republican Party. Not its roots.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"A lot of interesting comments on this thread. I'll try to respond to some more after this."

Other than an ethnic (no surprise there) slam at Giuliani, everything was "off thread."


Better Dead than Red! - Joseph Goebbels, later J. F. Kennedy

The ironic things about Communism is that the reason it fell was, You couldn't make a buck at it! - A. Whitney Brown

To the bunkers, William; they're attacking!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody noticed that the website

redirects users to an article about Rudy's adultery? Weird, huh??

Posted by: Check this out | February 5, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody noticed that the website

redirects users to an article about Rudy's adultery? Weird, huh??

Posted by: Check this out | February 5, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"All that social stuff is just Libs, Dems and the press trying to stir up trouble where it doesn't really exist."


Zouk, I agree with you on most stuff, but come on!

There is no way you can say Rudy's social positions and ethical problems are not a huge concern.

Exactly HOW is he a conservative? Or do Republicans not need to be conservative anymore, as long as they are electable and will lower taxes?

So Rudy lowered taxes a little in NYC. BFD!

He has what amounts to a fascist view of government power and intrusion into private life (if you dont believe me see what happened to NYC during his tenure.)

Yeah, he reduced crime. But as president, he won't be able to reduce crime, since that is a state/local issue.

And most of Slick Rudy's methods for reducing crime will NOT play well outside big cities.

What's more, simply reducing crime doesn't mean someone will be a good presidency.

And if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, you can BET conservatives will feel sold out and betrayed, and their belief that the GOP has sold out and is only doing whatever it takes to stay in power will be reinforced.

Guliani is NOT conservative! I thought one had to be conservative to win the GOP presidential nomination.

This is the REPUBLICAN party, is it not? The party that's SUPPOSED to be conservative?

We have been drifting wildly off course ever since Jorge became pres, and it's time to stop, and steer our party back on course, even if it means losing a few elections.

Losing a few elections in the near future is far better than losing the soul of our party forever.

If the GOP continues on it's present course, destroying freedom, running up huge deficits, selling this country out with regard to trade, ruining our military, giving illegals amnesty, and in general creating chaos, you can expect the GOP to keep bleeing voters.

If we as a party dont get back on course, we will lose values voters ( the kind who actually have values, and don't just care about staying in power).

True conservatives will become completely disgusted (its happening already, and is getting worse) and on election day either stay home, or vote 3rd party, or even vote for conservative, pro-America, anti-amnesty, pro-freedom Dems like Tester, Webb, Shuler, Ellsworth, etc.

I can just imagine Karl Rove sitting somewhere saying "who cares if some kooks go and vote 3rd party?"

Well guess what Karl, W. only won by 538 votes in Florida, Conrad Burns lost by only 2,000 votes, and George Allen lost by 8000 votes. In house races in 2006, some GOP candidates lost by only a few hundred votes. In each of those races, conservative 3rd parties received more votes than the difference between the triumphant Dem and losing R.

The nomination of a leftist ball of slime like Guliani will be a sellout of COLOSSAL proportions on the part of the GOP, and a huge slap in the face to conservatives.

I can bet you most conservatives will NOT vote for Guliani, even in the general, to punish the GOP for nominating such a liberal candidate.

Indeed, HILLARY is more conservative on many issues than Slick Rudy.

Let's review Rudy's positions:

Government Power: Guliani's guide to how government should be run in the book "1984." He has never seen an anti-freedom measure that he hasn't liked, and strongly favors increasing the size and scope of Fedgov.

Spending/Social Programs: Guliani did cut welfare claims and other wasteful spending to some extent while in office, but is nevertheless a huge spender.

Taxes: Guliani did lower taxes (a little) but made up for that by hiking fees,etc in other areas. Don't expect the Club For Growth to endorse Rudy anytime soon.

Guns: Guliani is a passionate foe of guns and gun owners. He's said that gunowners should be subject to the same registration and licensing requirements as car owners. He thinks all handguns and all semi-automatic weapons should be banned, and all other guns should be strictly regulated. He strongly supported the Assault Weapons Ban.

Foreign Policy: Rudy is one of the 12% (Gallup) of Americans who supports Bush's foreign policy achievements, including the war of intervention and nation building in Iraq.

Abortion: Rudy is Barbara Boxer on abortion, and told reporters he would even give his daughter money for an abortion, if she asked.

Gay marriage: Rudy is a STRONG, life-long supporter of gay marriage, and refuses to even tone down his beliefs. He marched in gay pride parades as mayor (Terry Nelson, start collecting photos. Thank you.) Rudy also moved in with two (2!!!) gay guys while his divorce was going through. We wonder what "activites" they might have engaged in. I'm sure Mr. Nelson wonders too, and I'm sure he will share his concerns with the voters.

Those are the major ones. On every other issue, Rudy agrees with the far left wing of the Dem party too, except national security.

Remind me, WHY the GOP should nominate him?

Personally, I would rather reward a true conservative with the nomination, like Duncan Hunter, who has actually been loyal to our values for years.

I will not sell out my values to stay in power.

I would rather support a losing candidate like Tancredo and know I did the right thing, and be able to look at myself in the mirror, than nominate a sellout like Rudy or McPain just to stay in power.

There is something better than staying in power.

It is called doing what is right for this country, and being proud to stand up for conservative values, even if it means losing an election.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani is a dilemma for conservative voters. His 9-11 performance cannot be discounted (compare it to the local response to Katrina). It was huge, certainly proving he could handle pretty much anything as president. His revitalizing and decriminalizing of NYC was impressive as was he fiscal management. Socially, however, he is a mess both in the personal scandals and his stands on social issues. It comes down to how the issues are framed - is it going to be a "security" election or not. If security is the overriding factor, who else could bring as much as him to the table?

Posted by: Dave! | February 5, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"grow government and intrude into every corner of your life"

And Jorge hasn't done that?

Zouk, have you forgotten the Orwellian, quasi-fascist, (and undeniably unconstitutional) "Patriot Act"?

Or Jorge's illegal spying programs, which are not only unconstitutional, but create an extremely dangerous precedent?

The 9/11 hijackers were not American citizens. I have no problem if the government spies on them, since non-citizens are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

But how DARE he violate the Constitution and take it upon himself to spy on American citizens?

The argument "but we need all kinds of Orwellian spy programs to protect us from the naughty terrorists" is a flawed one, and a disturbing one, IMHO.

If we are going to turn the USA into a police state because of what 19 guys with tablecloths on their heads did, then th terrorists have WON!

They've successfully created a situation of hysteria in the US where everyone p*sses away their freedoms in the same of security.

"Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

-Ben Franklin.

Is this what we fought the American Revolution for? Is this what our ancestors died in WW1, WW2, and every other war this country has fought?

To be turned into an anti-freedom, police state, by our very own government?

If Bush was a Democrat, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder at all his constitutional violations, and demanding impeachment!

But simply because he has a (meaningless) R next to his name, a large segment of Republicans blindly support whatever St. Jorge does! It's incomprehensible, and indefensible!!

Either people have values, or they don't. And if you do, you can't support the violation of those values just because a politician from your own party is doing it.

First the Orwellian "Patriot Act", then national driver's licenses.

Even Britain doesn't have a national ID card yet!

What is this country coming to???

What's next, a national gun registry? Surveillance cameras in every living room?

I cannot BELIEVE people are so willing to give up such precious rights. It's despicable.

I strongly disagree with the argument that "we need intrusive laws to prevent terror."

As an American PATRIOT (something Jorge wouldn't know much about) said many long years ago,

"I know not what course OTHERS may take, but as for me, give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"

Patrick Henry is one of my personal heroes, and one of the Founding Fathers I most admire.

He would never support the "Patriot Act" or Jorge's illegal spying, and NEITHER DO I.

And anyone who believes "times change" cannot claim to be a strict constitutional constructionist. People who believe times and needs change are constitutional relativists like Ruth Ginsberg. EWW.

I will not stand by while our freedoms are slwoly eroded and erased in the name of "preventing terror."

In North Korea, there are no terror attacks, and the instrusive laws are "there for the people's protection" according to Chairman Kim.

Maybe Jorge should move there. Or to Mexico.

Patrick Henry's quote is one I keep in mind every day, as I watch Bush and Co. destroy our freedoms.

Well, I say, as Henry did, give me liberty or give me death.

I would rather die from a terrorist attack a free man, than live on my knees in an Orwellian police state, safe from terror.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

A lot of interesting comments on this thread. I'll try to respond to some more after this.

"As a Democrat I think that Giuliani is extremely dangerous, and that Democrats and Republicans alike are seriously underrating his potential appeal to the typical American voter."

As a conservative Republican, I think Guiliani is the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms our nation was built upon.

Two months into that fascist's administration, you'll have stormtroopers in ski-masks kicking down doors w/o warrants in every suburb, "searching for terrorists."

There will be a tank on every street corner, and a surveillance camera on every telephone poll.

You though the "Patriot" Act was bad, and that Bush's illegal spy programs were bad?

You ain't seen NOTHING yet!

Just wait until Benito Guiliani gets into office.

He'll finish what Bush started and turn this country into another Britain.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. "

-Ronald Reagan.

As a lifelong Republican, what disgusts me is that my party has swerved away from it's pro-freedom, Reagan-Goldwater roots, and mutated into an entity concerned only with staying in power, and doing whatever it takes to stay in power.

Republicans who blindly support things that a president does just because he has an R next to his name disturb and disgust me, and are worthy of no respect, since they obviously have no inherent values, just blind loyalty to a party they indentify themselves with.

Unlike some Republicans, my values don't change based on what legislation Bush or the GOP congressional leadership is promoting.

I became a Republican because I am conservative, not the other way around.

Posted by: William | February 5, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"I promise to raise taxes, grow government and intrude into every corner of your life. I have no clue whatsoever about foreign policy. "


Posted by: lark | February 5, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

'Che: Iran and Syria are the main driving reason our troops are being killed by sophisted IED;s that penetrate heavy armour. I suppose if you want to quit and leave the region to a truly dangerour Iran, you can, but that is extremely irresponsible and will leave the region truly a powder keg. If we want to win, we will have to go to tehran and take out that Regime and its nuclear program. '

god you're a simple-minded buffoon. The IEDS and rocket launchers are being provided by SAUDI ARABIA, OKAY?

'WINNING' in Iraq is a joke believed only by the stupidest fox sheep in the country. 'Winning' means a shiite gov't controlled by Iran. ..

christ can't you read? do you really have no idea what's going on over there?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Seeing all you wacked out Libs analyze the repub party is mighty amusing. Let's see you react to Edwards self-destruction on Meet the Press. He is obviously toast now. "I promise to raise taxes, grow government and intrude into every corner of your life. I have no clue whatsoever about foreign policy. I don't know if Iran will get the bomb because I don't know what do do except talk and dissemble. I earned a good living at twisting the facts and fooling peeple, which I think is how it's done in Dem politics. vote for me."

Please continue to underestimate Rudy. Go ahead and disparage the R base by implying they are religious nuts. rudy is strong on defense (something no Dem can offer) and will trim the budget and government (also not available in Dems). All that social stuff is just Libs, Dems and the press trying to stir up trouble where it doesn't really exist. but if you keep chanting it for the next two years, maybe a few gullible voters will be convinced and scared off. Is that your intention? since you are obviously going to lose the Pres seat, I suggest you find some scandel to release a few days before the election. that might save you from coming up with any winning issues. raising taxes, losing wars and nannying the voters isn't going to cut it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 5, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Che: Iran and Syria are the main driving reason our troops are being killed by sophisted IED;s that penetrate heavy armour. I suppose if you want to quit and leave the region to a truly dangerour Iran, you can, but that is extremely irresponsible and will leave the region truly a powder keg. If we want to win, we will have to go to tehran and take out that Regime and its nuclear program. The sooner the better. You do not get peace by showing a lack of will (See Hitler and WWII)

Posted by: bhoomes | February 5, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The Hotline is reporting Giuliani said this this weekend in South Carolina:

"I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one."
"And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he did appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine - Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine"

Let the flip-flopping on a woman's right to choose begin. Just more evidence the GOP is controlled by extremists.

Posted by: Zach | February 5, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

What base in New York City? Giuliani is was one of the most hated mayors of the city in recent history. While people outside of the city only saw his mandatory performance on 9/11, they didn't see the really egocentric and eccentic and divisive character he really is. You can get elected mayor in New York as an eccentric, but it won't work nationwide. If he is the nominee, the Dems win hands down.

Posted by: Kalev Pehme | February 5, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

OK, does anybody remember the sound and the fury over whether Bill Clinton inhaled or not? Am I the only one? Granted, things have calmed down a bit now that we have an admitted alcoholic residing in the WH. However, as was pointed out, McCain's crew will smear RG upside down and backwards without breaking a sweat. It's all about perception, folks, and that quarter of the country that sucks up Faux News 'news' as unadulterated fact (e.g., did you know that ALL Muslims want to take over the world?) will think that RG is a serial killing baby rapist by the time that group is through with him.

As far as cross-over appeal to D's if that happens it will further alienate RG from the right. "Appeal to D's" is indistinguishable from "appeal to Satanists" in their twisted world view.

The moderate wing of the R party died about 6 years ago. The refractory 28% that still support Bush and this ill-run war do not think things through and will continue to be Rupert Murdoch's mindless sheep. Will he let Faux News smear RG? That's a more important question. Will he anoint Brownback? Seems likely.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 5, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Bush's new budget proposal is for almost 3 trillion dollars. The front page story on todays newspaper is how the Bush controlled offices stopped the investigation of a faulty downed firemen alarm, resulting in numerous and needless deaths. The Bush White House prevented the purchase of a working anti-RPG system and another working anti-IED system and, instead, awarded multimillion dollar contracts to a "friendly" corporation that wont even have such a system ready for deployment for more than ten years. The Bush Administration has prevented competitive bidding for drugs to be provided to Medicaid and Medicare patients, costing the U.S. taxpayer in excess of 200 billion dollars. Exxon, closely associated with Cheney and Bush just made obscene profits of more than 40 billion dollars. The Bush White House has lied about unemployment, about the state of the economy, about Iraq, about getting into Iraq... And Mr. Giuliani hires Bush's economic advisors? That speaks volumes about Mr. Giuliani lack of integrity, his moral and intellectual bankruptcy, and his utter inability to lead this country. Write him off, Chris. He couldn't get elected dog catcher now.

Posted by: MikeB | February 5, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Guiliani as the GOP nominee = Third party religious right candidate. JimD has it exactly right on this one. Under that hypo, the Democrat automatically wins. Hmm, maybe I should root for Rudy after all...

Posted by: Colin | February 5, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

- Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as "a panderer and a flatterer."

Asked on CNN's Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, "It's really too early to say. ... I'll consider it later in the year."

Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.

"I don't think she has the fortitude. Actually she's really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you'll see more of that," Nader said.

On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, "It would make it more important that that be the case."

Posted by: nader is a pathetic has been | February 5, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Golgi and drndl -

I think you are both on to something - and not only would he appeal to Republicans who are intent on retaining the White House, Guiliani has the potential for cross-over appeal in the Democratic party - depending on who that candidate ends up being. If the Democratic candidate is Hillary and the Republican candidate is Guiliani, Guiliani would take it. There are still a lot of people, even in the Democratic party, who wouldn't vote for a woman (different topic), and Guiliani is, or at least appears to be, enough of a moderate that he would get those votes. If the Democratic candidate is is Obama, I see the potential for the same thing happening. Guiliani as the Republican candidate would be the worst possible outcome for the Democratic party's hope to take the White House.

Posted by: star11 | February 5, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

'Tony Blair was under pressure today to open direct talks with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme, as a coalition of UK charities, religious bodies and thinktanks warned that an attack on Iran would be a "disaster".
As the prime minister dropped a broad hint that he would work on the Middle East peace process after retiring this year, a report warned that an attack on Iran would expose British troops to attack, civilians to terrorism and release radiation in Iran.

The report by 15 organisations - backed by Britain's former ambassador to Iran - comes as the US appears to be upping the ante in an increasingly hostile war of words with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

The previous foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has said that military action against Iran would be "inconceivable". Margaret Beckett, his successor, has also insisted that no one is planning action against Tehran.'

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani has far too strong a habit of saying abraisive things and doing scandelous things and then shrugging them off. That works OK in NYC but in a presidential campaign it is like hitting the self-destruct button. Guiliani will kill his campaign this way.

Posted by: Cali49 | February 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

'On ABC's This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said it is unrealistic to expect the escalation strategy to change the situation in Iraq in "a few months":

MCCAIN: Took us a long time to get in the situation we're in, and to say that -- and somehow assume that in a few months, that things are going to get all better I think is not realistic.

Just 47 seconds later, McCain said we'll know whether the escalation strategy is working "in a few months":

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say it's all in. How long are you going to give it to work?

MCCAIN: I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what's necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months.'

anyone else notice mccain is becoming TOTALLY incoherent? he contradicts himself every 30 seconds.

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

'The LAT fronts a look at the massive defense budget the Bush administration is expected to include in its spending request and says that, if military leaders get their way, this could be just the beginning. The chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are preparing a strategy to convince lawmakers and the public that more money should be devoted to defense spending every year.'

..hide your valuables, folks, the pentagon is coming to visit

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse


Trust me, I was there on 9/11. Rudy did not do anything anybody wouldn't have done [except for our cowering, bedwetting administration] -- he was simply competent,

It was just that everybody else was hiding in a bunker. We new yorkers were just shell-shocked all day, wondering where was the president, the vice president, the governor, SOMEBODY to tell us what happened to us, what was going on.

But rudy somehow managed to do the bare essentials of his job and that made him look magisterial in comparison.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

in re: "The divorce rate is just as high among American fundamentalist Christians as in any other American group (i.e., very high!)"

yes, but the hypocrisy rate is also quite high. remember that crusading anti-gay minister in the midwest who had a years-long affair with a male prostitute? and let's not forget all the tele-thumpers who earnestly urge their flock to give generously, then use the money on airplanes, vacations, "church property," mistresses, etc. and the flock often goes along with it. i see no contradiction between the jay-sus people pointing the finger at giuliani and doing many of the same things - if not worse - in private. it's all about what the congregation knows - not much - and when they know it - not now. plus, giuliani is from new york...

Posted by: meuphys | February 5, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Yes, but how many of that quarter of the country will vote for Giuliani? After all, he's practically a Democrat himself. If he's the candidate, a lot of conservatives will just stay home on Election Day. Or they'll vote for a third-party candidate.

I'm still not exactly clear on how the 9/11 connection helps Giuliani. What did he do that any other mayor wouldn't have done? Is it just that everyone felt sorry for New York so now they have residual goodwill towards its mayor?

Posted by: Blarg | February 5, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

'Everyone has been saying this, but I really suspect it is quite naive. The divorce rate is just as high among American fundamentalist Christians as in any other American group (i.e., very high!).'

Golgi, you misunderestimate the hypocrisy of fundamentals. Aside from divorce, they also have a very high teenage pregnancy rate. But that doesn't stop them from trying to force abstinence-only education on everyone else, and pretending that their social problems don't exist.

But i think you are right about rudy. Many people will not even bother to educate themselves about the candidates... all they will know about is 'America's Mayor'.. and he can babble on about '9/11, 9/11, 9/11' just like bush has always done, and the simple folk [the R base] will vote for him.

The cons make not like it, but if that's what it takes to block a democrat from taking power, they will hold their noses and vote for him. After 30 years of democratic-bashing propaganda from the think thanks, talk radio and 'mainstream media' probably a quarter of the country could never bring itself to vote for a democrat under any circumstances.

Although it's true that McCain has hired the vilest smear mongers in possibly the entire world to do to rudy what the same people did to mccain, -- and there is sure a lot of material to work with, so it should be entertaining at least.

Posted by: drndl | February 5, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani is definitely a longshot for the GOP nomination. However, I think a lot of people over-estimate the influence of the social conservatives. They are very influential but not the sole determining factor. There are several candidates with strong appeal to that group - Brownback, Huckabee and Romney. Republican primaries are winner-take-all for the delegates. In a fractured field, Giuliani could win some primaries with 35% or so of the vote. He has a lot of appeal to conservatives who do not much care about the social issues - and their are a number of those. He is a hard liner on law and order and national security and a fiscal conservative. Also, judges who would reflect his ideology on criminal justice issues are likely to be 'strict constructionists' on social issues. Having said all that, I still think is unlikely he could actually win the nomination. One on one he beats any likely Democrat in most polls. However, if he did somehow win the nomination, there would be a minor party challenge from the Christian right which would guarantee a Democratic victory.

Posted by: JimD in Fl | February 5, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

As I mentioned last week, the 'new stocks' of anti-aircraft weapoms for the sunni are a gift from the Saudis. You know, our 'friends' the Saudis. The ones who were behind 9/11, the ones bush likes to kiss and hold hands with.

So naturally enough, bush is blaming -- Iran! Wouldn't it be nice if the press printed what was REALLY going on, just for a change?

Hint: it has to do with oil

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The U.S. command has ordered changes in flight operations after four helicopters were shot down in the last two weeks, the chief military spokesman said, acknowledging for the first time that the aircraft were lost to hostile fire.

The crashes, which began January 20, came after insurgent claims that they received new stocks of anti-aircraft weapons -- and a recent boast by Sunni militants that "God has granted new ways" to threaten U.S. aircraft. Al-Jazeera aired video late Sunday showing one of the U.S. helicopters being hit in central Iraq and said it came from an insurgent Web site.

All four helicopters were shot down during a recent increase in violence, which an Interior Ministry official said has claimed nearly 1,000 lives in the past week. At least 103 people were killed or found dead Sunday, most of them in Baghdad, police reported.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters that the investigations into the crashes of three Army helicopters and one private one were incomplete but "it does appear they were all the result of some kind of anti-Iraqi ground fire that did bring those helicopters down."

It was the first time a senior figure in the U.S. Iraq command had said publicly that all four helicopters were shot down.'

Posted by: drindl | February 5, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"I still don't understand how people thing Giuliani has any chance at all in the republican primary, which is chosen by the conservatives, who wouldn't vote for a guy with divorces and mistresses."

Everyone has been saying this, but I really suspect it is quite naive. The divorce rate is just as high among American fundamentalist Christians as in any other American group (i.e., very high!).

Giuliani is going to position himself as a "nuts and bolts" candidate. "There's no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the garbage" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

As a Democrat I think that Giuliani is extremely dangerous, and that Democrats and Republicans alike are seriously underrating his potential appeal to the typical American voter.

I really hope that Democratic presidential candidates realize they need to emphasize pragmatism and daily working operations in the local neighborhood.

Otherwise we could all be in for a rude surprise come the general election.

Posted by: Golgi | February 5, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

In 1980, John Connolly (sp?) raised a lot of money in his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. He only got one delegate. Guilani should be able to do better than that but it's doubtful he'll do well enough.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | February 5, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I still don't understand how people thing Giuliani has any chance at all in the republican primary, which is chosen by the conservatives, who wouldn't vote for a guy with divorces and mistresses. Not to mention McCain has hired a professional hit man, so you can expect to see the video of Giuliani over and over where he blames the troops for not guarding the weapons stockpiles in Iraq:

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?" - Rudy Giuliani 10/28/04

Posted by: Zuckerfrosch | February 5, 2007 8:23 AM | Report abuse

It's time for REPORTERS [hello] to start asking rudy a few hard questions for a change:

Like, does he think it's a good idea to borrow billions of dollars from China so we can invade Iran?

Why did he publicly flout his many mistresses, even in front of his own children?

What's it like to kiss Donald Trump?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 7:52 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski
Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran

By Barry Grey in Washington DC
2 February 2007

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration's policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the "war of choice" in Iraq by characterizing it as "a historic, strategic and moral calamity."

"Undertaken under false assumptions," he continued, "it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability."

Brzezinski derided Bush's talk of a "decisive ideological struggle" against radical Islam as "simplistic and demagogic," and called it a "mythical historical narrative" employed to justify a "protracted and potentially expanding war."

"To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy," he said.

Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran." It would, he suggested, involve "Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan." [Emphasis added].

This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the "defensive" nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation--including a possible terrorist attack within the US--to provide the casus belli for war.

That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance.

For the rest please go to:

Posted by: che | February 5, 2007 7:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company