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

Michigan Mighty Important in 2008

Ask any political junkie which states are most important when it comes to winning the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and you're sure to hear Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The state missing from that list is Michigan, which, as things stand now, could be the key state in the fight for the nomination. Why? Because the state is set to vote on the first Tuesday of February 2008 and the two leading candidates -- Arizona Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- are already gearing up for a battle royale.

Both men can lay claim to a genuine political base in the state. McCain carried Michigan in 2000 even after his loss to George W. Bush had essentially crippled his campaign. Romney was born in Michigan and is a well-known commodity in the state due to his father who served as governor from 1963 to 1969.

While neither man has formally announced his plans to run for president, their campaigns-in-waiting have been involved in a behind- the-scenes game of one-upsmanship for months.

The lastest blow was struck by McCain when he announced earlier this week that Jim Nicholson, the president and CEO of PVS Chemicals Inc., would join McCain's Straight Talk America PAC as its Michigan finance chairman. McCain also unveiled the names of ten Michigan state senators who are joining the PAC's legislative advisory committee.

Nicholson is a major GOP fundraiser in the state -- having served as a Bush Ranger (raising $200,000 or more for the Bush campaign) in 2004 and a Bush Pioneer (raising more than $100,000) in 2000. "I am proud to call Jim my friend and look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead," McCain said in a release announcing the Nicholson signing.

Some bloggers bashed Nicholson as a liberal -- based on what seems to us to be scant evidence -- and said McCain runs the risk of alienating conservatives.

McCain's news followed hard on Romney's announcement of a 75-person Michigan steering committee that included seven people who had either been Bush Rangers or Pioneers. It also included State House Speaker Craig DeRoche, Rep. Joe Knollenberg and 36 other members of the state House. That group received a letter recently from Rev. Jerry Zandstra, a one-time candidate for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination earlier this year and president of the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan, asking them to reconsider their support for Romney due to his past support abortion -- as evidenced by a 2002 questionairre for NARAL Pro Choice America in which he pledged to protect a woman's right to choose. Romney's ex sister-in-law -- Ronna Romney -- emailed the group this morning to push back. In the letter, Ronna Romney paints Mitt's anti-abortion position as a journey -- "I believe that instead of asking how somebody gets to a belief and then belittling him or her on the road they traveled to get there, we should be welcoming them."

What to make of this back and forth? Despite concerns from conservatives about the bona fides of McCain and Romney, the two men are head and shoulders above their rivals for the nomination in terms of recruiting top fundraisers and building organizations in the state.

For McCain, Nicholson and former Ambassador Ron Weiser form the core of his fundraising base in the state -- a pair that gets positive reviews from even those not favorably inclined toward McCain. Romney's financial inner circle includes Walbridge Aldinger CEO John Rakolta, Suburban Collection CEO David Fischer and Compuware CEO Peter Karmanos.

Remember that one of the key behind-the-scenes struggles in the presidential nomination fight is the recruitment of financial "whales" -- men and women able to raise hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars for their chosen candidate. When it comes to Michigan keep an eye on the following free agents: Universal Forest Products CEO Peter Secchia, Grubb & Ellis Chairman Michael Kojaian, Birdge Street Capital Fund principal Michael Jandernoa, Carol Van Andel, Trott & Trott managing partner Dave Trott, and real estate developer Peter Cummings.

And, here's an updated look at the whales that have signed on with various 2008 Republican candidates. New additions are in all caps. If we are missing anyone, feel free to email me or post a name in the comments section below.

John McCain

Wayne Berman, lobbyist (D.C.) RANGER
Fred Malek, Thayer Capital Partners (D.C.)
Carter Pate, PricewaterhouseCoopers (D.C./Texas) RANGER
Bob Mosbacher, Mosbacher Energy Co. (Texas)
Tom Loeffler, lobbyist (Texas) RANGER
Bill Clements, Former Texas Governor (Texas) PIONEER
Ron Weiser, Former Slovakia Ambassador (Michigan) PIONEER
Kent Hance, Former Congressman (Texas) PIONEER
Gerald Parsky, Aurora Capital Group (California) PIONEER
Sergio Pino, Century Partners Group (Florida) RANGER
Sig Rogich, Rogich Communications Group (NEVADA) RANGER
JIM NICHOLSON, PVS Chemicals (Michigan) RANGER

Mitt Romney

Mark Chapin Johnson, Chapin Medical Company (Calif.)
Peter Karmanos, Compuware Corp. (Mich.)
David Fischer, Suburban Collection (Mich.) PIONEER
John Rakolta, Walbridge Aldinger (Mich.) RANGER
Dave Phillips, Phillips Industries (N.C.) RANGER
Tom Tellefsen, Tellefsen Investments (Calif.) PIONEER
Anne Dunsmore, Capital Campaigns (Calif.) RANGER
Hadi Makarechian, Capital Pacific Holdings (Calif.)
Herb Collins, Boston Capital Partners (Mass.) PIONEER
Jim Sims (MA) GEN3Partners (Mass.)
Joe O'Donnell (MA), Boston Culinary Group (Mass.) RANGER
Tom Foley, NTC Corp. (Conn.) PIONEER
Eric Tanenblatt, McKenna Long Aldridge (Ga.) RANGER
Ron Kaufman, Dutko Group (D.C.) PIONEER
YOUSIF GHAFARI, Ghafari Inc. (Michigan) RANGER
BILL DANHOF, Miller Canfield (Michigan) PIONEER
J.C. HUIZENGA, National Heritage Academies (Michigan) PIONEER
ED LEVY JR., Edward C. Levy Company (Michigan) PIONEER
BOB LIGGETT, Liggett Management (Michigan) PIONEER
PAUL WELDAY, Former Oakland County Chairman, PIONEER

Bill Frist

Zachariah Zachariah, cardiologist (Fla.) RANGER
Ken Eldred, Living Stones Foundation (Calif.)
Michael Lebovitz, CBL & Associates Partners (Tenn.) RANGER
Jim Haslam, Pilot Oil Co. (Tenn.) RANGER
Chip Saltsman, former Tennnessee state party chairman (Tenn.) RANGER
Ted Welch, Ted Welch Investments (Tenn.) RANGER
Jeff McWaters, Amerigroup Corp. (Va.) PIONEER

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 7, 2006; 1:32 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Voters Mad as Hell
Next: The Line: Nev., Minn. Crack the Governors' Rankings


Withdrawing our troops while under Donald Rumsfeld is unthinkable. He screwed this up in the first place, and now we expect the same person to be in charge of withdrawl? It will be like giving your credit card to your brother, who blows $50,000 of your money in Vegas, and then ask HIM to win it back.

Pressuring Rumsfeld to resign is equally unrealistic and a pure waste of energy for people who care about getting things right. There was Rumsfeld and Cheney long before there was Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld and others formed their core group back in Gerard Ford's day; Bush simply joined the team. Keep dreaming about unplugging Rumsfeld if you can't even unplug Bush.

In my view, the only hope for peace in the Middle East is wait out Bush's term and pray that things don't get too out of hand before then. Pray that the American public will elect someone who has a practical approach to the war, someone who listens to all the field commanders and not just those who tell him what he wants to believe. Someone who is competent.

Posted by: Vinnie Ray | September 17, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Webb's article argued against women in shock assault combat. Webb actually helped women in the military more than any other Navy secretary.

Military vets and active duty personnel all understand this and Webb's views are shared by the vast majority of voters.

Why Allen kicked over this bee hive is a mystery. Maybe he was staggering from the macaca event.


Wonder what's next.

Posted by: Tom McKnight | September 15, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

STOP TALKING ABOUT CONDI WINNING THE PREISIDENCY. I am of mexican and chinese descent, and I would love for a "minority" president to be elected but lets face facts. Both Democrats AND Republicans are more likely to vote for the other party just because a non-white candidate was presented. And although it might not be so overt anymore there still is racism in this country. Add on to the fact that that CONDI is a female (which in this country still sufferes some discrimination)combine to hold her back. And those polls u like to quote TINA mean little because most Americans know little about her true substance and policy and her polls could go either way.

Posted by: centrists unite | September 13, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean raised $50 million before the Iowa Caucus in January 2004. Dick Gephardt gave Dean a run for his money and while they smacked each other in the debates and on TV ads, Kerry used his $12 million mansion (his half is $6 million) to finance his last gasp for hope in Iowa. He won and then the Democrats stepped up the momentum get a candidate quickly. Whether it was Kerry or Edwards as the presidential nominee, the FACT is that Howard Dean was the real ANTI-WAR candidate. At the time, the Democrats could not afford to be seen as WEAK, so Dennis Kucinisch was also seen as a loser.
Did you know Kerry had $14 million left over from his 2004 race? What was he complaining about as he whined about the Republicans having their convention in September? How much of that $14 million does Kerry have left today? Is it financing his flights in 2006 to campaign for Democrats? Millionaire Democrats running for president have lost their ability to whine about the high price of politics. Like it or not, at least Howard Dean raised his money from the people. Kerry was forced to use his mansion to finance his race. Only then did the Democrats put their political machine into gear to raise over $100 million for Kerry.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Before 2008 which has a Presidential race that has everyone excited, we have an 06' mid-term election that will determine the dynamics of this Presidential race. Who will be the majority party? Who will be in control the Republican party? John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi will be the House leaders, which will be majority and minority leader? Reid will hold the banner for the dems in the senate, Frist is retiring. Will Mitch McConnell automatically receive the leadership position? I doubt it. Were talking about a guy (McConnell) who will have to explain away his vote against "The flag defemation amendement". That's right, he voted against it and it failed by 1 vote. Who is going to step up and challenge McConnell, I believe someone will. Will it be a veteran like John Warner, senator of Virginia or someone like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who excites many true conservatives? Whoever is in control of the senate will be able to push for their guy. Boehner certainly is one to vote on ideology rather than party line. With that in mind, noone has mentioned Colorodo Rep. Tom Tancredo. Is it possible house members will rally around him on the issue of immigration? It worked for the house to hand Bush and the senate a huge defeat on immigration this year. Immigration could certainly excite the conservative electorate. These are just issues that will have to be answered before moving to the 08' elections.

If we want a good estimate, though, of the 08' race at this point money is more important that polls. Think Dean vs. Kerry in Iwoa in 04'. Kerry wrote checks in the end to take down Dean in the polls and achieve victory. If you follow the money this soon, McCain and Romney have the advantage. But, as I say, watch the 06' elections first and the ensuing division of the Republican party for senate majority leader. Watch and see what happens!

Posted by: reason | September 10, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

(The media is starting to circle around OLD MAN McCAIN. With his hot temper and stories from 2000 of McCain's biting tongue, I doubt the media will be any credit for trying to hand him the crown.

Here are excerpts from a Sept 10 column by Billy House:
Will age be a factor for McCain in 2008?

Senator just turned 70, but in a nation of aging voters, that may not stall his White House run

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain marked his 70th birthday last week, a factor he and his supporters hope won't discourage many happy returns when the nation picks a new president. Election Night returns, that is.

.... This is about the Republican Party and the Arizona senator's chances of becoming the GOP's standard-bearer against a field of likely younger candidates in 2008 and then winning the White House to become the nation's oldest first-term president ever.

Whether McCain's age becomes an issue if he runs in two years,......, may depend on whether voters see him as not only politically fit but simply fit: healthy enough for the rigors of theOval Office.

Ronald Reagan broke the age barrier when he ran and won his first term atage 69 and then his second term at 73. So, the public in this era of increased life expectancies and an aging overall U.S. population may be more willing to give a 72-year-old McCain a fair chance as a potential president, experts say.

"His age, in itself, won't keep McCain from being a viable candidate,"said Thomas Schwartz, a Vanderbilt University history professor. "Reagan cleared the way for that."

But the other side of the coin is that voters will expect an older candidate to be ultraopen about his medical records and condition.

"How well he does as a candidate could depend on how he and his staff handle this issue," said Charlie Cook, a Washington-based political analyst.,,,,,,,

...... McCain has had some past health problems. He has had surgeries to remove melanomas, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer, from the left side of his face, nose, forehead, left temple, andshoulder. McCain is examined every three months because once someone has had melanoma, the risks of another one increase, he said.

McCain also had prostate surgery in 2001. .......

Bob Dole, a Kansas Republican who was wounded in World War II,....... during his 1996 presidential campaign, when he ran at age 73 against a much-younger incumbent president, Bill Clinton, who turned 50 that year. "It (Dole's age) wasn't really a problem until he gave a State of the Union response to Bill Clinton," said Steve Grubbs, who was the Iowa caucus chairman for the '96 Dole for President campaign. "Clinton looked lively and young, and he (Dole) didn't compare well."

If McCain runs and were to win the GOP nomination, there would be extra scrutiny on his vice presidential choice because of the possibility McCain might not finish a four-year term in the Oval Office, Schwartz said.

Another key: McCain must avoid anything that could suggest feebleness to voters: a trip or fall, napping in public, or even losing his train ofthought.

"The problem is that with the prevalence of the media these days, they are going to have footage of you at everything," Schwartz said. .......

........(as) America's baby boomers celebrate their 60th birthdays. And as this group grows older, some political analysts say, fewer voters may consider a candidate in his early 70s too old.

But just because the older population is growing does not mean voters will ignore the health problems that can be associated with aging...........

Even pointing to Reagan as an example of how older politicians can win may have its pitfalls. After starting his second term, Reagan underwent surgery for colon cancer. He also was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease after leaving office.

Still, political analysts such as David Mark, a former editor of Campaigns & Elections magazine, say they believe most voters are inclined not to make a politician's reaching age 70 "such a big deal anymore."

Posted by: Reality Bites | September 10, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Voice of Reason -

I agree, also the ways in which opposition research can distort congressional votes acts against Senators or Congressman. Since the last sitting Senator was elected president (JFK) we have had - a VP (LBJ) who succeeded to president, a former VP (Nixon), an incumbent president (Nixon), a former governor (Carter), another former governor (Reagan), an incumbent president (Reagan) a VP (Bush I), a governor (Clinton), an incumbent president (Clinton), a governor (Bush II)and an incumbent president (Bush II). The only other sitting Senator elected was Harding - hardly a recommendation.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 9, 2006 10:23 PM | Report abuse

There are not enough hours in the day to do both. Running for president is a 24/7 occupation. .............hmmm? Sounds like why John Kerry lost the race. He was so busy flying around to raise money that he failed to do his job in the Senate. I think that is why Frist is stepping aside,he does not want to be classified as an FAILED senator, FAILING to vote on important issues, and FAILING to win.
A 24/7 campaign for one job while you are holding another, usually is the NUMBER ONE REASON why Senators LOSE< LOSE<LOSE< when they run for president.
They are not leaders, and unless they were a governor before they were elected, they will never be seen by the votes as having the executive experience needed to be president. In the past 100 years, 10 presidents were governor at least for 2 years before they were elected as President.
You can argue all day, but you can't argue with that FACT.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | September 9, 2006 8:48 PM | Report abuse

slim girl.

First of all, my last post is one in a series of conversations I have been having with Tina. I am not arguing that she could not mount a serious bid, I am arguing that she would have to become a declared candidate to do it.

To answer your points:

1. Yes groups are fundraising for a "Draft Condi" effort but they are not raising anyhwere near the tens of millions needed to mount a serious candidacy. Look at the amounts Romney and McCain have raised for their various PACs and compare it to the Draft Condi groups. The avowed candidates' funds dwarf anything the grassroots groups have raised. My point is that she must become a candidate to be able to raise the kind of money needed to mount a serious bid for the presidency.

2. Things have changed in the last 80-100 years. Dr. Rice could not conduct American foreign policy in the 21st century and be a serious presidential contender. There are not enough hours in the day to do both. Running for president is a 24/7 occupation. She would not be able to provide a diplomat's answers to the numerous questions she will have to answer as a candidate. That would also make it impossible to act as our chief diplomat and a presidential candidate.

3. Yes, she could raise money. I never said differently. But, unless she actually runs, the "Draft Condi" groups will never be able to approach what the serious candidates are raising.

4. I've seen those stories. Thank God someone is replacing Cheney as the prime influence on Bush. That has nothing to do with the fact that she would need to be a full time candidate.

5. Actually, she would not have to run to become a VP candidate. Basically, one person makes that decision - the presidential nominee. I think that she will be at the top of the short list of most, if not all, of the potential Republican nominees. Whether she would want to do it or not is another question entirely.

6. Well, there have been powerful women in politics, but no woman has yet received a major party presidential nomination. That might change in '08, but it is much likelier to be Hillary Clinton.

I think that Bush has been a total disaster as president. Iraq is a fiasco and a diversion from the war on terror. He inherited surpluses and has given us unprecedented deficits. The inept response to Katrina is a national disgrace. His administration's contempt for science is appalling - whether it is Bush saying that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution to his stem cell research policy to suppressing environmental studies by government scientists or censoring NASA scientists about the Big Bang theory to avoid offending the religious right.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 9, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

May I come in for the discussion on Condi?

Dear JimD---your comment "Almost every candidate formally announces late in the year prior to the election (although that has been getting earlier and earlier lately). Clinton had been preparing the ground work for a presidential run for years. Condi has done nothing of the sort."
needs a reply.

1) There are numerous groups promoting Condi and fundraising to build support in various states. One is Americans for Dr. Rice, the other is and Some are focused on collecting signatures to put Condi's name on the ballot in states like S Carolina and New Hampshire. Others have been running ads on TV and radio. Do a google search on "Condoleeezza Rice for President", and you will find a grassroots bonanza on your fingertips.

2.) You mentioned that Condi would have to resign. May I ask why? Taft was Secretary of War under Teddy Roosevelt, and he was able to campaign while on the Cabinet. Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, and he was not forced to resign either. But if she did have to resign, I am sure Stephen Hadley (currently National Security Adviser) would be able to do both jobs just as Henry Kissinger was able to hold both jobs as the same time.

3.) Raising money would be easy. I think there are thousands of people just waiting for her to announce in September 2007. Her name recognition is worth millions, as stated earlier, and I agree. Condi is a worldwide symbol of how to succeed on brainpower and hard work. She is not seen as presidential material because of her husband or her father or her brother. She is a self-made woman; who merits a chance to run for president.

4.) The Washington Post covered an interesting story that the Condi vs Cheney rift is a powerplay who has more influence on President Bush. Based on what I have seen in the past 2 years, it sure seems to be Condi Condi Condi, and less about Cheney's influence. Therefore, again and again and again, Forbes magazine is listing her as the most powerful woman in the world (now 2nd place for 2006).

5.) I also agree that Condi could be the next VP. And JimD, you are correct. She would have to run in order to be seen as willing partner to whomever becomes the nominee.

6.) Like Eleanor Roosevelt, like Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of 1964, like Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and even Hillary Clinton; our nation has looked upon strong political women as potential leaders for their parties. So there is no problem with Condi. She is more representative of the party of Abraham Lincoln, which led the way to end slavery in a long long brutal civil war. From the time Lincoln came into office (March 1861) until he died (April 1865), he spent almost all of his time dealing with death and tragedy. President Bush has also dealt with death, destruction, and risk to our nation, but he has a loving devoted wife, and a strong team in place to help him lead our nation and maintain our SUPER POWER image. We are lucky to have him as our president.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | September 9, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse


First of all, I certainly believe that you have a right to express your views and I am not one of those who attacks people on personal grounds, name calling etc.- like some of the left and right wing partisans in here. I am an independent, moderate voter - not a partisan of either party. I was offended by your "do a little research" comment since I very well knew what I was talking about regarding Ike's race. You might object to my referring to Ike's politician supporters as "party bosses" but, in fact, Ike won the nomination by securing the support of powerful Republican politicians, office holders and/or party bosses. In those days, primaries were considered "beauty contests" where candidates could test their campaigns with the public and, perhaps, prove to skeptical party leaders that they could compete in elections. An overwhelming majority of delegates were selected by other methods which were mostly under the control of the state party leadership.

I do not doubt that Condi could be a formidable contender, but she will have to run in the primaries. You cannot win the nomination any other way. She has repeatedly denied running. It does take money and an organization to run. It takes enormous amounts of money. Almost every candidate formally announces late in the year prior to the election (although that has been getting earlier and earlier lately). Clinton had been preparing the ground work for a presidential run for years. Condi has done nothing of the sort. Clark was more of a draftee but he proved to be a real novice at campaigning and his whole strategy backfired after avoiding Iowa thinking Dean would win there. He wanted to position himself as the anti-Dean candidate in New Hampshire. I also wonder about how Condi would fare in debates on domestic policy. (Clark had some problems with this) Furthermore, the signals we have received indicate that she might be a bit too moderate on social issues for the Republican base. I think she might have a somewhat better chance of winning the election than winning the nomination. Furthermore, how would she handle questions about what she might do differently than Bush has done? If she presents herself as too close to a president with 40% approval ratings, she loses a lot of independent support. If she tries to distance herself, she seriously annoys the base. I also have my doubts about how much support a single, African-American woman would draw from the white Southern base of the Republican party. To run for president she would need to sanction fund raising organizations, recruit staff, etc. The longer she waits the more fundraising and organizational talent will be commited to other candidates. At some point, she would have to resign as Secretary of State. Personally, I see the better path to the White House for her being through the Vice-Presidency. She would be a very attractive choice for any nominee but Romney in particular, since he has no DC or foreign policy expertise. A McCain-Condi ticket would be very interesting. Considering that McCain will be 72 in '08, the chances of a President McCain declining to run for re-election would be fairly high.

Bottom line: I definitely agree she would be a formidable candidate - if she gets started in time. However, I do not believe she would be a "slam dunk". She also has some disadvantages (as does every other potential candidate). I think she would totally shake up party alignments too. Personally, I see a McCain-Condi ticket as the most electable possible Republican ticket - unless things get much worse in Iraq. In that case I do not think the reincarnation of Ike could get elected on a Republican ticket.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 9, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey, JimD, we are debating the ability for a Rock Star candidate to win the nomination. And Condi has 60% job approval, plus she maintains 20% support in national polls. So she is a contender.

Yes, she will have to come out and run at some time. Now remember this, Clinton came out in October 1991 and Wesley Clark came out in September 2003. If the momentum for Condi is still out there, she will be able to get the delegates she would need.

Consider this: Bill Frist has been exploring a run for president for 3 years and has raised millions. What does he have as support in polls? 1 or 2%. Compare that to Condi who has HIGH name recognition, HIGH job approval, and HIGH support in national polls to RUN. So she is worth millions now and people know her. The Democrats can complain about Condi, but they need to focus on finding their own new leader for 2008. The Republicans will looking at their candidates and it will include Condi. So we can debate the 2008 race.

I come in here and the Democrats seem to think control the discussion. Sorry, I have as much right to come in and explain my views as well. Cillizza is doing us all a favor by providing all of us with a place to come and discuss the issues of the day and the future choice of our next president.

Posted by: Tina | September 9, 2006 11:38 AM | Report abuse

MICHIGAN - Current Governor: Jennifer Granholm ( D-MI ), Allows HMO Fraud against the Elderly - And She's being protected from Federal Prosecution for it ( Granholm is a previous federal prosecutor - previous MI Attorney General ).
From Kimberly Kimball MI
Region V HCFA/DHHS/CMS has been protecting Current Governor J. Granholm from Federal Prosecution for allowing and concealing Federal HMO Fraud against Covered Individuals for criminal HCFA Medicaid Kickback Conversions.
........... Ask the Public ( Michigan Citizens ):
How many of you have Retired Parents with HMOs ?
Have you had an Elderly Loved one, brought to a Hospital, who was addmitted for more than 3 days, and during the Patients 'Hospital discharge procedures', you were told your HMO can limit services in a nursing home ? or that the HMO would not cover extended care in a nursing home ? Were you given or told 'you had to APPLY for Medicaid' or some other Government Program ?
Was your Elderly loved one transfered ( by the hospital ) to a Nursing Home, and then your HMO denied payment for Extended care services, and Family was billed for services untill the HMO Beneficiary was poor enough to be ' eligible ' and forced to apply for medicaid ?
This felony HMO Fraud and Abuse called 'Hospital Insurance Fraud' against Retired HMO Covered Individuals has been ALLOWED and concealed by current Governor Jennifer Granholm. ( evidence enclosed ).
NOTE: you will get MILLIONS of responces..................According to the Detroit News, Between 1999 & 2001 Michigan's Medicaid clientele ballooned ( Felony Kickback Fraud Against Elderly Individuals with Federal HMO Policies in Region V HCFA Michigan ) to 1.25 million from 1 million, at a cost of approximately $6,000 on each Medicaid Reciepent.
Elderly Michigan Citizens are literally being killed while waiting for Law Enforcement:
State of Michigan
John Engler, Governor
Attorney General Jennifer Granholm(Former Federal Prosecutor/Current Governor)
Department of Consumer & Industry Services
P.O.Box 30664
Lansing MI 48909
August 17,1999
RE: 990759 BonSecours Hospital - DHHS HMO Service: automatic denial of covered Existing posthospital care/services ( Anti-dumping violation against Federal OPM FEHBP beneficiaries for criminal HCFA Medicaid kickback conversions ). Conducted during the ' Hospital discharge procedures' by STATE liscensed DHHS Social Workers.
Dear Ms Kimball
This communication is a follow-up to our letter to you regarding your complaint against BonSecours Hospital.
As you are aware, your ( Criminal ) complaint was forwarded to the Department of Health & Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration ( HCFA ), in Chicago ( Region V ) for thier evaluation and direction to the State.
HCFA has advised us that they are NOT authorizing an Investigation of the alledged allegation ( HMO Hospital Insurance Fraud dumping Retired OPM FEHBP into HCFA Medicaid ) in your letter. Based on HCFA Decision, we have closed our file.
If you should have any questions, please call Mary Duncan at ( 517 ) 334-7442, between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday.
signature : Mary Duncan
James L Buchanan, Chief
Detroit Field Services / 'Special Services' Section ( Title 18 sect 286 )
Title 18 US Code section 286 ( CRIME ) Conspiracy to defraud the Government with Respect To ( Health Insurance ) Claims. 1999 Still Pending - ongoing felony.
Subj: update, letter sent to State Fraud & Insurance Bureaus -Reply
Date: 8/3/00 11:06:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: (Susan Hahn Reizner)
Ms. Kimball,
While we appreciate your efforts to keep this office informed of your
communication with the Michigan Department of Insurance, please note that the
matter that Department has taken up in response to your inquiry concerns a
coverage decision made by a Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.
As you know, the Federal agency that handles inquiries about FEHB plan coverage issues is not HCFA, ( Medicaid Kickback Fraud ) but the Office of Personnel Management, which has already been in communication with you about this matter.
It is therefore not necessary or for you to copy me on your ongoing
communications with the Michigan Department of Insurance.
Susan Hahn Reizner
Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Coordinator
HCFA Region V - Chicago
Hospital Insurance Fraud - HMO Denials of Posthospital Services for criminal conversion into State Medicaid.
[CITE: 42CFR409.33] [Page 187-188]TITLE 42--PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER IV-( HCFA ) -HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION,( DHHS ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PART 409-- HOSPITAL INSURANCE BENEFITS --Table of Contents Subpart D--Requirements for Coverage of Posthospital SNF Care Sec. 409.33 Examples of skilled nursing and rehabilitation services.
Michigan Compiled Laws: Complete through PA ( public act ) 297 of 2000 PUBLIC HEALTH CODE ( EXCERPT ) ACT 368 OF 1978 333.5659 Life Insurer, health insurer, or health care payment or benefits plan; Prohibited Acts. ( b ) LIMIT ( Hospital DHHS HMO Service : Denial of Existing HMO Posthospital Services ) the amount of coverage or benefits available to a terminally ill patient within the scope and level of coverage or benefits of an Existing ( OPM FEHBP ) policy, certificate, or contract.
From: ..... Jeanette Girty.... FEDERAL HMO CONTRACTOR - Health Alliance Plan Detroit Inc. HAP ...... OPM FEHBP " Hospital Extended Care Benefits " 730 days Covered.
Re: ...Hospital DHHS - Marla Ruhana SW/CMU - discharge procedures, criminal enactment of the 'DHHS HMO Service': grievance procedure, by automatic denial of Covered Posthospital Services - resulting in death * as threatened * ( 2 weeks ).
Dated......... June 20, 2000 .......... [CITE: 42CFR438.704]
To: ............ Taber,Kristie ..... Michigan Insurance Bureau - OFIS
" After a two week stay ( in a Medicaid Bed Ward ),the ( Covered OPM FEHBP ) Husband STILL refused to apply for ( HCFA kickback ) Medicaid ".
FEDERAL RACKETEERING: Criminally Billing 'Covered Individuals' to force HCFA Medicaid kickback conversions.
OPM FEHBP - Federal HMO Service Contract Provider - Health Alliance Plan Detroit MI ( Region V HCFA ) HAP PROVIDERS offers 2,596 personal care physicians (PCP) and 4,901 specialists. HAP's delivery system includes 45 hospitals ( inducing forfiture of OPM FEHBP Insurance by criminal enactment of DHHS HMO Grievance Service - 'Dumping' ) in southeast Michigan and the Flint area, including 23 major hospital networks ( robbing the Elderly of 401k's and savings accounts to force Medicaid kickback Conversions ), 65 urgent care centers and 765 ancillary providers: Nursing Homes ( Criminally Billing FEHB for COVERED Posthospital Care for criminal conversion into State HCFA Medicaid - racketeering against covered individuals ),mental health facilities, optical providers, laboratories, durable medical equipment providers,ambulance services and pharmacy chains.
Subj: question regarding making a police report
Date: 12/28/2002 10:36:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Kstbylite1
CC: Kstbylite1
I went to the Michigan State Police Post in Richmond Michigan in January 2002 to file a complaint against State of Michigan Employees allowing Hospital Insurance Fraud being committed by Health Alliance Plan Detroit. The Richmond Post refused to allow me to make a police report or submitt my evidence.
The Region V Office had a record high 940 new MSP cases filed in 1998. Contributing to this were Partnership Arrangements with ( Federal ) CONTRACTORS and ( Federal ) U.S. Attorneys in MICHIGAN and Ohio.....Title 18 US Code section 286 ( CRIME ) Conspiracy to defraud the Government with Respect To ( Health Insurance ) Claims.
The ANTI-DUMPING STATUTE is Enforced Jointly by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG DHHS) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Regulations implementing these statutory obligations are found at 42 CFR part 489.
Subject: FBI Response
Date: 5/26/2004 10:26:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Reply To:
Sent on:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Ms. Kimball,
Thank you for your submission to the FBI Internet
Tip Line. After a careful evaluation of your
information, it is our determination that your
complaint should be reported to your local law
enforcement authorities or District Attorney's
office. If you wish pursue legal matters against
the hospital you should contact an attorney.
Attorney General - health care fraud division # 2002-04-0925
Mike Cox / Jennifer Granholm
Health Care Fraud Division # 99-05-1034 January 2000 Linda Damer
Insurance Bureau #31302-001 March 2000 Cindy Mielock , Kristie Tabor
Liscensing Division #68-99-3073-00 april 1999 Cynthia Samuel - victim still living
Bureau of Health Systems #990759 april 1999 Mary Duncan - victim still living
ACE - Eastern District Ellen Christensen AG refused to investigate 2001.
18 USC Sec. 24 01/02/01-EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS-HEAD- Sec. 24. Definitions relating to Federal health care offense-STATUTE-
(a) As used in this title, the term ''Federal health care offense'' means a violation of, or a criminal conspiracy to violate- (1) section 669, 1035, 1347, or 1518 of this title; ( 2) section 287, 371, 664, 666, 1001, 1027, 1341, 1343, or 1954 of this title, if the violation or conspiracy relates to a health care benefit program. (b) As used in this title, the term ''health care benefit program'' means any public or private plan or contract, affecting commerce, under which any medical benefit, item, or service is provided to any individual, and includes any individual or entity who is providing a medical benefit, item, or service ( DHHS HMO grievance 'service': Denial of COVERED Benefits and OPM FEHBP Filing for Denied COVERED Claims ) For Which Payment May Be Made Under The Plan Or Contract.-SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 104-191, title II, Sec. 241(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2016.)-SECREF- SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 669, 1035 of this title; title 42 section 1395i.
According to Vernon Smith, " a health care expert " who attended - Previous Attorney General MI, ( now ) Governor Jennifer Granholms Summit, he stated the Biggest Factor responsible for raising Medicaid spending is Enrollment.
Subj: Re: Health Alliance Insurance Fraud - Federal HMO Service Contractor
Date: 2/21/2003 5:07:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: (Senator Debbie Stabenow)
February 21, 2003
Kimberly Kimball
Avoca, Michigan 48006
Thank you . . .
. . for contacting me about ( OPM FEHBP ) insurance & Medicaid ( kickback ) fraud committed by ( HMO ) Health Alliance Plan. I appreciate that you have taken the time to communicate your views and concerns with me.
I understand your concern about this issue. Should related legislation
come before the U.S. Senate for a vote, I will keep your views in mind,
and share your thoughts on this issue with my colleagues who serve on the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me
whenever I can be of assistance to you or your family.
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
For Public Officials to allow Felony HMO Fraud against Michigan Citizens is a FELONY Federal Health Care Offences and is Defrauding the Goverment - Federal And State - with respect to HMO health insurance claims - NO ONE is Protecting Retired Americans in the State of Michigan from HMO Fraud and Abuse resulting in serious bodily injury or death to the Elderly Victims. Call any Attorney and the will tell you the Government doesn't care about Federal Contractors Defrauding Individual Americans - only the System that they are involved in defrauding by not Informing the Public of Criminal Public Policies created to defraud them and Government Programs.
ORGANIZATIONS, Subpart B-- Qualified Health Maintenance Organizations: "
Services "(g) Grievance procedures: DENIAL OF COVERED HMO Hospital Insurance Services.(h) Special rules: Enrollees under the Federal employee health benefits program (FEHBP). An HMO that accepts enrollees under the FEHBP (Chapter 89 of title 5 of the U.S.C.) may obtain and retain Federal qualification if.......
400.603 Application for, or determining rights to, medicaid benefits; false statement or false representation of material facts; concealing or failing to disclose certain events; felony; penalty. [M.S.A. 16.614(3) ]
OPM FEHBP FEDERAL insurance Supersedes HCFA/DHHS Medicaid insurance for the Poor.
(3) A person, ( Kimberly Kimball ) who having knowledge of the occurrence of an event ( OPM contracted Hospital DHHS Workers inducing forfiture of FEHBP Insurance by criminal enactment of HMO Grievance Procedures ) affecting his initial or continued right to receive a medicaid benefit or the initial or continued right of any other person on whose behalf he has applied for or is receiving a benefit, shall not conceal or fail to disclose that event ( OPM Hospital DHHS conducting anti dumping / anti kickback violations against HMO COVERED Federal Employee Health Beneficiaries ) with intent to obtain a benefit to which the person or any other person is NOT ENTITLED or in an amount greater than that to which the person or any other person is entitled.
(4) A person who violates this section is Guilty of a Felony, punishable by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or a fine of not more than $50,000.00, or both.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship,
Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Kimberly Kimball
Kenokee Twp MI 48006

Posted by: K. Kimball | September 9, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse


I do not think Condi will run nor am I a supporter. I was responding to one of Tina's ubiquitious posts touting Condi for president. I had pointed out the historical difficulty of that and Tina responded totally misrepresenting both my post and the history of Eisenhower's campaign for the Republican nomination in 1952.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Jim D.

On Condi, she's also too smart to run for president and does not seem to have any track record in establishing her own policy agenda. She has been Junior's mouthpiece.

Also, the elephant in the Living Room would be her obvious intangible that won't fly with Southern Conservatives. The Republicans have eked out presidential wins in 200 and 2004 some might on a razor's margin saved only by a loyalist in FLorida in 00 and electronic manipulation in Ohio in 04.

They would never win if the southern "traditionalists were alienated...and Condi regardless of her credentials, would alienate them.

Posted by: zippy | September 8, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse


You completely misunderstood my point. I am very familiar with the primary system and American political history in the 20th century - probably more familiar than you are. There were only a handful of primaries in 1952 and nowhere near enough to secure the nomination via primary as there is today. Ike did not win the nomination through primaries - it was mathematically impossible to win enough delegates to be nominated in the primaries in 1952. Eisenhower had his own party leaders supporting him - most notably Sherman Adams who was governor of New Hamphsire. Ike was immensely popular with the general public, that is why the draft movement was successful. But, he won because powerful Republican politicians supported him. In 1952, only a handful of delegates were selected in primaries. The politicians who supported Ike were anxious to win the White House after 20 years out of office. They saw the tidal wave of public support for him and knew he would be much more electable than Taft. Truman asked Ike to run for president as a Democrat in 1948 and offered to be his VP candidate. Both parties courted Ike. But, the fact remains he was given the nomination by political leaders and did not win it via primaries.

That situation does not exist today. Every nominee since 1960 has won the enough delegates to be nominated in the primaries. In order to be nominated, Condi will have to run in the primaries. To be successful in the primaries, a candidate needs to raise a lot of money and put a good organization in place. To date, she has done neither. I do not deny that she would have a great deal of support, although I think she would prove too moderate on social issues for the Republican base.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Interesting topic for McCain as President.
While it may be true that Senator McCain is energetic and actively campaigning for various Republican candidates for office in 2006, he has just turned 70.

That makes McCain 72 years old and age will be a key to the upcoming 2008 cycle and the focus will be on his health. In all fairness, President Reagan's age of 73 was
questioned during his debate against Mondale in 1984.

Therefore, the political eye must look to McCain's selection as vice
president; someone who can immediately step in if something happened to him. Like
Lincoln, McKinley, and John F. Kennedy who were killed while in office, or
Harding who died in his late 50's and FDR who died at age 63; the importance of the
most qualified and experienced person holding the post as VP demands
discussion now if McCain is being viewed as the frontrunner.

Also, consider this:
Woodrow Wilson had a stroke which prevented him from doing his job for
almost one year. His duties were then performed by his wife, not his VP.
Eisenhower had heart problems. Today, voters will hold their candidates under a
microscope to examine their health to judge their physical fitness for the
office. It will be a factor for me to consider along with his stand on important

Posted by: Reality BITES | September 8, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch ABC's Nightline "On the Road with Hillary" last night? Cynthia McFadden reported that she and her camera crew covered Hillary for 11 hours, just part of the 7 car entourage. (Gas guzzlers? How many cars need to tag along with Hillary and waste all that fuel?)

**********McFadden caught Hillary on camera with the statement about a woman president.
Hillary said "when and if that happens, stay tuned". (It sparked a media spree about whether Hillary meant stay tuned as in 2008 or if it would be her?)

************McFadden asked for Hillary to describe herself (with an adjective). Hillary said REAL. (there she said their was a WHOLE cottage industry to try to make a characterization of her, Hillary.)

***********Hillary said "I am not thinking about it (running for president)" yet she also refused to take a pledge to serve another FULL 6 year term.

Last point made by Nightline
Bill Clinton comes to the event, and a woman says, "now get your wife to run for president"......clearly he is saying either "I'll try" or "I'm trying". I bet if you look up the transcript, that statment won't be included.
McFadden asked Bill if she overheard him correctly saying he was trying to get Hillary to run, and he said, NO I DID NOT.

STOP THE TAPE. REWIND. He sure did say it as I stated since I heard it on the tape. Why can't he admit the truth?

************Finally, Bill Clinton said, "it would be a mistake for Hillary to say one or another" if she was going to be running for president. Hmmmm? Like she can't be honest with the people of New York to consider her running across the nation giving speeches instead of voting in the Senate? Just remember that Kerry was absent from 90% of his votes in the Senate in the last year of his run for president. The people of New York have been polled and over 50% said they want her as their senator, NOT as their president.

*************The issue for Democrats is who is the UN-Hillary? Gore, Kerry, or Edwards?
That is part of the 2008 magical mystery tour.

Posted by: Who is UN-Hillary? | September 8, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

To JimD in FL, please do some research about the primary system. Eisenhower was placed in the New Hampshire primary of March 1952 by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge to defeat Sen. Robert Taft (the frontrunner/annointed by the party).
Eisenhower won 50% of the vote.

Taft controlled the political machinary at the time, so if party bosses were in control, Taft should have been anointed.

Harold Stassen was supposed to win Minnesota, his home state, but Eisenhower supporters ran a write-in campaign (winning 100,000 votes, a close second to Home Boy Stassen)

During all of this time, Eisenhower was still in Paris as Nato Allied Commander. This shows that when the people are sparked, it is a FIRE ignited across the nation.

By June 1952, Eisenhower asked President Truman to accept his resignation. This set up a DELEGATE fight on the convention floor, but the politicans for Eisenhower stood up against the machinary of Taft.

So, JimD in FL , do a bit of research. Eisenhower was put into office by the PEOPLE, not by power brokers. He became the first Republican elected since 1928. (Also remember this factoid, Truman wanted Eisenhower to run as a Democrat and Truman offered be his VP)

"I like IKE" buttons flashed across the nation, and Roger Disney wrote the TV ad "You like Ike, I like Ike, Everybody likes Ike for president".

This is the momentum across the nation for Condi. She is a political rock star and even Cillizza can vouch for the people he has met who are promoting her. Cillizza met the Condi people in Memphis, so he knows they exist as a political action committee. Cillizza is a good political reporters, and some day, he will report about the efforts to promote Condi for president.

Finally, some might say she should start with VP. To achieve that goal, she still has to run. No one can just hand it to her without showing which states she would bring to the Electoral College column. (Her childhood state of Alabama would go to her, and she is even favored to win California is she is on the 2008 ticket, as reported by state newspapers.)

Posted by: Tina | September 8, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - well I am not a Republican, although I have often voted for them in the past. I am sort of a centrist, but actually have liberal beliefs on some issues and conservative beliefs on others. I have always admired McCain - firstly for his heroism. As a retired naval officer, that means a lot to me. Secondly, independent voters like me tend to like politicians who are not necessarily in lockstep with every single line of the party platform. I generally agree with him on national security issues and fiscal policy. I actually like McCain-Feingold. Many independents like me are appalled by the influence of money on politics - I know that is naive. I do not see it as a free speech issue. Why someone with the most money is entitled to the most speech in a democracy escapes me.

I will just repeat my belief that McCain is far and away the most electable candidate with a chance at the Republican nomination. (I simply cannot imagine Giuliani getting the nomination due to his social views and personal history.) I thought the Democrats were the one who rejected the electable in favor of the ideologically pure.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd say Allen's chances for the GOP presidential nomination went up in flames the moment that word left his mouth. I grew up in the South and I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what macaca meant: "Macaca is a dismissive epithet used by Francophone colonials in Africa for native populations of North and Subsaharan Africans.[1] It is also sometimes used as a code word in the White Power Movement, to refer to blacks and other non-Caucasians.[2] It is derived from the name of the genus comprised of the macaque primates."

Unless Allen's spent some time in Africa it's pretty obvious that he picked this word up from an associate with the White Power Movement. This is consistent with some of the seamier stories we've heard about his past. I know the GOP puts on a show about a "big tent" every 4 years but I don't think even their tent will be big enough to accomodate both minority voters and such an obvious KKK'er.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 8, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

By the way, if George Allen kept his mouth shut and ran a non-controversial reelection campaign over Jim Webb he would be the Republican nominee. He is the true brand of Republican in the party as it is today. He would really have motivated the Republican far right base, but now he has ran a reelection campaign that will cause him to win by a small margin or even lose. He would have clinched it in South Carolina. He had and still has a smart team behind him with big names like Mary M. and several key Bush 2004 strategists that have his back. He still remains amongst insiders one of the front runners for the nomination. He could still win in because I don't think the Republican voters care about some of the words and controversies he created in Virginia. It is just a matter of him convincing the party leaders and money contributors that he can keep his mouth shut in the general election.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | September 8, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I think Mitt Romney will take out John McCain and all others and win the nomination in 2008. He has a solid team behind him and appears to Republicans not as a sell out as they view John McCain but a tried and true conservative from a blue state. They will view him as a man that sticks it to Dems and liberals and does not cuttle with them as think McCain does. His previous prochoice stance will not hurt him as much as some think because of his battles to ban abortion in a very liberal State Supreme Court. He is very savvy in his approach kind of like Mark Warner of the Democrats.

As a Democrat I would love to run against Mitt Romney if our nominee is a Southern or Midwest Democrat. We can do to Romney what Bush did to Kerry in 2004; as a man out of touch with main stream America. All of the Northeast candidates are viewed that way. Conservative independents, moderate Independents, and conservative Democrats in the South and Midwest would come in big numbers to a candidate like John Edwards, Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.

To get on topic, I think Romney will take Michigan and then battle McCain out in the other Republican primaries. He is fresh to Republicans and although McCain has made big strides to mend fences amongst the conservative or far right win of the Republican Party, the old McCain will be in the back of their heads. I don't think they can get the old image of McCain out of their heads no matter what he does and it will allow Romney whom may be more ideologically to the left of McCain in reality will snag the nomination.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | September 8, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think Mitt Romney will take out John McCain and all others and win the nomination in 2008. He has a solid team behind him and appears to Republicans not as a sell out as they view John McCain but a tried and true conservative from a blue state. They will view him as a man that sticks it to Dems and liberals and does not cuttle with them as think McCain does. His previous prochoice stance will not hurt him as much as some think because of his battles to ban abortion in a very liberal State Supreme Court. He is very savvy in his approach kind of like Mark Warner of the Democrats.

As a Democrat I would love to run against Mitt Romney if our nominee is a Southern or Midwest Democrat. We can do to Romney what Bush did to Kerry in 2004; as a man out of touch with main stream America. All of the Northeast candidates are viewed that way. Conservative independents, moderate Independents, and conservative Democrats in the South and Midwest would come in big numbers to a candidate like John Edwards, Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.

To get on topic, I think Romney will take Michigan and then battle McCain out in the other Republican primaries. He is fresh to Republicans and although McCain has made big strides to mend fences amongst the conservative or far right win of the Republican Party, the old McCain will be in the back of their heads. I don't think they can get the old image of McCain out of their heads no matter what he does and it will allow Romney whom may be more ideologically to the left of McCain in reality will snag the nomination.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | September 8, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

McCain's problme is that he has no sense of proportion. He thinks the government belongs in a lot of places it does not. Ever heard fo McCain -Feingold. As a so-called Republican, would you wnat your name hyphentaed to Russ's or Teddy's or that lot? this law was a travesty of free speech. the result was worse than the "problem". this is just one example fo Mccain's folly. they say the most dangerous place in DC is between Mccain and a camera and they call him the ten-minute man because he can be on your set for a live TV shot in 10 minutes or less no matter what. this ego-centric behavior is at odds with the public service mission. we don't need another Big G R pres. I am hoping for Rudy with Newt as VP or cabinet Sec. we could call it the difficult divorce ticket.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 8, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse


I actually agree with most of what you just said. Carter was definitely as disasterous CinC. Resume does not equal qualifications. I was not supporting McCain just because of his heroism. I felt he would be a good president - we can agree to disagree on that issue. I was also absolutely incensed about the Bush campaign's treatment of an American hero. I felt the attacks on his family and the implication that his imprisonment rendered him unfit to be president were just beneath contempt. I was not anti-Bush before this, I simply thought that, compared to McCain and some others, he was not very well qualified to be president. After South Carolina, I became bitterly anti-Bush for non-ideological reasons. I think integrity matters and that is one reason I never cared for Clinton. I think the Bush campaign in South Carolina demonstrated a complete lack of integrity. Frankly, his performance in office has given me ample reason to continue to be anti-Bush.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

JimD: When you voted for Gore, he was pretending to be somewhat of a moderate, that is no longer the case, he's the star of the hard core lefties. As far as McCain, I would totally agree McCain is a great american, but doesn't mean he should be President. Ross Perot is a great american also but would had been a disaster as President. Carter was a Navy man like yourself and Clinton was a draft dodger but between the two, Clinton was much better as Commander in Chief than Carter. Resume counts but is not totally exclusive of other issues/facts.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 8, 2006 10:06 AM | Report abuse

On the Republican ticket, does anyone else think Tim Pawlentry will actually need all of the money he's raising for his re-election bid in Minnesota? Hatch, his opponent, is an under-funded candidate. Pawlentry rejected public financing because he's already raised more than the limit. So now he can continue to raise money. Pawlentry has been a fabulous governor in Minnesota, including balancing a budget when he inherited a deficiet and now has turned it into a hefty surplus without raising taxes. He is also pro-life, believes in traditional families, is taking the first day of hunting season off the campaign trail to hunt (pro 2nd amendment) and has came out against stem-cell research. Many Republicans have either social clout (Frist, Brownback and Huckabee) or success concerning fiscal policy (Guiliani and Romney) but neither really have a long-term record on both. Whomever the Republican is obviously going to come out in favor of a strong defense. Guiliani is no social conservative, and Romney is socially a flip flopper, saying whatever it takes to get elected. Plus he's Mormon, this will hurt with the Christian party base. It would be total hypocrisy for Frist or Brownback to campaign as a fiscal conservative and claim they can balance the budget. They have senate records miles long to show they have contributed to the deficeit we (the US) has built. Not only did Frist contribute, but he's been leading the charge! Anyone know how solvent Arkansas has been under Huckabee? I'm not sure about that one. If anyone knows, please post.

But point being, I think Gov. Tim Pawlentry from Minn. would be a wonderful nominee. He's been in Minn., not Washington DC. Minn. is doing well, Washington DC isn't doing so hot. I hope Pawlentry runs, although there's no real signs except his fund raising as evidence. But we need some governor to get into the race and take charge. Putting someone already in Washington contributing to the mess in charge of the mess isn't the best solution. I think that's what make Romney so attractive to alot of people, he's not from DC. But Minn. will be much more attractive to Republicans and Mass.

Posted by: reason | September 8, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse


One more thing, Gore was the first Democratic presidential candidate I voted for in over 20 years.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I understand the resentment of the media attention. But McCain got that attention because he is eminently quotable. He gives reporters something different to write about. As for Bush bashing, after the 2000 South Carolina primary - it is understandable also. There was a "poll" conducted where South Carolina voters were asked if knowing that McCain had a black daughter by a prostitute would change their support for him. Well, McCain and his wife adopted a girl from Bangladesh. I personally think that is despicable. I know I would be angry at the opponent who countenanced that kind of tactic. If you've read anything about Rove's campaigns, something like this always happens to his opponent. There was also a whispering campaign to the effect that McCain's years as a POW left him mentally unfit to be president. As a military man, that outrages me. He is a genuine hero and he endured far more than most of us ever had to for our country.

Personally, I was prepared to vote for him in 2000 despite disagreeing with him on many issues. I got so angry about South Carolina that I voted for Gore. I do not see any other Republican candidate who is as electable.

Posted by: JimD | September 8, 2006 8:53 AM | Report abuse

JimD: Conservatives can't stand McCain for several reasons, 1: We suspect he is not really a conservative, I haven't forgotten him having Tom Dashle at his ranch, while they took turns bashing Bush. He has a pact with the mainstream media, where they allow him access to bash Bush. If McCain biggest fanbase is the liberal mainstream media, we don't want him. The guy has no chance with us conservatives, he should pack it in and go back to his ranch. I'm sick of seeing him on TV.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 8, 2006 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I see Tina has another Condi post. The last time there was anything approaching a "draft" candidate for president it was Ike in 1952. That was long before primaries determined the nominee, as opposed to state party bosses. Any candidate will need a lot of money and a ground organization in key primary states. I also see her having a hard time in the primaries, if she were to run, dealing with social issues. She has described herself as "mildly pro-choice". That will not go over well. I really have my doubts about the GOP's overwhelmingly white, Southern base going for a never-married African-American woman. She would be an interesting VP choice for any potential nominee though. However, if the mess in Iraq is not doing any better by '08, her presence could be a drag on the ticket given her association with Bush's failed policies.

I have also opined in here that Romney's Mormonism will be a problem with some on the religious right. It won't be the majority of them but there is a sizable contingent out there who consider the Mormons a cult and not real Christians. I have met a number of people who think that way. That would dampen turnout of the base in a general election. Remember that one of the keys to Bush's re-election was a big increase in evangelical turn-out.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 8, 2006 8:03 AM | Report abuse

yeah, Romney, definetly got him cause we were over the barrel. I'd simply liek to point out that ti was years of REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS (Weld, Cellucci et al)that put the state over the barrel.

Posted by: Rob Millette | September 8, 2006 5:40 AM | Report abuse


You said that although you don't know much about Romney, you distrust anyone from MA. This is generally a good instinct, but not in Romney's case.

Romney sticks out like a sore thumb in MA. A big red thumb in a sea of ultra liberal whiny spendaholics. Basically MA elected him because the state was completely bent over a barrel after their years of reckless spending habits. A good indication of his politics is the fact that every few days (seriously) you can hear about him vetoing yet another nutty MA legislature bill...$8 minimum wage, hundreds of millions in debt spending, legal over-the-counter hypodermic needle sales, over-the-counter abortion pill, state funding for stem-cell cloning, huge kickback raises for the uber-liberal justices, etc etc etc.

I'll come right out and say that amongst the current crop of '08-ers, Romney reminds me the most of the CEO credentials. Here's a great video of his story:

Posted by: murphy | September 8, 2006 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Romney has to be considered the alternative to McCain. His religion will not be an issue unless Allen or Huckabee is the alternative (which they will not be). His MORMON beliefs will not be an issue if the choice comes down to liberal Guiliani or Mr. Divorce McCain. Romney is a rising star...

Posted by: Southern Progressive | September 7, 2006 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's see some state polls in Michigan. That is the only test with that political watchers will believe shows which Republican is really supported. There are also people in Michigan who support Secretary Condi for president. Yes, they have blogs, and have been interviewed by Detroit reporters. Other state polls like Wisconsin and Florida also show strong support for Condi to run, and with her ROCK STAR status, she is equal to McCain and to Rudy. (They each get 20% in national polls.)

The Utah newspapers and TV programs gave high praise to Condi for her speech at the American Legion Convention. Anne Gearan of the Washington Post asked the classic, "are you going to run?" question. I guess reporters don't understand that people can decide for themselves who they want to support for president. That is why they are called "grassroots", instead of paid consultants and paid staffers who work for candidates.
There are over 10 websites promoting Condi for president and a few of them are also political action committees. That is just the truth. TV ads and radio ads have been paid for by these groups and any reporter can check the FCC reports which show they ran in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and California. It is a matter of record.
As Cillizza stated, neither McCain or Romney have offically announced they are running. Now I ask, how can McCain bypass his own laws for campaign finance? Why can't he be honest thate he has an exploratory committee, (by the name of Straight Talk Express). Where is his money coming from? Is he following the same laws he forced upon the election system? So let's have some investigative reporting about where the money is coming from and how much? McCain is starting to smell like a hypocrite if he is accepting $5000 checks or higher from the rich guys. Isn't that what the McCain-Feingold law was all about?
Sounds like Cillizza needs to start investigating those FEC records.

Posted by: Tina | September 7, 2006 10:41 PM | Report abuse


I do not completely understand the base's anger with McCain. He is, in fact, very conservative on most every issue. He has always been pro-life, unlike Romney, Pataki or Giuliani. He is definitely a hardliner on national security issues. He is a real fiscal conservative and that used to matter to conservatives. He does not make a fetish of divisive social issues - like Reagan and unlike Bush. He appeals to middle of the road voters and they decide elections.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 7, 2006 10:01 PM | Report abuse

If Romney headquarters his campaign in Michigan, as has been rumored, he will win the state's primary and the GOP nomination. Michigan is ground zero for the debate over a rising China. No one is more qualified to talk about how manufacturing states like Michigan and the country in general can compete with China than Romney. The key battleground in 08 will once again be the industrial Midwest. Romney is the candidate who can win in states like MI, WI, MN and hold OH because of his expertise on business/economic issues. McCain will prove to be a rather weak frontrunner once the real campaign is joined in the later part of 07.

Posted by: mipolpro | September 7, 2006 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Here's a headline story, typical of another Bush-Republican corporate crook. Evidenty, someone inside of HP leaked some information to the press about one of their business deals. The CEO hired some outside investigators who tapped telephone calls and spied on HP's executives to find out who leaked. Today, however, we are hearing that Patricia Dunn, the CEO at HP, also ordered that the hired thugs also hack into the computer and telephone records of reporters at CNET, the Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC! All of this, of course, is a felnoy, punishable by 10 years in a federal prison. Want to bet Ms. Dunn or any of the thugs suffer any consequence for their illegal acts? No? If you or I hacked into HP's email system, you can bet we would be in deep $***, but apparently all corporations under Bush are above the law.

Posted by: MikeB | September 7, 2006 7:09 PM | Report abuse

JD: Your posting is really quite silly, my insults are quite mild to the stuff that's been hurled at me. You Never said anything then. One thing I will say about Drindl is she can take it without crying ot getting upset. Politics is a tough sport, if you can't handle it, stay off the blogs and go make some tea and cookies.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 7, 2006 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Ummm, sorry I never wanted Ronald Reagan. But he was a far cry from Macacaboy. Sad to say, the republicans from the old days look comparatively sane compared to what you've got today.

Even Goldwater would be considered a 'liberal' today.

Posted by: drindl | September 7, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes-- why is it that you are so angry? It is completely unnecessary and uncalled for to call liberals delusional or stupid or any of these things, just as it is unnecessary to do the same to conservatives. The point of this blog is to debate issues, not take shots at an opposing point of view. Let's try to forget about ideology for a bit and talk facts, shall we? Thanks.

Posted by: JD | September 7, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Michigan will be very important to MCain because it will be his last stand before he gets knocked out of the race. McCain has no chance of winning Iowa, its possible he could sqeeze out a win in NH but I think second place is more realistic and he will be blown out of SC. This will leave him limping into Michigan hoping against hope. Be careful what you wish for Drindl, remember Pres Carter and all you libs wanted Ronald Reagun because you thought he was a right wing nut who would be easily beatable. After losing so many elections, just where does your confidence come from. Talk about being delusional.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 7, 2006 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The likliest Virginian to be a major party candidate for president in 2008 is Mark Warner, not Macacaboy Allen.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 7, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Allen? Macaca Boy? You really are delusional. True he's got lots of money left to spend, but right now he's on the ropes. And he's such a loon he'll be sure to step in it again. I really don't think MOST of the people in this country want a deranged racist fratboy/phony cowboy for president. Been there, done that.

I fervently hope you get your wish.

Posted by: drindl | September 7, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Romney is a reasonable darkhorse. Expect him to come on like gangbusters. McCain may have more trouble connecting with Bush-folk than many think; it's still up in the air but there are many, I'd imagine, who see him, especially in the south, as an opportunist and media darling -- and, yeah, Frist has little chance; he's Bush redux. All the problems, without the name.

And there's still talk that if Giuliani sees McCain, his friend, doing well, he won't enter (planning a last ditch, storm New Hampshire strategy, after having visited the states that matter on his version of listening tours) ... so McCain wins Iowa narrowly, Giuliani doesn't enter or enters at a Wesley Clarke style late-date and Romney comes in second in NH, and wins Michigan. Whole new ballgame.

Posted by: The Iron November Darkhorse Running | September 7, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain is setting up a very nice run in Michigan. Most polls have him up by 20% in the state.

I can say first-hand that I attended a fundraiser for the State Party over the summer with Sen. McCain as the special host. The result? The event raised around $1.5 million.

Take that star power and add some of Bush's top supporters from Michigan, and McCain will be very tough to beat in the State.

Also, Romney can take all of Michigan's State Reps, but McCain will take all of the State Senators. Sounds good to me.

For more information and updates with Senator McCain in Michigan and across the country, please visit: .

Posted by: MichiganForMcCain | September 7, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Who really thinks Bill Frist has a chance?

I wonder ... after all, the man is far from a senate wunderkind, with iniative after iniative tanking in the wind. He seems to be sincerely banking on being the one conservative who shines through after McCain and Giuliani fail to satisfy the base -- I, on the other hand, think the cagey base will be satisfied by either of those men and that all this hand-ringing about McCain and Giuliani's supposed liberalism is so much blather. Giuliani can back off from gay marriage and McCain already hit the campaign trail for Bush and both men are far from liberal, so niether has much to worry about other than dodging some vitriole from a Frist or Tom Tancredo -- or, and this is a big or -- or is Frist running for VP. Seems like he might be, although what bounce will McCain get from picking up Frist?

Romney is the natural veep. An anti-gay-marriage conservative from an almost gay-marriage state. And he looks like a movie star. Add Romney to Giuliani and McCain and stir.

Posted by: The Moderate | September 7, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Drindl you simply have no grasp of republican politics, If Allen wins reelection, I would give him the best shot at taking our nomination. He would easily beat Clinton who also represents the screwball state of New York. (but i do love your history) As matter of fact if Clinton is your nominee, we ought to draft Jeb Bush. Another 8 years of another Bush would make you libs certifiable if you are not already.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 7, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Hagel is interesting... but it's hard to imagine him getting the nomination, because he's too sane for the base to vote for and Bush and Cheney hate him. The thing is, whoever the base will want to nominate is going to be a nutcase who can't win the general--so I expect that Rove will somehow arrange things for their favorite to win -- and at this point it's Rudy and McCain, who've got a good chance. Unfortunately, most people still don't realize what a truly sold-out phony McCain is, or what a crook Guiliani is.

People like bhoomes will break down and do as they're told.

Posted by: drindl | September 7, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

No, it's spelled "Mormon."

Michigan is at the moment an open primary. However, the state GOP party wants to make it closed for the purpose of helping Romney. The Weekly Standard had a very intersting article of the intra-party war going on at the moment in the Michigan GOP.

I think that the war will be decided before the primary and make the voting rather irrelevant. If the GOP apparatus wins, Romney gets a closed primary with the full support of the state party machine. If the McCain supporters win, McCain gets an open primary with lots of independents who remember him fondly.

Posted by: Adam | September 7, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives can't stand McCain"

That is wonderful. McCain is the only conservative that might beat a Democrat next time around...

Juliani has some legs, too, but they have been in pantyhose once too often, he has too many cross-dressing photos of him out there where the public can grimace aghast at them.

And he's also from that screwball state of New York.

Republicans are backing themselves into another Goldwater corner this time around. That "the base" is rejecting someone like McCain just proves it.

If they pick Frist, it will certainly be reminiscent of Goldwater, but there MANY are others who fit this description.

I probably won't blog this again, it might make them think twice about dumping McCain. Hopefully, the bhoomes and K o' Z's have their way with the GOP this time around.

Posted by: JEP | September 7, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

In my looking at these two, I cannot forget what happened to McCain down in Carolina. Romney will never make it either,largely because of his belief, Morman, Morman, I think it is and pro-choice stand in the past. I will support the dems no matter their choice. The Hagle folks look to be gaining a little, at this time the repugs are wide open, could be someone most of us have not thought about. BTW, I think I spelled Morman correctly.

Posted by: lylepink | September 7, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are probably better off sticking to the dems if you think McCain has a snowball chance in hell in getting our nomination. Keep repeating "Conservatives can't stand McCain" He will be done for before MARCH ever rolls around. I am not sure about Mitt, do not know him well enough, but am little hesitant about supporting anybody from that screwball state of Massachusetts.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 7, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow, with the money Romney has at his disposile he is a geniune candidate. As hard as he has been hitting the states and building connections, he has an impressive work ethic and an uncannily ability to raise money. His connections to charing the Olympics some years back helps as well. Romney, making millions re-establishing companies from the dumps and making them financially solvent will allow him to play on being able to fix the national deficeit. He's done a good job restoring financial order to the state of Mass, which will help him with that as well. Plus being CEO of the Big Dig, if that goes off well, could combined make Romney look really good going into 08'. Question is, if Healey loses the 06' governor's race how will that affect his efforts? Dem's. could say he "retired" because he knew he would lose an election for another term. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Posted by: Reason | September 7, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Mitt's opponents on both sides are going to slam him with the abortion flipflop. The repubs will sell it as a "Kerry Stance" on a very important issue. The democrats will just flat out call him a flip-flopper.

Posted by: Andy R | September 7, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Also, "what to make of Mitt's old 'pro-choice' stance" and his alleged "evolution?"

I think rather than think of it as a journey, I'd think of it as an opportunist... err... opportunity. He was running for governor of Massachusetts.

In fact, Rev. Zandstra should find that appealing. Romney, like McCain, will say or do anything to get elected.

Posted by: Martin | September 7, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris, You list these candidates and the big supporters, most of them Bush "Pioneers" and "Rangers". For anyone with a brain, this is like sticking a scarlet letter on their back. Why on earth would anyone with any morals or sense of patriotism even consider voting for a candidate that was endorsed by one of these dirtbags?

Posted by: MikeB | September 7, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Jim Nicholson is regarded as a liberal because when he ran for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 1996, for the chance to get crushed by Sen. Carl Levin, he ran as a pro-choice, business-minded and libertarian on social issues Republican.

He lost the primary by around six points... to Ronna Romney. Romney went on to lose to Levin by 19%.

Posted by: Martin | September 7, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

As I recall, McCain won Michigan in 2000 but benefited from cross-over votes. Can independents still vote in the primaries there? That would favor McCain depending on how interesting the Democratic race is at that point.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 7, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Just a minor correction: Ronna Romney has been divorced from Mitt's brother Scott for many years and is not politically visisble anymore. Both have remarried. However, Ronna's brother-in-law John Rakolta is supporting Mitt so I assume he and Scott have remained friends. They were the first two Michiganders to contribute to Mitt's Commonwealth PAC here in MI (after many out-of-staters had filled its coffers with hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Posted by: politicaljunkie | September 7, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I've been betting on Romney to win the nomination for a while now-- i just feel that people will be more comfortable with him than McCain, and he can make the "I'm a person of faith" argument, which will hold a lot of water. I would like to see a Romney-Warner throwdown-- two businessmen who became one-term governors of states that were not hospitable to their parties. Though in that matchup, i give the edge to Warner- he's still popular in his state.

Posted by: JD | September 7, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Michigan isn't that important - as I'm sure you'll be telling us in two months after the massive Wave hits Congress.

I remember living on Grosse Isle - nice place.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 7, 2006 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I think the one power broker to watch is Grover Norquist--whoever he is for gets the nomination!

Posted by: Jason | September 7, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Good to know that Mitt is wasting my state tax dollars by recruiting people for his next run.

It seems to me that right now Romney and McCain are headed for a head to head throw down in about a year. And unless Guiliani jumps in no one is going to catch them. Allen had a chance but the macaca comment killed him for 08, and maybe for 06.

My guess is that the GOP catchs a little of the 'electability' bug and that McCain pulls it out as the one of the two that has a better chance in the general election.

Posted by: Andy R | September 7, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Romney's deep connections to Michigan (his father was MI governor in the 60s and was also an auto exec) make him a formidable candidate. With Michigan's prominent place on the primary calendar, Romney should be the dark horse to bet on for 2008.

Posted by: Zathras | September 7, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company