Archive

ShareThis Page
Chris Christie off list of White House chief of staff candidates | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Chris Christie off list of White House chief of staff candidates

The Associated Press
| Friday, December 14, 2018 3:12 p.m
542616b4a880300fb143aa82785fead798fd3ab4a880300fb143aa82785fead798fd3a0
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with newly elected governors in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Thursday, Dec. 13, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON — Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took himself out of contention for White House chief of staff on Friday as President Donald Trump’s chaotic search for a new chief inched forward with the feel of an unfolding reality TV show.

Christie cited family reasons in a statement saying that he was asking Trump to remove him from consideration. He had met with Trump on Thursday to discuss the job, according to a person familiar with the meeting who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Christie’s departure is the latest twist in a search triggered when Trump’s preferred candidate to replace John Kelly bowed out. With no leading name in sight, the void has quickly filled with Trump’s specialty: drama.

British journalist Piers Morgan suggested he would be a good fit in an op-ed for “The Daily Mail,” while former major league slugger Jose Canseco tweeted his interest to Trump. Speculation has swirled around an array of Trump associates, prompting some to distance themselves from the job.

When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited the White House this week, he insisted it was merely to see the Christmas decorations.

The wild process is hardly a novelty for the Trump administration, which has struggled with high staff turnover and attracting top talent, but it underscored the tumult of Trump’s Washington.

In past administrations, chief of staff was a sought-after job, typically awarded after a careful process. Now, many view the job as a risky proposition, given Trump’s propensity for disorder and his resistance to being managed.

For his part, Trump insisted Thursday that the process is moving along.

“We’re interviewing people now for chief of staff,” he said, adding that the short list is now “five people. Really good ones. Terrific people. Mostly well-known, but terrific people.”

Trump himself likes to feed the drama, dropping hints about the number of candidates in the running and bantering with journalists about who wants the job. The erratic search recalled the transition period before Trump took office, when prospective aides and television personalities paraded before a pack of journalists in the lobby of Trump Tower.

Author Chris Whipple, an expert on chiefs of staff, called the search process “sad to watch.”

“In his first two years, Trump devalued the position by failing to empower anyone to perform the job, and now he’s turned the search for a replacement into a reality show,” said Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a book on the subject. “The only thing more broken and dysfunctional than the White House itself seems to be the search for the new White House chief of staff.”

The president’s hunt for a new chief reverted to square one over the weekend when Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, took himself out of the running and decided that he would instead leave the White House. The announcement surprised even senior staffers who believed that Ayers’ ascension was a done deal.

Trump then turned to a list of other candidates that was said to include Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Other possible options mentioned were U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, though both signaled they were happy in their current roles.

By Wednesday, Meadows was out of the running, with the White House saying Trump thinks he is needed in Congress.

Throughout the week, a number of other names were floated, including former Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, White House communications director Bill Shine and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. It was not clear how many of those options were being taken seriously.

The breadth of speculation provided on-camera time for many to discuss the speculation. Bossie called it “humbling” to be considered while acknowledging that he did not know if it was a serious list of names. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said on CNN that he would decline the job if offered, though it was never clear he was a serious contender.

Sanders responded Thursday to speculation that Trump’s aide and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, could be up for the job, saying that she was “not aware that he’s under consideration.” But she appeared to leave some wiggle room, adding, “He will be great in any role that the president chooses to put him in.”

According to a person familiar with the matter, people have been reaching out to the president to suggest the idea, but Kushner believes that he can serve the president best in his current role. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal discussions.

A time frame for a decision remained uncertain, with some speculation about the possibility of two people taking over the responsibilities of the chief of staff. And Trump made clear in an interview with Fox News on Thursday that he was still soliciting advice.

“Well, I want somebody that’s strong, but I want somebody that thinks like I do. It’s my vision — it is my vision, after all,” Trump said. “At the same time, I’m open to ideas.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.