Sorry. I just don’t see what the big deal is about Bernard Kerik.
Since George Bush’s re-election, the pressure to be mistake-free is off. When he was running for office, every little thing that happened was blown up in the liberal media. The potential damage was nerve-wracking.
Now that he’s in the White House for the next four years, I admit that I don’t follow news about “scandals” the way I used to. I just don’t care anymore. Nothing is more scandalous to me than Bush’s amnesty program for law-breaking illegal aliens, but since the media are pro-illegal immigration and/or open border advocates, they don’t have much to say; however, some liberals don’t think Bush is going far enough. They want him to grant citizenship to illegal aliens, but I’ll deal with that in different post.
Some of you conservatives may be worried about scandals this term because the mid-term elections are still looming. If so, I think you’re giving Democrats too much credit. As we’ve seen in the recent election, they just aren’t clever enough to turn their fate around in a measly two years. If Bush was Teflon during the campaign, he’s downright untouchable now, in my opinion.
That’s why I was shaking my head at the Los Angeles Times’ pitiful attempts to manufacture a scandal. The story begins this way: “The abrupt withdrawal of the White House’s choice to head the Homeland Security Department is an embarrassing setback for President Bush’s effort…”
So Kerik, Bush’s choice for Homeland Security chief, employed an illegal alien to take care of his kids. First of all, the president supports the employment of illegal aliens to the point where he wants to grant them amnesty. Only if Bush were hard-line anti-illegal immigration would this episode be truly embarrassing.
Secondly, Kerik has skeletons in his closet. Who doesn’t, for crying out loud? I assume Bush didn’t do a thorough job of checking this guy out first, but he’s sort of busy running the country. It was hit and miss, and nothing more. But leftists are trying as hard as they can to create controversy where there is none.
During the election cycle, leftist newspapers campaigned for John Kerry and attacked Bush on all fronts. What happened? Nothing much, as far as I remember. The “scandals” didn’t stick. In the case of CBS, their National Guard story crashed and burned. So I ask, what makes liberal journalists think their puny schemes will work this time?
Using words like “embarrassing” and “setback” are obvious attempts to engender some kind of backlash against the president, but it’s merely indicative of bored liberal journalists with nothing better to do. Check out these headlines:
TIME: “Inside Kerik’s Fall.” — Kerik’s fall? It’s been a week Bush announced his pick. When did Kerik have time to fall and from what height? Bored press.
San Diego Union Tribune: “Kerik case strains cautious friendship between Bush, Giuliani” — Strains? I don’t know Bush or Giuliani, but I seriously doubt this incident…oh, why bother? (See this funny story from Scrappleface, who won Best Humor Blog.)
If you have some time on your hands today, you could do this with almost every story. While I understand that news people have to report the news and put an alarming spin on it to get people to read it, the way they jumped on this Kerik “scandal” is laughable.
In the words of a commenter on Lucianne.com: “[T]he election is over. Quit campaigning, already.”
Update: Michelle Malkin has some advice for Bush on the Homeland Security post. George Pataki for the DHS post?
Update II (12/21): To liberals visiting my blog for the first time, read my comment policy before you even attempt to post on this site. You don’t have to like me or my blog, but if you want to participate in the discussion, you will respect my rules. If not, go back where you came from.
Since this is the second political appointee that has had to withdraw their nomination due to non-tax paying illegal aliens working in their household, I believe the first was Linda Chavez as Labor Secretary in the first Bush admin, this oversight was very stupid by Bush’s vetting people and of course Bernie himself.
Can we now expect the MSM to jump on what is clearly a pervasive problem, that is the hiring of non-tax paying illegal aliens by even the more prominent people in America, with a good investigative report of the extent of this problem; it’s security risks, costs to tax payers, and its impact on those trying to immigrate to America legally?
Just kidding of course. NOT A CHANCE!
Comment by Jim R — 12.13.04 @ 7:17 am
I don’t blame Bush or his staff for the Kerik brouhaha. I blame Mr. Kerik himself. He knew that he had not paid SS taxes for a nanny. The fact that she was an illegal alien only adds to the issue. Then, when asked by the White House staff, he denied any issue that might undermined his nomination. He should have brought out his skeletons at that point. Since the nanny has returned to her country, Kerik could have paid the back taxes and admitted to the wrong. The problem would have not become a big ’scandal’.
Some of the MSM are attempting to keep readership/ratings up after the election.
Comment by EG — 12.13.04 @ 7:37 am
This won’t stick to the President, it will die out, shortly. Thanks, Jim I could not recall Mrs Chavez’s name. The media is struggling for any stories against the Administration, so are we really surprised. Again, we must expect 100% scrutiny when there is a Republican involved. No Lib wants to talk about the UN Oil for Food - and now Marc Rich is connected, we want hear about that much, because it will implicate the Dems favorite son, Slick Willie. Kerick did the right thing by pulling out, the President is a good manager, nothing will stick. Happy holidays to you all and Merry Christmas. Exams have been taken and classes have been completed. Thanks LB.
Comment by sergeantjones — 12.13.04 @ 8:09 am
LaShawn…
The media did this to Clinton’s nominees too.
Remember Kimba Wood, who Clinton nominated for
Attorney General (before Janet Reno)?
She was forced to withdraw her nomination for the SAME REASON. The media ALSO made a big deal out of it, using all sorts of catestrophic language about how this going to
hurt Clinton…
The media hypes scandals to sell product for their advertisors… you see political bias even when there
is none (in this case only).
As for MSM coverage of illegal immigration… well, you must not watch CNN, as Lou Dobbs has been talking about the issue nonstop… bringing it up almost every single evening, and hosting various specials on the problem.
Comment by jab — 12.13.04 @ 8:19 am
While I’m aware of the scandals with Clinton’s nominees, the ones involving Bush have a different tone. For example, I don’t think someone who employs an illegal alien should be in charge of our nation’s security, but the media hype about how it negatively affects Bush is bogus. I’m speaking from a subjective point of view when I say there isn’t much Bush can do to turn the tide against him, and the media know it. Their fervor was understandable during his first term and the campaign season, but now? If I were Bush, I wouldn’t care what was written or reported about me.
Comment by LB — 12.13.04 @ 8:35 am
The MSM’s reaction to Kerik is the same as its reaction to the the no-armor-for-humvees “scandal” that it’s trying to trumpet. “Shouting Head” Chris Matthews was on the Today show last Friday screaming that this shortage of armor “thing” was a “huge blow” to Bush and a “huge blow” to those who support the war in Iraq. Uh-huh.
Comment by Kevin — 12.13.04 @ 10:00 am
Bernard Kerik and George W Bush are not the big losers here. Rudy Guliani is.
Most likely, the houskeeper issue is a “red herring” - for public consumption.
Kerik is, by any definition, a “shady character” - a good candidate as a hero for any detective novel.
Kerik undoubtly has “skeletons” - and Guliani of all people should know what they are - after all, Kerik worked for him.
No doubt, when Guliani recommended Kerik for the Homeland Security job, Guliani’s word meant a lot - and I suspect Bush recommended Kerik with minimal “homework”.
I expect following this “surprise”, Guliani may not have quite the clout with the Bush White House.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 12.13.04 @ 10:15 am
‘ I assume Bush didn’t do a thorough job of checking this guy out first, but he’s sort of busy running the country. ‘
Part of running the country is picking the person who is in charge of securing the homeland. (and he’s not alone up there you know).
To the scandal is more that they had no idea about this guy. How could they? this administration spies on peace groups!
That and this Kerik guy didn’t do a good job in iraq, turned tail and ran while our troops get their deployments extended.
Yes we all have skeletons in our closet. But not all of us have arrest warrants, mob ties, ran a prison like a partisan fiefdom, and have used positions of power for leverage in personal/amorous affairs.
Comment by actus — 12.13.04 @ 10:33 am
You’re right La Shawn, Bush and his team need to stop worrying about the media and do the right things when it comes to our country. We won big, act like it!
I trust Michelle Malkin’s choice - Peter Nunez. Let’s push to get him nominated!
Comment by Richard Davis — 12.13.04 @ 10:54 am
“Yes we all have skeletons in our closet. But not all of us have arrest warrants, mob ties…and have used positions of power for leverage in personal/amorous affairs.”
were we talking about Kerik or Bill Clinton? Oh wait, Clinton was indicted for found guilty of his charges, he didn’t have only an arrest warrant.
Now that is a perfect example of a double standard, and for a position with far less power.
Comment by Andrea — 12.13.04 @ 11:01 am
Some folks are going to laugh me right off this comment board but what does MSM mean? I honestly don’t know.
In regards to Kerik, I don’t think that this so-called scandal is going to taint Bush at all. This happens with every administration regardless of party affiliation. Folks you nominate either have to withdraw because of dirty laundry or they don’t get confirmed..no big deal. Kerik had to know he had some dirty laundry that would have been aired once the vetting process began and he should’nt have allowed himself to even be nominated. But one’s ego can be a motha…
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 12.13.04 @ 11:05 am
Tiffany…
MSM = Main Stream Media
The teacher in me has to come out and say…There are no stupid questions
Comment by Andrea — 12.13.04 @ 11:07 am
The vetting wasn’t even completed, so what’s the problem? Plus it still had to go to confirmation, for which the Dems were already saliviating in anticipation of raking him over the coals. Funny how nothing is Slick’s fault, just a VRWC, but with Bush, everything is his fault. There’s no story here, move along.
Kerik had te good sense to realize that trying to hang in there for a job that won’t even contribute to his netw worth wasn’t worth his humiliation nor forcing Bush to stand for or dump him.
As for the nanny, didn’t that happen a long time ago? He well could have forgotten all about it until he had to gather up his records. At the time, to be sure at the time, he had no idea that he might even get thrust into the limelight and being a good NY’er, he probably was a Dem or a moderate and justified his actions by following the prevailing attitudes and the State’s read-between-the-line’ nonchalance on hiring illegals and ignoring the fed policy like so many other liberal bastions.
Yeh, he probably had other skeletons and finding out how down and dirty DC politics can be, decided to bail out on the nanny issue.
In any case, I’m looking forward to Judge Andrew Napaliano’s (sp) book on the progressive destruction of the constitution, i.e. Reno’s illegal kidnapping of Elian in order to please Castro.
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 12:41 pm
“Mob ties.”
You must be confusing Kerik with Kennedy.
Comment by Kevin — 12.13.04 @ 2:57 pm
Oh, my! In spite of the alleged “mob ties,” “romantic entanglements” (was it Rush Limbaugh who said “this guy really knows about terrorism if he had two mistresses at the same time. Yep, he knows how to deal with terrorism.”), or whatever anti-Kerik rhetoric is gaining steam, I still think the guy would’ve been perfect for that job.
As to the “nanny-gate” thing, had I employed a nanny or other domestic, my husband (now sainted and departed, not in that order) would not have had a clue about the employee’s citizenship status unless something hit him in the face (a midnight visit from the INS, for example). It otherwise wouldn’t even occur to him to ask (I’d figure Kerik for the same general “type,” that is, not micro-managing what would essentially be his wife’s ‘domain’).
My husband would be aware of need for paying SS for any full-time household help (fat chance - I practically needed an act of Congress to get an electric dishwasher installed), but only because he had employees at his business place. A part-time housekeeper or something, though, I doubt it — that’s frequently a flat fee per days worked basis, handled like an independent contractor.
Bill Clinton’s first Attorney General pick, was it Lanie Guinier? something like that — was the initial “nanny problem” — undocumented nanny and no Social Security paid; but there was a sub-set of complaints about some of her legal opinions causing an uproar, and Clinton withdrew the nomination. His second choice, Kimba Wood, was pointedly asked about and denied any “similar skeltons,” and when her “nanny problem” surfaced, the pending nomination was not extended. Janet Reno, his third choice, made it obvious he (or Hillary) were more concerned with gender than qualifications for his Administration’s Attorney General.
Linda Chavez did not have a “nanny problem.” Chavez did have an undocumented woman living in her home, but the woman did not work for Chavez. She had been in a battered women’s shelter, and Chavez gave her a place to live, helped her get her life back together and to find employment elsewhere. Chavez withdrew herself from consideration for the Labor Secretary post because of the media frenzy, to avoid causing a PR problem for President Bush.
At the time, I faulted Bush for failing to back his nominee; Chavez got a raw deal. The media wanted an excuse to blast Bush, but Chavez’s personal act of charity (as opposed to merely dropping a check in a collection box) could not have better mirrored Bush’s professed belief in “compassionate conservatism” or his call for personal involvement in ‘helping our neighbors.’
Comment by Merry — 12.13.04 @ 3:54 pm
Right on Merry
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 5:12 pm
‘Now that is a perfect example of a double standard, and for a position with far less power.’
And the proper comparison: Clinton was well aware of those skeletons. Instead, the bush admin appears to have heard kerik and just started thinking about 4 more years of ‘911 911′ language out of DHS. Shame.
Comment by actus — 12.13.04 @ 5:31 pm
Actus, Actus, Actus,
You are so partisan it looks silly. What happens is you lose the big picture perspective in your haste to tarnish people. OK. I’m done venting now let me explain.
I was in the military and my brother is in security. When going through the myriad of paperwork to get to a very high clearance needed for the job you have to fill out all of this paperwork. When filling out all of this paperwork (my perspective of how this happened is) Kerik had to fill out paperwork for all who worked for him, their social security #’s, and additional information on these people. Now, it is a new time after 9/11 and it came to light to him that he wasn’t as diligent before 9/11 when hiring help and he realized that one of the people were not legally in the U.S. This is my perspective now, but it’s a more reasoned approach (I believe) to how this CAME TO LIGHT than your desire to paint Bush as all knowing about everybody because he spies on people and he knew and blah blah blah. Really you should read yourself. Hatred warps the mind. And it’s funny because liberals pride themselves in being more compassionate (or feeling that they are).
Problem is that conservatives look at the results of proposed solutions and want the recipients of x government program to be helped in a self-reliant sort of way (of course non-able bodied people need a safety net that’s not what I’m talking about here) but LIBERALS want to feel compassionate to the DETRIMENT of the RESULTS. In their hatred for conservatives because they think that conservatives are mean-spirited and evil they (you) come to faulty conclusion after faulty conspiratorial based idiotic conclusions. Sorry that’s how I see it.
If Kerik broke laws in his business practices trust me there are lawyers being rounded up ready to prosecute him pro-bono. No need for you actus to convict him in the court of public opinion without knowing diddly squat.
Thank you.
Comment by Baklava — 12.13.04 @ 6:43 pm
Mr. Johnson. You out there?
See a common theme here from me?
Comment by Baklava — 12.13.04 @ 6:45 pm
BTW,
I used to be a liberal so I’m speaking from experience. Before 1991, I felt that Republicans didn’t get it, were mean-spirited, evil, not caring, etc.
My very memorable conversion was a year long of going to the library 3 times a week for a full year.
Comment by Baklava — 12.13.04 @ 6:55 pm
Baklava,
I’ll agree with you, somewhat.
I think the other issues that are coming out may be more worrisome than his nanny. That being, his possible penchant for affairs and possilbe abuse of privledge.
I will, however, give him props for being smart/wise enough to stand aside, and not put himself, his family, the administration and the public through what he obviously feels would be more nastiness than it would be worth.
With a country this large, we must have more than just one person who can do this job
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.13.04 @ 7:13 pm
“And the proper comparison: Clinton was well aware of those skeletons. ”
Well DUH! He knew enough to LIE about it!
And Kerik came clean immediately, he didn’t have to ask what the right definition of words were to double talk his way out of it.
This is making me laugh out loud. It is ok for Clinton to do the EXACT things you accused Kerik of (and more, really…Mark Rich anyone????)? It is not as important because at least Clinton KNEW everyone around him (well even himself, if we are being exact) were thieves and thugs. Gotcha.
Comment by Andrea — 12.13.04 @ 7:22 pm
#1, My bad: Guinier must’ve been Clinton’s choice for something other than Att’y General, but some legal paper or opinion(s) of hers caused a storm and Clinton rescinded the nomination. I thought it was the Attorney General post, but I don’t recall more than two instances of “Ooops” before Reno, and Woods and Baird (if my spelling is off, ’scuse it. Names are, you know) were the two pre-Reno choices.
#2, What Baklava said! Good one!
Comment by Merry — 12.13.04 @ 8:10 pm
‘If Kerik broke laws in his business practices trust me there are lawyers being rounded up ready to prosecute him pro-bono. No need for you actus to convict him in the court of public opinion without knowing diddly squat.’
Its ok for me to know diddly squat. I’m curious why the people who hired him knew such diddly squat.
Frankly I don’t care much for the hiring of the illegal immigrant. Thats not so bad — unless he mistreated her or didn’t pay her right. My cousin is here in the US illegally, I want people to hire her.
Its his other failings that I have problems with. Like how he ran away from Iraq.
Comment by actus — 12.13.04 @ 8:59 pm
Andrea, don’t forget, Clinton had and used FBI files for personal and partisan agendas.
Actup, please do tell us about his running away from Iraq. Enquiring minds wanna know. Was he ordered to go and found he didn’t like it so he ran away like some conscientious objector? IIRC any civilian working in Iraq are “at-will” employees. Meaning if they don’t like it, they can bail at anytime, especially when they generally have no means of defending themselves.
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 9:09 pm
The skeletons in the closet seem to be major breakers for giving someone a political office.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.13.04 @ 10:46 pm
‘Actup, please do tell us about his running away from Iraq. Enquiring minds wanna know. Was he ordered to go and found he didn’t like it so he ran away like some conscientious objector? IIRC any civilian working in Iraq are “at-will” employees.’
Well, he got there talking about how he was staying for a certain time, and as the situtation deteriorated — His job was training the iraqi police — he stopped talking about that length of time and finally just picked up and left. Pretending that was the plan all along.
Comment by actus — 12.13.04 @ 10:58 pm
Lani Guinier was nominated for the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, as subcabinet post. This is from her book “Lift Every Voice.”
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.13.04 @ 11:11 pm
LaShawn, I am surprised at your response re Kerik. I appreciate Malkin’s response to it - “no martyr/fiasco.” If Conservatives sweep the Kerik fiasco under the rug - that would be disingenuous. We must continue to call GWB to the carpet on all his missteps. From my (lowly) vantage point, the nomination was handled unprofessionally. If the media could pull out his skeletons in a short time - certainly, the Bush administration had access to the same “information.” If the Bush administration believed they could get around the “nannygate” concern (as I believe Guiliani stated he believed “it” could have been overcome in the nomination process),that leaves me to ponder either there are far more skeletons that shouldn’t be leaked Or the ones that have been leaked, are far worse than what has been exposed to us. With that being said, it takes me back to my position - The nomination of Kerik was handled unprofessionally. If the Bush Adminstration doesn’t have a clue Who they are attempting to hire then how is his Administration going to keep “terrorists” out. I am really starting to believe that GWB is not serving in the best interest of this Country.
Comment by ZIPLA — 12.14.04 @ 1:33 am
Who among us would subject themselves and their families to the punishment required to serve their country in Washington? How many appointees have been well respected individuals before accepting a nomination and have had a life time reputation of accomplishment trashed before the world after?
Only the toughest, meanest and most partisan ‘politician’ I think. These type are the only ’survivors’ I see Washington.
Comment by Jim R — 12.14.04 @ 7:34 am
‘Who among us would subject themselves and their families to the punishment required to serve their country in Washington?’
If Kerik was interested in his family then he probably wouldn’t have cheated on his wife. Or on his mistress.
Comment by actus — 12.14.04 @ 9:27 am
ZIPLA-
Could you tell me who shot Kennedy?
Kerik was thought to be a shoo-in because of his 9/11 notoriety and whatever he had in his closet wasn’t going to be enough to derail him. It was a risk probably taken by the Bush advisors that backfired. Not the first one either. Now I do believe that GWB does act in the best interests of our country, but as with any politician, he will have his detractors (INCLUDING ME=read my works on Iran).
Comment by Chris Roberts — 12.15.04 @ 1:29 am
Some liberal posted my URL on his blog, and now his anonymous cowards are attempting to comment on this blog. Rude and nasty stuff, not worth seeing. Through no action of my own, this person’s comment got stuck on the spam filter. I decided to push it through. An edited version, of course. - Admin
Comment by Fighting Liberal — 12.21.04 @ 11:34 am
Another foul-mouthed liberal. Can’t you people come up with something creative? By the way, it actually WAS fun deleting your e-mail. - Admin
Comment by badMike — 12.21.04 @ 12:51 pm
It’s pretty bad that you think there wasn’t anything wrong with Bernie Kerik. Perhaps you should read “that liberal blog” (Steve Gilliard–I won’t link, but Google Is Your Friend), and read what’s already come out about good ole Bernie. The one thing that seems to be missing is the nanny, but there’s no end of shady dealings involving Kerik. Two mistresses at the same time! Gifts from shady types to pay for his wedding reception! Help from similar shady ones to buy an apartment at a cut-rate price! And then there’s that mystery of what Bernie did when he was in Iraq all of 14 weeks!
It’s truly amazing that the acolytes of George W. Bush are so deliberately ignorant in defense of him that they fail to see that Bernie Kerik was pretty darned compromised and not at all fit for the job. Surely, surely George W. Bush can come up with someone who is honest and who can do the job, instead of someone he picks from his gut and who turns out to be so totally wrong.
(Waiting to see if this gets posted on your blog. And note, there are no swear words, so you don’t have that excuse.)
Comment by Deana Holmes — 12.21.04 @ 2:11 pm
You people just can’t contain the sarcasm, can you? Very well.
I know the URL for the liberal blog because it’s showing up in my referrers log. Thanks for the Google tip, though. You misunderstood my post, Deana. I couldn’t care less about Bernard Kerik. In fact, if I cared any less it would be a crime.
My point is that the mainstream media were hyping up the nanny situation and trying to turn it into a scandal for Bush. I didn’t think it was a scandal. That was the main point.
Thanks for not using profanity, but I don’t need an excuse to delete comments from my blog. I do it at will for any reason I choose.
Comment by LB — 12.21.04 @ 2:15 pm