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.
