Comments on: Comedy: Leftist Media (And Bloggers) Still Campaigning For Kerry

By: LB

LB — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:15:59 +0000

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.

By: Deana Holmes

Deana Holmes — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:11:42 +0000

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.)

By: badMike

badMike — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:51:51 +0000

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

By: Fighting Liberal

Fighting Liberal — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:34:58 +0000

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

By: Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:29:08 +0000

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).

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:27:31 +0000

‘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.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:34:35 +0000

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.

By: ZIPLA

ZIPLA — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:33:12 +0000

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.

By: Evon Bachaus

Evon Bachaus — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:11:39 +0000

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.”

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:58:04 +0000

‘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.

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:46:35 +0000

The skeletons in the closet seem to be major breakers for giving someone a political office.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:09:17 +0000

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.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:59:10 +0000

‘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.

By: Merry

Merry — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:10:52 +0000

#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!

By: Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:22:39 +0000

“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.