Saturday, December 11, 2004
Kerik bows out
Ostensibly because of a nanny-problem, Bernard Kerik has declined the nomination to DHS. I don't really think the nanny thing is so deadly (my understanding was that nowadays, that's no barrier to nominees; at least that's what Larry Meyer says). So is it because Kerik once had an outstanding arrest warrant? Has questionable experience? Poor managerial skills?
Maybe, but if a weak resume was such a problem, why did Bush nominate him? And look who we're talking about: Bush is a terrible businessman, probably was arrested for cocaine, definitely was arrested for DWI, etc. etc.
No, the real point is that in the Bush admin, unless you are Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfield (for whom any scandal is tolerated) if you start causing problems---especially if you become a magnet for media criticism---you are gone before the media gets out of hand. The famous Bush loyalty goes only one way.
It's not like Kerik was going to contribute anything policy- or management-wise. So the second he stopped being a nice symbol, he's gone.
Update: I'm thinking there's an even simpler reason to drop Kerik: he's accumulating scandals at a pace that would make Harding blush. Petty corruption, a possible mob connection---the Bushies had to dump this guy fast.
But honestly, picking him in the first place was a insult to the voters. Whatever the bloviators say, the crucial issue for Bush was terrorism, and the perception of a large bloc of voters that Bush could handle terrorism better. Kerik was their first choice to run the agency that tries to stop the bad guys?
Maybe, but if a weak resume was such a problem, why did Bush nominate him? And look who we're talking about: Bush is a terrible businessman, probably was arrested for cocaine, definitely was arrested for DWI, etc. etc.
No, the real point is that in the Bush admin, unless you are Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfield (for whom any scandal is tolerated) if you start causing problems---especially if you become a magnet for media criticism---you are gone before the media gets out of hand. The famous Bush loyalty goes only one way.
It's not like Kerik was going to contribute anything policy- or management-wise. So the second he stopped being a nice symbol, he's gone.
Update: I'm thinking there's an even simpler reason to drop Kerik: he's accumulating scandals at a pace that would make Harding blush. Petty corruption, a possible mob connection---the Bushies had to dump this guy fast.
But honestly, picking him in the first place was a insult to the voters. Whatever the bloviators say, the crucial issue for Bush was terrorism, and the perception of a large bloc of voters that Bush could handle terrorism better. Kerik was their first choice to run the agency that tries to stop the bad guys?
