Bye Bye Bernie
Can’t resist…I’m breaking my vow of silence for this weekend because of the sudden withdrawal of Bernard Kerik from nomination as the next Secretary of Homeland Security.
I think we, as a nation, dodged a bulllet. As I (and others) had written at the time of Kerik's appointment a week ago, we deserve someone better for this hyper-sensitive post. It was apparent from the outset that Kerik’s vision was limited to that of a being a former valet to Rudy Giuliani. Or more charitably, he seemed to have the narrow mindset of street cop who believes even the most complex problem can be solved with a swift kick in the nuts.
What I, at least, didn’t know at the time is that Kerik was the sort of sleazy cop we’d seen in films like Serpico.
The dirt on Kerik was pretty deep. From abusing his authority by using cops for private purposes, to running some sort of racket inside New York jails, to his questionable tenure as top adviser to the new Iraqi police, to once being on the pad of the Saudi elite, to raking in more than $6 million on a deal selling tasers to the same DHS he was going to direct, to having a love child in Korea.
Did I leave something out? Oh yeah, the illegal alien nanny that just got “discovered” and which supposedly undid him earlier tonight. Now there’s a bullshit story if I ever heard one. According to Kerik, he didn’t find out until a day or two ago that the woman in question, the woman who was working as a servant to his family, was actually illegal.
You gonna believe that? And this guy was going to be in charge of all of our immigration agencies?
And, yes, I find it ridiculous that any public official gets burned for this sort of Nanny Problem. It’s almost as ridiculous as our grossly hypocritical immigration policy.
Tonight it looks like Kerik’s ex-nanny is merely the scapegoat for what were much stickier problems. At this hour, it looks like it was some investigative reporting by Newsweek that sunk Bernie—something about him being the subject of a 1998 arrest warrant, no less. Here’s what Newsweek is saying tonight about the nanny revelations:
…There may have been other issues at play. Kerik, who recently made millions in the private sector, once filed for personal bankruptcy as a New York cop. And just five years ago he was in financial trouble over a condominium he owned in New Jersey. More serious trouble than anyone realized: NEWSWEEK has discovered that a New Jersey judge in 1998 had issued an arrest warrant as part of a convoluted series of lawsuits relating to unpaid bills on his condo. The magazine faxed documents, including the arrest warrant, over to the White House around 6:00 p.m. Friday, asking for comment. Neither Kerik nor the White House had any immediate response. At 8:30 p.m., Kerik had submitted his letter to the president.
I repeat: Bernie’s demise is no loss for the rest of us. Bush now has a second chance to make an appointment of someone other than a hound-dog loyal partisan hack. I have little confidence that Bush will show such wisdom.
For the record, I can come up with three names that seem appropriate:
Gary Hart is still my first choice.
Second: I would choose former New Jersey Governor and former chair of the 911 Commission, Tom Kean.
Third: If Bush insists on naming another cop, then let it be LAPD Chief Bill Bratton (fat chance!).
P.S. You think I've got the hard line on Kerik? I just came across this relentless paddling of Bernie by Doug Ireland. Now, don't hold back, Doug!

Guess it's fair to say Bush won't be endorsing Rudy in his future presidential run. Of course, the chances for THAT just dimmed a bit.
Posted by: jim hitchcock | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 01:38 AM
Hi Marc. Wondered if you'd be able to resist commenting. Well, you sure called it right. Goodness but Kerik turned out to be quite the creep! Yikes!
I agree, Gary Hart is still the best man for the job. More than any national figure, he's made this his area of expertise, and he's a bright guy who's actually gotten better over the years. It's unfortunate that partisanship stands in the way of his name being up for consideration. I mean, it'd be mighty nice if for one millisecond Bush acted as if he was President for all Americans, instead of merely the half of the country who voted for him.
About, Bratton: Fugedaboudit. The administration can't have 'im. (Even if they did want him.) He belongs to LA for another three years at the very least, and we ain't giving him up. Besides, Rikki (Kleiman) would throw one majorly impressive fit if Bill even whispers about moving back to the right coast any time soon. Trust me on this one.
Posted by: rosedog | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 01:55 AM
Good Call!
Don't get your hopes up for the naming of the replacement - I mean, Bush picked Kerik in the first place and I understand Mineta is staying on at his post.
Bratton would be great because of his pedigree and well documented success - but I'm conflicted about whether this job is best done by someone close to the ground or if it needs a high-end visionary who can administer and manage a vast bureaucracy.
And I'm confused by your fascination with Gary Hart. I can't get the picture of him with that huge mop of windblown hair and the blonde bimbo sitting on his lap out of my head. Is it the same guy and, if so, what has he done since then that impresses you so?
Posted by: too many steves | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 04:29 AM
"And I'm confused by your fascination with Gary Hart"
Well, "too many," I believe it was Emerson who said something to the effect that the rebels of yesterday are the stuffed shirts of today. But here I'm thinking more of Mr. Cooper's exaltation of and awe for a crushing failure like Hitchens as a political thinker and commentator.
Posted by: Clare Quilty | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 09:56 AM
of course it had nothing to do with the nanny issue. The Bush administraton, in their eagerness to engage in a political debt payment to Rudy Giuliani, announced the Kerik nomination before the FBI background check was even complete. Remember, this adminstration is the one that is supposed to be so adept at protecting the country, but they were caught off guard by a nominee for a position to oversee that security who had more skeletons in his closet than every amusement park scary ride in the nation.
The one I really hope this hurts is Giuliani, the dictator-coddling, corrupt favor granting, vindictive ex-mayor of my city. God help us if he ever ascends any higher in the political cosmos.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 01:00 PM
What's sad about this story is that Rudy Giuliani should have been the nominee and should have been the man who could bring some real energy and ideas to the department. According to his profile he's got an emotional connection to this issue and the kind of credibility to make the department work, gain public trust, get Congress' attention, etc. I say "should", but I don't think the Rudy Giuliani who "should" have been America's great domestic security point man actually exists. And if he did, this administration is so cultish, insular and cowardly that they wouldn't have been able to tolerate him in their circle.
Posted by: reg | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 03:26 PM
A couple of comments...
Clare Quilty: us usuallu wittier than this. I appreciate your concern for my alleged "awe" over Hitchens. I suggest you focus on a more mundane explanatiom known as: FRIENDSHIP. And, alas, I have friends and even family members who are NRA members, Bush supporters and what-have you. Thems the breaks...
Randy: Agreed re Rudy. He's a much over-rated snarling attack doggie. Agreed also with your other thought... After three years of telling us that only this Administration is tenacious enough to protect us, after the Patriot act, after the beefing up of federal police powers and intelligence, it seems the Bush White House couldnt adequately perform a thorough vetting of its man to head up the whole show. Kinda makes you wonder, doesnt it?
Posted by: Marc Cooper | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 04:24 PM
Does it matter? Isn't this position the quintessence of a impotent, technocratic figurehead?
I'm amazed the way so many people have decided that the Dept of Homeland Security is a good way for us to get our needs met. Hell, we're not even through making fun of the *name*.
Posted by: Cridland | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 07:06 PM
The best hope for Homeland Security, even better than Kerkik backing down is that the Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the war started in Iraq.
Posted by: steve | Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 09:35 PM
My preference would be to do away with the whole agency.
Unfortunately, an illegal-nanny-employing, paw-in-every-honey-pot, two-bit bureaucratic poobah is the rule, not the exception, in boondoggle governmental agencies. If groping women passengers at LAX is the extent of their mission, why bother?
If they have accomplished anything (besides giving jobs to people who would otherwise be on the dole), I wish someone would tell me and make me feel better.
Posted by: PJ | Sunday, December 12, 2004 at 09:24 AM
Marc,
I stopped wondering long ago and just cross myself and pray every time the 7 train goes into the tunnel or everytime I ride the subway below ground.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Sunday, December 12, 2004 at 09:31 AM