Sponsoring this...


Consume this...

Supplement with this...

Polling this...

Legalize this...




Watch this...



  • Jihadwatch_1

Advocate this...

Support this...

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

« Google suggests this... | Main | Invoice for reimbursement of this... »

December 10, 2004

Comments

Peter

It would be nice if no nominee for anything had a surprise in his or her background. Trouble is, we don't start the background investigation until the name is brought up.
There are only two ways to solve this problem, secret nominations or full background checks on anyone who is remotely qualified to be nominated, neither would work. No one in the other branches of government, much less the press, would stand for secret rosters of potential nominees, nor would the vast numbers of qualified people for any post consent to such intrusive investigations without a reasonable assurance of such nomination.
Better to tell the Congress and the media that nobody really gives a rat's ass about some long ago nanny.

crassius vesuvius

I fail to see why a past bankrupt is incapable of doing a job?, he may have had the income to cover his debts when he sought the loans etc, but circumstaqnces change and he may not after this, I also dont see why he is being held responsible for not paying taxes, doesn't he have accountants like most people who pay on his behalf, only those who claim moral superiority would scream foul, and they usually arent that clean themselves when probed.Its like saying sorry, you farted in public therefore your morals are lacking and we wont let you work in a childrens home. Bush himself seems to have had enough said about his past that I wouldn't let him into a paintball game let alone a real war with a carbine in hand, erm what was his real experience in a war zone?, sitting behind a desk safe at home!. As far as I am concerned he only got the presidency because his pappy and friends paid for it, not because he was the best man for the job.

tallglassofmilk

I think the bankruptcy only adds to the "uncovered" information of an illegal nanny and perpetuates the idea that he mismanages his responsibilities.

The bottom line is, all this spells disaster for the Bush administration. Imagine, a head of homeland security with an illegal nanny.

What I'm wondering is if he'll be charged? And if not, why not?

Oh, the joys of politics.

Moze

I think there's more dirt on this guy than a bankruptcy and no-visa'd nanny. Yes, the collective sigh you heard was obstructionist Democrats bemoaning Kerik's decision to withdraw prior to confirmation hearings. If this is the full extent of Kerik's "questionable" past, I'd really be surprised.

Kerik won't be charged, though. He'll skate after he pays the back-taxes owed...

Cheers,

Mike

I have read that "illegal domestics" seems to come up so often in any pre-check that it's become one of the stock questions. Kerik was asked several times about that specifically, and each time claimed he was pure as the driven snow. Turns out he meant not that arctic white snow in a skiing commercial, but more like that grungy slush that drops off the bottom of your car.
For any of us involved in ethics lessons for our kids, I believe his response is referred to as "shading the truth".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reciprocate this...

Bearing this...


  • Bfllogo

Latest additions to this...


Rolling this...