Bernard Kerik has withdrawn his name from consideration for Homeland Security Director for breaking what is probably the second most disobeyed law in the country (puff, puff) – employing an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Out here in the bourgeois nabes of Southern California, there’s most likely a similar miscreant in every other house–or maybe even three out of four.
Of course, Kerik was a cop… and about to be America’s security chief… so we shouldn’t excuse him such things. But I’d wager a lot of the finger pointers in the media and elsewhere on this “astonishing revelation” are about as squeaky clean on the issue as those “distinguished barristers” Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. Remember them? We’ve all been here before. When it comes to hypocrisy, this issue, which crosses party lines at will, even has marijuana beat. The real problem isn’t Kerik, it’s illegal immigration in this country and what to do about it. No one has even scratched the surface of that.
But as for Kerik, the whole “nanny” situation may be no more than a cover story for something far more serious.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
20 Comments
1. Bryan C:What bothers me most is that a trivial infraction like this can prevent the best suited candidate for the job from serving.
Dec 10, 2004 - 8:20 pm 2. Roger:Check my last link, Bryan. There may be more to it than that.
Dec 10, 2004 - 8:24 pm 3. Dianek:I’m have been astounded repeatedly at the shallow background checks for these types of nominations. Truly, in this age how could this be possible. Is it possible the President simply pointed and said “I want that man.” No checks no investigation? Is this what the people who support the president deserve from him or the people who work in the administration? I suppose it goes to show how ‘Vast conspirasies’ are very hard to believe feasible.
Dec 10, 2004 - 8:53 pm 4. susannac:When I lived in New Jersey, near NYC, a friend of mine from Trinidad worked as a nanny for a very wealthy stockbroker and his wife. He’d made big bucks in the late 1990s and cashed out before the market went south. They were renting a large house in a ritzy bedroom community while building a new house. My friend, who had overstayed her tourist visa by about three years, was illegal and they knew it. She had a nice room to herself on the top floor, but it got very cold in the winter (not dangerously so, but probably low 50s, sometimes 40s in her room). When they had someone in to check it out, they learned the wiring wouldn’t support even a space heater in her room. So her boss gave her a choice: Live with the cold or quit her job. She slept under piles of blankets, wrapped in several layers of clothes. She didn’t handle cold well. (She’s now back in Trinidad.) I was very angry at her boss, but she wouldn’t let me talk to him about it.
Often sexual abuse is part of the menu in those situations. I’m not saying it’s widespread, but it happens (although not in my friend’s case). She told me about several of her friends (also in NJ illegally) who had left jobs because the husband thought he needed attending to as well. Illegal immigrants are extremely vulnerable to victimization.
I like Kerik. I’m also not supportive of people coming here illegally. But he was wrong, he showed very poor judgment, and he shouldn’t be the head of Homeland Security. It may seem like a minor thing, but I don’t think so. There’s too much potential for harm, and he won’t police well what he’s guilty of.
Dec 10, 2004 - 9:00 pm 5. Tonto Goldstein:Call me dense Roger, but what is the “far more serious” charge contained in your second link? That he made money from TASR options to which he was entitled? I don’t get it. Look at the TASR chart. Kerik was not the only one who made a ton from TASR stock. Are all TASR investors precluded from serving in public office? TASR sold guns to DHS BEFORE Kerik was even nominated. What’s wrong with that? Nothing there. The nanny problem is far more serious.
Dec 10, 2004 - 9:18 pm 6. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):It looks like the stuff you linked, Roger, is pretty normal. As you know, high level government officials are paid a small fraction of what the private sector would pay for them, so they go into the private world for a while to make up for it. It looks like that’s what Kerik did (or Rumsfeld, for that matter).
The question that should be asked is whether any of his activities were unethical or illegal. Was he a government official for any of his actions (other than giving Taser awards to his cops)? If not, I see no objective problem.
On the other hand, we know that an appearance of impropriety is enough to sink a nominee. And his activities could be spun by Democrats and a hostile MSM into all sorts of trouble.
The immigration thing is a hypocrisy primarily because it is rarely enforced except against nominees. If it’s a technical violation of the law, that’s enough, even though in many nanny-gate accusations folks didn’t know the law.
Given all of this, he has to go.
The shame is that this guy was a first responder and an outstanding performer. If it wasn’t for our ethics fetish (which is really just a form of political warfare) he might have turned out to be good for that job. A guy who has worked all the war from feet on the street to running a huge police and security operation is just what we need.
Not that I am against maintaining high ethical standards, but when it is as hypocritical as nannygate, it’s sad.
Dec 10, 2004 - 9:22 pm 7. Lem:Linda Chaves was otra nanypuerta victomologia.
(I’m catching up on my spanglish.
Dec 10, 2004 - 9:44 pm 8. lindenen:“If it wasn’t for our ethics fetish (which is really just a form of political warfare) he might have turned out to be good for that job.”
Believing in ethics is not a “fetish”, but I do regret that he won’t be getting the job. I can’t think of a more perfect candidate. The problem here is the system. Illegal immigration will have to be tackled. From what I’ve read, Hillary’s already latching onto it as an issue. She’s more conservative on this issue than Bush. I’m not too fond of Hill to say the least, but I’d probably vote for her based on immigration. Of course, it depends on the other things she proposes as well. I’m still amazed that immigration wasn’t an issue in the last election. If Kerry was smart (ha!) he would have hit Bush hard on immigration and the holey border.
Dec 10, 2004 - 10:13 pm 9. Calico Jack:Well, Roger, it looks like the post is open again for what you had origninally wanted: a Dem nominee. I think that someone like Lieberman would be a good choice not only on the merits, but also to take the wind out the media (particularly NYT) hysteria regarding “crony” cabinet appointments.
Dec 10, 2004 - 10:44 pm 10. Jim Rockford:Is it just me or are we letting the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to ethics in Public Service?
Various outlets have speculated on Kerik re: TASR; ordering expensive security doors that wouldn’t fit for the NYPD HQ; and turf battles with the FDNY. None of these or Nanny-gate seem deal killers to me wrt ethics.
By the “perfect” standards we either rely on the super-wealthy who lack real-world experience, insulated by their wealth (ala Teresa Heinz Kerry, Steve Bing, etc), or the stereotype of the career-a-holic who’s entire existence is predicated on a single job/career. Exhibit A being Janet Reno.
Reno in particular was a disaster, unable to make decisions, and inserting herself and the AG office in areas where it didn’t belong for the lure of the limelight (Branch Davidians, Elian, etc). Reno herself had been involved in some rather questionable prosecutions ala McMartin … reacting to hysteria instead of evidence. Baird or Wood might not have been great … but nearly anyone would have been better than Reno who was a total political animal on her own behalf rather than an effective manager for the President. Unfortunately because of Clinton’s own scandals and the Nanny-gate disasters, Clinton could not fire her though he should have.
Much of the turf battles between the FBI and Justice Dept. can be traced back to her CYA attitude and lack of leadership.
Two things come to mind … we’ll probably get someone like Reno for DHS who will be a single minded careerist out for his/her own political career instead of serving the President. We’ll also see a reaction to the media and the Democrat’s “get” of Kerik. The average guy is going to see the blue-collar, up from the bootstraps, extreme poverty background that Kerik had and was extensively covered, and see only the “get” by the media and the Democratic Party.
Not unreasonably, average Jane and Joe is going to conclude that both of these organizations are hostile to his/her interests, and don’t want people like them in government.
Given that my Democratic Party has a serious class issue, this sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me.
Dec 10, 2004 - 11:08 pm 11. Duke:NO NO, it ain’t the nanny problem. He was fined for misconduct, and he used squads of police for personal business. I posted on it HERE. But you can bet there was much more activities of this type that his enemies were turning over to the Democrats.
Dec 11, 2004 - 4:28 am 12. David Thomson:Bernard Kerik may be the victim of the intrinsically impossible demand that our national leaders perfectly obey all the laws of the land. We should only demand that they mostly do so. The spirit of the law rather than petty legalism should guide us in these matters. How many of us never violate the speed limit? The laws on the books often contradict themselves. Just about every community has laws which are outdated and are simply ignored.
Dec 11, 2004 - 5:48 am 13. jedrury:Roger is right “there is something more there.”
Credit the administration, it does not do scandal. If the cream smells sour in the morning, it’s tossed and you get no cream with the coffee.
The success of the administration is that they don’t do scandal. O sure, there is the Wilson Plame dustup but if ever there was a tempest in a teapot, that is one. And if the press ever regretted the day they called for an independent counsel, this is surely the case what with reporters about to go to jail. The New York Times and Time must be agonizing over their legal fees about now. Legal representation does not come gratias at that level.
This administration is not like Bubba’s where the scandals came along like potholes on a DC street. They simply are too aware that scandals sap government and distract an administration from its policies and pursuits. Of course they are going to be problems but not of the type which arise in a scandal over nannies or a intern in the Oval Office.
This is not an issue addressed by the press. Their perceived Bush scandals are nuanced and policy driven. The David Sangers (Times) and the Dana Milbanks (WaPo) of the White House press corps invent policy differences and contretemps which don’t even approach the level of controversies.
Last night, the liberal PBS press corps was quacking over Rumsfeld’s Iraq press conference and the planted question about armor. One would have thought from ABC’s Martha Raddatz, television’s biggest whiner, that this was Watergate.
Dec 11, 2004 - 6:23 am 14. David Thomson:Mickey Kaus makes a very good point:
ìThe Magic Nanny Excuse
It sure beats ‘I want to spend more time with my family.î
http://slate.msn.com/id/2110806/
Indeed, admitting a nanny problem could allow one to get out the door without revealing more serious problems.
I am still convinced, though, that we must have a dialogue concerning which laws really are important. We often pretend that petty legalisms can underpin our social mores. This is absolutely insane. The much ridiculed Judge Potter Stewart wisely pointed out that pornography, for instance, cannot always be precisely defined but ìI know it when I see it.î
Dec 11, 2004 - 6:58 am 15. Terrye:I think it was several things that got Kerik in trouble, but one thing is that the administration does not want another Cheney/Halliburton deal. The fact that Cheney did nothing illegal did not stop the complaining. Even if Kerik did not actually do anything illegal the appearance of impropriety alone is enough in this day and age to stop somebody.
The truth is Kerik is a hard man. I am sure he has made enemies and they probably promised more revelations and accusations if he did not withdraw.
I read that Theodore Roosevelt was Police Commissioner in NYC. When he got the job he fired half of the police in the city. When confronted aobut it he responded by saiying he would have fired them all if he could find enough honest men to take their jobs.
It is a shame. I think he would have been good at the job. Nannies and stock deals are probably only part of what is going on here. But all these guys have gotten rich off their connections. I doubt we will see any poor men up for this job.
Dec 11, 2004 - 10:14 am 16. Ramrod:Well, if he made money from sales to the HSA, I don’t have a problem with that, if he want’s to make more from the same source, I have a hugh problem with that. By accepting a government appointment in Homeland Security he certainly can’t make money from selling them Tasers or whatever.
Re: the nanny problem, OK, it’s illegal but we aren’t enforceing any of these laws currently. The main objectors to his having done that will be the same people objecting to the enforcement of immigration laws. We stand to lose more than we get by running him off for that reason.
Dec 11, 2004 - 3:04 pm 17. thibaud:I’ll be a contrarian on this and say that there is certainly much more beneath the surface here, not least because Kerik was a bizarre choice to head up this uber-bureaucracy.
DHS is analogous to Kofi Annan’s job: no real authority, but loads of PR and diplomatic finessing. The only type of person who can be effective in this badly-designed, cluster-f*** of a post is a ruthless, machiavellian Beltway insider with decades of experience on the Hill and in the Executive branch.
It’s a very tall order, probably the tallest in DC. Tom Ridge was a seasoned pol, and he failed to make much of a difference at all. In fact, Ridge’s political career is pretty much finished. This is not a job for anyone but a tough-ass Washington insider at the end of his career. Think Cheney or Rumsfeld, or maybe James Baker. Daniel Moynihan (RIP) or George Schultz might also have been good in this role.
From this perspective, Kerik’s selection could not possibly have been on the merits. My own guess is that the real game here had everything to do with the ambitions of Kerik’s sponsor Giuliani, and with Bush’s calculations of how he and his legacy would benefit from elevating Giuliani to the pol position for 2008. Perhaps Bush thought that if he did this favor for Giuliani’s buddy, Giuliani would move swiftly to pre-empt McCain and knock the latter out of the race early.
Then again, there could be massive corruption that goes way beyond tasers. Kerik was a narc, recall.
Dec 11, 2004 - 8:10 pm 18. thibaud:correction to above: pole position
Dec 11, 2004 - 8:12 pm 19. Silicon valley Jim:I believe it’s the folks at PowerLine who have pointed out that the employment of a nanny who was in the country illegally (this seems to be undisputed) has a particular puissance here, given that a big part of the job for which Kerik was nominated has to do with immigration.
Some of that is even relevant to the Kimba Wood/Zoe Baird situation. Ron Brown, Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce, had evidently done the same thing, if memory serves. There could be all sorts of reasons why his nomination sailed through, of course: race, a lower-profile position, etc. One of them, however, could well be that his job didn’t involve enforcing the law that he had violated, while the Attorney General’s job most certainly does.
Dec 12, 2004 - 7:57 am 20. Bob:“I’m still amazed that immigration wasn’t an issue in the last election.”
You’re amazed that neither the Republicrats nor the Demoblicans — twin avatars of the Great Party of Big Business — didn’t want to discuss cheap foreign labor, the economic prop that supports the whole house of cards?
Dec 13, 2004 - 8:45 am