Grumble.

     I guess that shows me for holding forth on a nominee based solely on interviews, an autobiography and several years following reports in the national media.  I mean, I read Kerik’s autobiography, and then of course I noticed every time his name was mentioned, and paid attention to what he was up to, remembered every interview I saw him in better because I knew of him…but that’s obviously not enough to be fully informed.  Which is unfortunate, because what else can you do?

     But I still wonder why Kerik went down for this?  Is it because there was worse stuff boiling under the surface and it was better for him to go down due to something that was analogous to one of the Clinton “scandals”, so liberals would have to keep their mouths shut about it?

     Is it just that he was a favorable media darling and they were hoping for nothing but joy, and at the slightest hint of trouble that benefit evaporated and they dumped him?

     I mean, Cheney still getting paid by Halliburton even after he become Vice President was much worse…he didn’t go down for it, if fact, it barely blipped the radar.

     Delay…they changed the rules so he could retain his position despite charges of impropriety on his part.

     This is a small thing, one that numerous civil servants on both sides of the isle have had problems with.  If the administration had decided to throw down and push for his nomination, Kerik would likely have been nominated…so I have to wonder why they didn’t.

     It seems weird to me that they would even abandon him due to the financial stuff.  I mean, come on, five million dollars is chump change, and the public is notoriously bored and short-attention-spanned when it comes to financial scandals.  Iv'e heard it said that the hiring and illegal immigrant stuff is a band-aid to hide the financial impropriety story under, but unless what we've seen is only the tip of the iceberg, that doesn't make sense either.

     If they had really wanted him, they could have had him.

     I don’t get it.