Why were prominent Democrats so quick to endorse Kerik?

[liberalcanuck]

Any, and I mean any preliminary investigations at all would have revealed this guy for the unscrupulous bum that he is. Heck, just watching him shill on Faux and MSM would have been enough for me to be up in arms over his nomination. Nanny problems? Give me a break, that's just the tip of the iceberg with this guy.

If we had anyone who wasn't drinking the proverbial repuke kool-aid, with some further investigation, Guiliani could suffer some major 'collateral damage'. Guiliani pushing his thugs to shrub, IMO, was a major misstep. If only we had anyone in major media with one shred of journalistic integrity.

It is so disheartening that Democrats came out in support of Kerik.

(snip)

The announcement of Kerik’s nomination has provoked no opposition from the Democrats. On the contrary, New York’s two Democratic senators both praised Bush’s choice. “If ever a state deserves to have a citizen appointed to Homeland Security, it is New York,” said Senator Charles Schumer.” Senator Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying, “Bernard Kerik knows firsthand the challenges and needs of New York and other high-threat areas. As a member of the president’s Cabinet, he can make that case every single day."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/keri-d04.shtml

[Wabbajack]

1. What's MSM?

nt

[rfranklin]

2. Mainstream Media...

The herd that grabs the press release and the not-for-attribution statements and types them up vebatim.

[rfranklin]

3. Yes, if the guy was a Dem, their side would have been screaming...

24/7 with all of the readily available dirt on him. They barely had to dig for it.

[JI7]

4. i believe it was only Schumer and Hillary

and that had to do with them being from New York. and Rudy's popularity from 9/11 and Rudy being the one to recommend Kerik.

many people including those in new york still think rudy is some kind of hero against terrorism even though he isn't and makes things worse.

[liberalcanuck]

6. And they both have seemed to have profited in one way or another

quite nicely from 9/11, haven't they? It's so obvious and so reprehensible the way they have benefited from tragedy.

[July]

8. Can you explain?

I thought Kerik is the one who has profited from 9/11 (his business with Giuliani).

AFAIK, Schumer and Clinton have been trying to get the govt. to deliver money promised to NY after 9/11, which sounds like their jobs.

What do you mean here?

[liberalcanuck]

12. Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Giuliani and Kerik.

Respectively, Giuliani is now considered a forerunner for leading the repukes in the future, Kerik, a relatively unknown quantity when you think about, had come from nowhere in his failed bid to lead the DHS.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. guliani's future

I actually don't think he has one in the rethuglican party. He is useful, like arnold, for trotting around as proof that they are not all loony likudniks or ashcroftian theo-fascists, but also like arnold he is not acceptable to the theo-fascists as a national candidate.

Also he has a bit of a problem explaining exactly what he was up to in his 'odd-couple' phase during his spectacular divorce.

But he certainly keeps getting trotted out by the rightwingnuttalkradio folks, who publicly worship him as some sort of demi-god, apparently for not hiding in some safe-house while the ruins of the WTC burned and chaos reigned.

[Still_Loves_John]

18. And they both figured that, at the very least,

Kerik would send more money to New York. Their biggest gripe with Homeland Security was that a state like Monatana got the same amount as money to fight terrorism as New York did. They figured that, despite his faults, at least Montana wouldn't be getting more terrorism money per capita than New York.

[KlatooBNikto]

5. This is another instance of the influence of the DLC on making

policy for the Democratic Party.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I don't know if it is DLC

but it sure is an excellent example of the absolute spinelessness of the DP 'opposition'. They are never on the attack, always on the defense, always ready to reach out a helping hand in a unilateral effort at bipartisanship. Always surprised when they are taken advantage of. plus ca change...

But the DLC has got to go for other reasons, even if they are not responsible for the lack of balls in our 'leaders'.

[Disturbed]

13. H. Clinton...

is not a progressive Dem. In my view she is playing the Rethug LITE role.

Her running for Pres. would be a total disaster for the Dem Party. Bill has the charisma and got away with a whole lot of things that were not positive to the Middle Class, the Working Poor and the poor. He will be the last Dem ever to be elected Pres. in my view unless the Dems find a progressive Dem from the South to run.

[kentuck]

9. Poor judgement.

Very poor.

[KlatooBNikto]

11. Not necessarily.Thugs have their uses for this administration.

[Tace]

10. Shumer & Hillary Supported Kerik For The $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They figured he'd send more terrorism money to NYC. That's a stark truth. Money overcame all other considerations. That's their reality.

It's a sad commentary on today's world and the people in charge.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Don't forget NJ Senator John Corzine. Had lunch with Kerik on the day

that he withdrew his name from the nomination. Corzine probably PO'd that:
A) Kerik didn't give him a heads-up on withdrawing from consideration,
and
B) Corzine probably picked up the tab for lunch, thinking he'd be a hero for getting more Homeland Security funds for his state whose funds were recently cut (probably in retaliation for voting "blue" and having a democratic governnor and 2 democratic senators).

[Still_Loves_John]

19. Well thats kind of an unfair characterization

Its not like they were hoping for money to line their pockets with. They wanted money for their terrorism budget, not pork.

[bettyellen]

14. but does anybody think bush will appoint anyone actually

worthy? i kind of think he ain't going to, and maybe they are just thinking this isn't the big battle to fight? bcause you'd want to fight all eight cabinet appointments and that;s not going to be effective. they better get their shit together for the supreme court justices, though!

[GeorgeGist]

15. How do you spell F-O-O-L?

[Julien Sorel]

20. It's political reality.

They have constituents to serve, for Pete's sake. If they opposed him and he was installed, they would have been pilloried for it, and Kerik would have been in a position to hose them for four years. Hillary has an election in 06 to think about.

Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't start from the premise that Democrats are weak and foolish, it's amazing how many stupid questions you'll avoid asking.

[CHIMO]

21. Perhaps

It would offer an easy scandal at a later date? Which would then tie up his mentor?