The Kerik nomination seems to be a perverse fixation at the NYT. How did it happen? Why was he selected? How did they mess it up so badly? Who was at fault?
I have my own question: who cares?
Once his flawed background came to light, I had no qualms about dumping him. What's the obsession with page one stories about the process? Maybe as backpage filler it might be important, but front and center? This for a man who never even made it formal hearings? This for someone who did what exactly? Oh, right, he had an affair (I dare any lefty who supported Clinton to express indignation here) and hired an illegal nanny for whom he didn't pay taxes -- (shows his compassion, given NY taxes).
Frankly, if the caliber of people that attain Cabinet level status are as goody two shoes as that, they may not be worth the office. Can you imagine anyone (except Cicero) in the Roman Republic or the Empire arguing against someone else's honors on that basis? It just seems silly to keep harping on about something that was not special, unique, or even interesting: the worst crime of all for a newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My wife made that same point this morning. I think it all boils down to the sex -- any cabinet appointee with a "love nest" overlooking Ground Zero is grist for the mill. One wonders why anybody in their right mind would consider an appointment to public office, but that's another thing entirely.
Post a Comment