A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

April 2, 2007

A New Thorn in Rudy’s Side, Bernie Kerik

Filed under: Conservatives,Election '08,Giuliani,Politics,Republican — avoiceofreason @ 4:47 am

Reports have been circulating that former New York mayor and current Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani acknowledged Friday that he made a mistake by touting his former police commissioner Bernard Kerik to be President Bush’s homeland security chief.

“The Mayor has said repeatedly it was a mistake to recommend Mr. Kerik for DHS,” Giuliani’s consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, said in a statement to The Associated Press.  Also, adding to the mayor’s problems, is a New York Times report, that the former NYC mayor may have had prior knowledge about Kehrik’s relationship with a company that has alleged ties to organized crime.

How this will play out in the campaign is still to be seen.  Giuliani campaign personell are not convinced this incident will pose a major problem, but some believe it could lead to questions about the former mayor’s judgement with regard to appointments.



  1. It should be a major problem. He knew Kerik as involved with organized crime.
    This, coupled with the New York Firefighter’s view of the man,
    coupled with his troubled personal history,
    should be enough to sink his candidacy.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — April 2, 2007 @ 5:08 am | Reply

  2. That’s not what the report read. The report read that there were allegations of alleged involvement with an company which had alleged ties with organized crime. I’m not saying there isn’t any fire here, but how much was known, is not fully known yet. The Times piece had a lack of clarity.
    With regard to the firefighters, I think that their view may be very politically motivated. Were mistakes made, yes. The situation that was dealt with was something that could never have been planned. As far as personal history, I assume you mean the divorces, and that will hurt, which is kind of messed up as one has nothing to do with leadership ability. I for one, didn’t really care too much about President Clinton’s dalliances, other than the girl was so young, that I felt it was a power thing, which is more a knock on personal behavior, but not leadership per se.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 2, 2007 @ 5:51 am | Reply

  3. The article says Giuliani was briefed on Kerik’s mob ties:

    Mr. Giuliani’s testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik’s appointment as the city’s top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik’s entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation’s homeland security secretary.

    Everyone’s view is politically motivated. Noting that doesn’t really say much. Their view brings a very weighted criticism, one that will hit hard.

    As for the personal history (why does everyone always bring up Clinton whenever any Republican is ever criticised?), he is vulnerable on two points:
    One, the divorces (among the religious conservative set, although it is really his positions on gay marriage and abortion that make this stick), and two the very nasty public nature of them.

    I think the Republican candidates are all after the same mantle. The want to appear religious and strong on security (domestic crime and international security).

    I think Giuliani is weak in both areas, and this latest bit of testimony weakens him in what was supposed to be his strongest selling point.
    The man is running more on security than anything else. This really hurts him politically.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — April 2, 2007 @ 6:24 am | Reply

  4. I read the Times article also, and linked to it!
    You have a habit of being selective in your quotes, and you can’t cherry pick and proof text. There is a good deal more than the Time’s analysis of the news event. While the company may or may not be aboveboard, they have not been indicted for OC issues at this point.

    I wasn’t criticizing Clinton, hell I was thinking of Bobby Kennedy whom I’ve often pointed out as a politician I deeply admire. His sex life did not diminish his leadership abilities. I don’t think that Giuliani has given an inch about his marital issues – he even said he’d be comfortable with his wife at cabinet meetings. Whether or not others in the country can handle it, I don’t even want to think about, but I do believe it will be made into an issue, but this time from the Dems attacking the Reps. So we’ll go with Bobby and his string of affairs, still a damned good leader.

    I agree it may hurt him more than the campaign is admitting, and you may be right, but at the moment I still back his candidacy over the other GOP nominees, and candidly, I haven’t seen a Democratic nominee I could vote for since Gephardt was running for the nomination.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 2, 2007 @ 7:08 am | Reply

  5. Unless one quotes the entire article, isn’t a bit of selectiveness always going to occur? I think the riskyness Kerik posed was reflected strongly.

    I’m not saying affairs and resulting divorces themselves are a reason to personally not vote for the man. I am saying that out of the two major audiences he is courting, they alienate one of them. I don’t know to what degree that alienation will play into the polls.

    I do think McCain is getting weaker as well, and that really leaves Romney, one of the lower tier “real conservative” candidates, or perhaps law and order guy. I just don’t see Giuliani getting past the primaries.

    It is kind of funny, because the two candidates with the most baggage are from NY. I think Hillary has quite an uphill battle to fight in spite of her funding advantage. I could see myself voting for Edwards or Obama. I still think a late entry by Gore would be fantastic.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — April 2, 2007 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

  6. I think that Gore would have a shot, and posted it awhile ago. I also agree that this could be a real problem for Giuliani, but it isn’t a back breaker. Romney has no traction, and McCain’s numbers are consistently low. I think that Fred Thompson could make a strong run, but he will have to enter prior to the Fall to have a shot just due to the money situation.

    Obama’s numbers have plateaued and I think that the “Grandmother” issue will hurt him among many people, as well as the Apple video. I find it disingenuous to say that no one knew, as his campaign is reporting, and history shows us that nobody is better at running a “counterinsurgency” campaign than the Clintons. This is not a slap, it is a compliment of sorts. Edwards is a wild card. His numbers are rising, and I think it is fair to say part of it is due to his family crisis, which lends a bit to his credibility, but in the end it will be Sen. Clinton for the DNC.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 2, 2007 @ 7:09 pm | Reply

  7. Hmmm, alone, I don’t think it is a back breaker. I agree. (After all, any number of other items might have broken another politician’s chances). I do wonder whether we will see a series of such straws pile up on his back (specifically security).

    Romney is, I think, being underestimated. I am from Mass, and I don’t like the guy, but I think it is too early to write him out. I’m not sure how Thompson would actually play (and they’d cancel some Law and Order reruns!).

    I don’t think Obama’s numbers have plateaued, although at some point one must shift from a meteoric to a measured rise by sheer mathematical necessity. The apple video is only going to help his campaign amongst voters. I think people dig it, and it is being spun correctly by both his campaign, and by the guy responsible for it. It doesn’t smell like coordinated astroturf, and people dig the idea of one guy having an impact (and via youtube no less!).

    It is not fair at all to say Edwards numbers come from his family crisis. While I think Clinton is the favorite for the DLC, for the DNC, I think Edwards has a very fair shot. What does worry me is a split with neither Obama and Edwards able to get enough votes to get Clinton out. I think one of them will have to bow out in order to ensure the nomination doesn’t go to the most conservative Democrat.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — April 2, 2007 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  8. Edwards has appeal, but his numbers shot up in the past two weeks. They rose about 5 to 8% in some polls. I didn’t say it to be calloused, but I think that it was a factor.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 2, 2007 @ 8:54 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: