# The Nanny Kaputs Kerik's Nomination for Homeland Security ... Yeah, Right **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262 "2004-12-11T04:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/1 "2004-12-11T04:31:19Z")
> [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - In a surprise move, former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik abruptly withdrew his nomination as President Bush’s choice to be homeland security secretary Friday night, saying questions have arisen about the immigration status of a housekeeper and nanny he employed. Source: [AP Yahoo News Link](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_homeland_security) The lead address the possible illegal nanny syndrome, yet questions about Kerik’s ethics with respect to his ties between Taser and DHS appear much lower in the food chain. Other stories of the past few days questions his inappropriate use of NYPD police officers and detectives while comissioner. So we are led to believe the nanny did him in. I smell more than a rat. Will the established media dig deeper? [Newsday](http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyplaz104078108dec10,0,3518312.column?coll=ny-news-columnists) smells more. Is this a stunner setback for Bush? Why didn’t the background checks when Kerik was off to Iraq set off any alarms? Another case where the Bush Administration cannot think beyond the moment? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/2 "2004-12-11T04:54:36Z")
He strongly reminds me of the Beatle’s line about “He’s the all American bullet-headed Saxon mother’s son.” I didn’t know much about the guy until lately. Read stuff about how he fathered and abandoned a child while stationed in Korea. I was willing to hold that at arm’s length until confirmed, as I regard such as indicative of the very poorest of character. But it has yet to be denied. Then there was the ruminations of Josh Marshall, of _Talking Points Memo_ (without which no citizen can hope to be well informed). He made note of how much variance there was regarding his tenure in Iraq, how oddly that all worked out, and with how little explanation, plausible or otherwise. Then word of what a handsome living he has made of late, in the security consulting business with Rudolph Guiliani, the renowned security expert. The “nanny problem” is just the kind of thing to fit the bill, a minor technicality, really, small potatoes. But, of course, a rigorously scrupulous Administration, one strictly respectful of the letter of the law, would have no real choice. Besides, you know what a big stink those liberals will make of all this, demanding an investigation. digging into all sorts of things. Like friend **Duckster** , I detect the faint scent of Norwegian Brown. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/3 "2004-12-11T05:09:23Z")
There MAY be more to the story than this, but let’s not forget: “nanny” scandals have killed several major tions in the past. Bill Clinton’s first choice for Attorney General was Zoe Baird, a lawyer who had to withdraw after it was revealed she had (like MANY well-off people) hired household staff off the books, people for whom she had not paid Social Security taxes. Was there more to the Baird story? Maybe, just as there MAY be more to the current story. But it’s equally possible that there’s nothing more, and this alone is enough to have made confirmation problematic. As Zoe Baird could tell you, it wouldn’t be the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/4 "2004-12-11T05:15:00Z")
Just research the man’s past. It has nothing to do with a nanny. He couldn’t even get approved by a republican senate. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/5 "2004-12-11T18:14:40Z")
OK, here’s the thing. I don’t know D for diddly squat. Just what I read on the blogs, like everybody else. Maybe he ducked out because of this nanny thing, which is about as innocuous as all get out, but provides a nice cover. Plus, it allows them to shift the focus on how terrible, how awful it is that such a dedicated public servant was hounded by those liberals…which liberals?..well, those liberals, the ones who were _going_ to hound him, even if they hadn’t already started to hound him. And the other is this shit about some warrant for his arrest due to something about dues for a condo, some real estate malarkey. No way. No way does this measure up. Fuhgeddaboutit. But something made bullet-head take a dive. And I don’t know. But if you listen close, you can hear the high-pitched squeel of the spin machine cranked up to 10,000 RPM. So somebody really, really wants us to _believe_ it all about the Bushiviks exquisite sensitivity to complete and spotless propriety. Which is a crock. So they’re hiding _something_! What, I don’t know yet. But I got two bits says we’re gonna find out pretty quick. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/6 "2004-12-11T18:23:01Z")
“And then Trogdor smote Bernie Kerik, and all was laid to burnination…” ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/7 "2004-12-11T18:28:24Z")
Dunno. When vetting a Homeland Security nominee reveals he’s employing illegals, it’s not a stretch to conclude that’s embarassing enough to call it quits early and cut losses. Certainly, there could be more to it, but **astorian** could well be right: Nannygate redux is all that’s necessary to nix a nominee, from any party, under any President. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/8 "2004-12-11T18:28:41Z")
Why do we have to assume something more here? Just because he’s a Bush appointee, and therefore must be evil? Look, after Zoe Baird got in nanny trouble, and Linda Chavez was sunk because of nanny problems, there was no way in hell someone with the same nanny problem was going to make it through the confirmation process. There’s precedent. So as soon as that cropped up, it was game over. Sure, it’s a trivial thing to go after a supremely qualified candidate over. But that’s the nature of the system today. Good people get declined on trivialities, while smarmy assholess who know how to play the system and cover their tracks succeed. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/9 "2004-12-11T18:48:22Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why do we have to assume something more here? We don’t have to assume something more, but there is an oddity to the timing: > [@](#): > > NEWSWEEK has discovered that a New Jersey judge in 1998 had issued an arrest warrant as part of a convoluted series of lawsuits relating to unpaid bills on his condo. The magazine faxed documents, including the arrest warrant, over to the White House around 6:00 p.m. Friday, asking for comment. Neither Kerik nor the White House had any immediate response. At 8:30 p.m., Kerik had submitted his letter to the president. [here](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/) Maybe the president found out that Kerik was the guy who shipped all of Saddam’s WMD’s off to Syria, and decided to dump him for that. With as much dirt floating around as there is, and the administration’s established spin record, it’d be foolish to take the nanny story at face value. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/10 "2004-12-11T18:54:02Z")
Sure, that’s possible. But look at the wonderful convenience of it all! You get to say just what you said, here’s this great iron-ass cop, perfect for the job and he’s bounced because of this trivial little thing. So there’s no need for an investigation, no confirmation hearings, nothing to see here you looky-loos, move along now… And I still would like that stuff about fathering and abandoning a child in Korea cleared up. It wouldn’t impact my assessment of his qualifications as an office holder. But it would definitely impact my assessment of him as a man. You kill it, you eat it, you beget, you raise. Gospel according to **'Luci**. So far as I know, the fate of an Amer-Asian child in Korea is not as bad as in Viet Nam. But its bad enough, and a man who would leave his own flesh and blood to such a life…I wouldn’t drink with him if he was buying. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/11 "2004-12-11T19:54:09Z")
I must say, it’s starting to look as if you guys are right; too many coincidences, too much of a past. Oh well. Nipped in the bud, which was wise for all concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/12 "2004-12-11T20:12:35Z")
Amazing how the standards of evidence with you guys drop so far when dealing with a Bush appointee as opposed to, say, the Swiftvets. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/13 "2004-12-11T20:37:53Z")
Well, it’s not so much that all the allegations would necessarily stick, but if there’s so much other doubt floating around, on top of an illegal alien issue, it’s probably best to focus on the problem that’s the least controversial. The cites provided, as well as lots of additional stuff being mentioned fairly openly in the mainstream media now, would appear to lend support to the idea that Nannygate redux is a sound exit strategy for a nominee who might not have survived the process, even without it. I’m not assuming myself that there’s guilt or innocence beyond what Kerik himself has alleged, just that controversy sinks nominees, and the more there is, the worse the prospects. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/14 "2004-12-11T20:40:54Z")
Wasn’t there another Clinton nominee aside from Baird who got scuttled because of this issue? Kimba Woods? ::realizes it would be stupid not to Google that:: Yep. For the exact same post, immediately after Zoe Baird in fact. **Sam’s** right, it’s enough in and of itself because if you make Clinton ditch his nominees and let Bush keep his under identical circumstances you’ve got a PR problem. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/15 "2004-12-11T21:13:13Z")
One thing is for sure is that nannygate will axe your nomination. So, **unless you think he’s making up the story about the illegal alien nanny** , then it’s kind of ridiculous to cite other issues. Do you think his particular nanny issue wouldn’t get out? These days? Come on. Prove that the nanny issue was made up, and I’ll consider that there was another reason for his withdrawl. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/16 "2004-12-11T22:04:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > One thing is for sure is that nannygate will axe your nomination. Nah. If congress’ republican majority were really united behind their president, a little thing like that couldn’t scotch the deal. There’s a war on you know, and that means that ethical standards can be lowered for the good of our nation. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, there’s all sorts of examples where we’ve struck a pragmatic compromise to secure our safety. Something other than fratboy tax pranks is likely behind Kerik’s withdrawal, something that even partisan republican senators would have a hard time swallowing. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/17 "2004-12-11T22:18:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Prove that the nanny issue was made up, and I’ll consider that there was another reason for his withdrawl. Doesn’t really matter to me what you consider. I think I agree more with **elucidator** now, having read a bit more, FWIW (not much to you, I’m sure). There doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that an illegal domestic was really the issue either, so there’s no reason to consider anything certain at this point except that Kerik is out. It’s not implausible to me he is lying, quite frankly; nor is it implausible he’s telling the truth. There are enough other problems being raised about his background that there’s a plausible motivation to lie, and it hardly seems unlikely he (or any politician) would to save face. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/18 "2004-12-11T22:52:37Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Doesn’t really matter to me what you consider. I think I agree more with **elucidator** now, having read a bit more, FWIW (not much to you, > I’m sure). That seems like kind of a strange thing to say. Sounds like you’re not interested in debating, just speculating. > [@](#): > > There doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that an illegal domestic was really the issue either, so there’s no reason to consider anything certain at this point except that Kerik is out. What kind of “hard evidence” are you looking for? Are you disputing that he employed an illegal alien? If he didn’t, I would expect the press to be able to debunk that pretty easily. > [@](#): > > It’s not implausible to me he is lying, quite frankly; nor is it implausible he’s telling the truth. There are enough other problems being raised about his background that there’s a plausible motivation to lie, and it hardly seems unlikely he (or any politician) would to save face. But that line of reasoningl could be used to dispute ANY position about ANY politician. How does that add to the substance of the debate? ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/19 "2004-12-11T22:57:35Z")
The rules were changed so that a felony indictment won’t hurt DeLay, if one crops up, so boosting a super cop over a nannygate should be dead easy. And the Swiftboat Vets were sleazy and underhanded and despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262/20 "2004-12-11T23:56:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That seems like kind of a strange thing to say. Sounds like you’re not interested in debating, just speculating. I think speculation is the only thing possible. Hence there’s not much factual to debate. My point is, if you don’t like my oppinion, that’s fine, I don’t care. I can’t offer up facts because there aren’t any. If you find speculation about this pointless, great. I’ve decided after a second look not to take it for granted that he’s telling the truth, nor do I know if the press can or cannot debunk his story. It’s plain he’s got a rather troublesome past regardless of the purported illegal domestic issue, and it’s surprising the administration didn’t do a better job evaluating Kerik in the first place. Even without the issue of employing illegals, it’s looking more and more to me like approving Kerik’s nomination would have been a bruising fight, and potentially not worth it to anyone involved. As mistake was made in the vetting process someplace, and this may have been an easy out. If you choose to reject this hypothesis, citing lack of evidence, fine, I can’t dispute it. I honestly can’t see any sound reason to take Kerik at his word, either. If the only known issue with him was the putative goof-up he’s offering as an explanation, then there would be nothing worth speculating about. But he does have other issues, fairly serious ones, and hence it’s not implausible to me there’s more to it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nanny-kaputs-keriks-nomination-for-homeland-security-yeah-right/279262.md?page=2)