December 11, 2004 by s.z.

Twas Nanny Killed the Nomination From the NY Times: Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, abruptly withdrew his name from consideration to be President Bush's secretary of homeland security late Friday night, citing questions related to the immigration status of a former household employee. [...] In reviewing his personal finances this week as he prepared for confirmation hearings, Mr. Kerik said in a statement issued late Friday, he determined that a housekeeper and nanny he had once employed was not clearly a legal immigrant and that he had not properly paid taxes on her behalf. "I uncovered information that now leads me to question the immigration status of a person who had been in my employ as a housekeeper and nanny," Mr. Kerik said. "It has also been brought to my attention that for a period of time during such employment required tax payments and related filings had not been made." Isn't it amazing how preparing for confirmation hearings can suddenly bring about these kinds of ephiphanies? "Wow, I just realized that the nanny is an illegal alien!  And hey, I didn't pay her social security taxes!  Oh, and it was WRONG to have abandoned that child in Korea."  (0kay, maybe the light bulb hasn't actually lit up on that last one yet.) From the Moonie Times we learn that it was probably the rigorous process of filling out forms that brought about these revelations. Yesterday, outgoing Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge said Mr. Kerik went through a "rigorous process of filling out disclosure forms" after being tapped for the job, although department officials said Mr. Kerik had not yet completed ethics filings required by Congress that detail his sources of income and financial liabilities and that his FBI background investigation remained incomplete. While it's nice that the rigorous form process helped to weed out an unsuitable candidate, it would be interesting to know what the background investigation and the financial filings would have revealed. For all kinds of rumors and stories were beginning to surface . . . Here's the dish from the NY Post: Financial questions were raised after it was revealed the former cop, who declared bankruptcy in 1988, sold $6.2 million worth of stock in Taser International, which manufactures stun devices for police and military use — and is pitching its wares to the Department of Homeland Security for use by border agents. Other embarrassing or questionable incidents involving Kerik were re-examined: The assignment of several NYPD homicide detectives to retrieve a cellphone lost by his book publisher, Judith Regan. Questions about $1 million in tobacco rebates for cigarettes sold to prisoners while Kerik was correction commissioner. His hasty and early exit from Iraq after a huge explosion in Baghdad. The NY Daily News has more: He drew sharp criticism for bugging out of his Iraq police job just 14 weeks into his six-month assignment. Although his mission was to help build a strong and efficient Iraqi police force, that force remains mostly a joke. Other issues have dogged Kerik. Last summer, questions arose about his decision as police commissioner to order four high-tech $50,000 security doors for headquarters. The Internal Affairs Bureau found no wrongdoing, but noted that a proper engineering study wasn't done. As the city's Corrections Department boss, Kerik allegedly "blocked the promotion of a qualified jail supervisor" because the man had reprimanded a female officer Kerik had dated. Both allegations, however, remain unproven. Some of his appointees have also wound up in hot water. Last June, a Kerik crony was sentenced to a year in prison for embezzling $142,733 from a charity. Kerik was one of four people ever on the charity's board, but denied knowledge of its finances. The former boss of Rikers Island, whom Kerik had promoted six times, is facing allegations he pressured underlings to work on Republican political campaigns. Kerik also used NYPD investigators to research the murder of his mother, a former prostitute killed when he was 4, for his book. He had to pay the city $2,500 under a settlement with the Conflict of Interest Board. In the 1980s, while working as chief of investigations for a Saudi Arabian hospital complex, Kerik allegedly abused his authority to delve into the private lives of women with whom his boss was romantically involved. Of course, as the NYT reminds us, a nanny sitution is the tradition way to withdraw one's nomination from a cabinent position. The hiring of an illegal immigrant or failure to pay taxes had forced the withdrawal of other cabinet nominees, including Kimba M. Wood, Zoe Baird and Linda Chavez. The A.P has a short piece out called Nanny Problems Plagued Clinton Nominations, about Kimba's, Zoe's, and Lani Guinier's problems with the help.  This story was apparently written to remind readers that while Bush's nominee may be scum, look how much scummier Clinton's were.  Oddly enough, Linda Chavez isn't mentioned at all -- I bet she's really ticked. But back to the NYT: A former New York City official who knows the circumstances of the withdrawal said that the housekeeper, who had worked for the Kerik family for about a year, left for her home country two weeks ago. Her name and nationality were not disclosed. Hmm, she left the country two weeks ago, about the time that Kerick was nominated.  I wonder if that means anything . . . ? The NY Post has more, including the spin Kerick's friends are putting on it: The nanny, a Mexican native, was hired to help his family living in New Jersey while Kerik was stationed in Iraq last year to train Iraqi policemen. But she handed over immigration papers that were not hers, sources said. The unnamed nanny stopped working for the Keriks about two months ago and was said to have headed back to Mexico. “When he was going over the Senate confirmation forms with two lawyers, they discovered that all the information that she gave didn’t pass the smell test,” said a source close to the 49-year-old former NYPD commissioner. “She claimed to him that she was legal. She claimed she had papers, but we can’t verify that she did. “He had to withdraw his nomination, because you can’t head INS [the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which falls under the umbrella of homeland security] if you can’t be sure of the papers of someone you employed.” Um, yeah.  And if you are a former NY City police commissioner, it doesn't pass the smell taste that you either didn't bother to check your nanny's papers, or couldn't discern that the papers were phony.  The commissioners on "Law & Order" are all much more competent than this (except for the ones who are in bed with the mob and totally corrupt, of course). But how about those employment taxes -- how were they accidentally never filed?  Friends who talked to the Daily News made it sound like it might have happened while Kerik was in Iraq, training those Iraqi policemen -- and who could expect a mother left alone with two young children to be able to cope with hard legal stuff like that, even if her husband was a multimillionare and presumably had a lawyer who could have advised her?  And anyway, that's probably why he left Iraq so suddenly  -- he had to hurry home and make sure the nanny was a citizen and her taxes were filed correctly. In any case, all we can do now is applaud those who got it right, and give a Nelson Muntz-like "Ha ha!" to the others: From the NY Post: The Los Angeles Times blasted Kerik’s nomination, calling the ex-detective a “Giuliani acolyte who was a relentless attack dog for Bush,” and said his inexperience in federal government could be a major handicap. And Newsday columnist Ellis Henican presciently summed up the nomination: “He’s a personal and professional timebomb the Bushies will learn to regret.” From Scottie McClellan, in yesterday's press briefing : But the President appointed Commissioner Kerik because he knows he is someone who is firmly committed to helping us win the war on terrorism and make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the homeland. We have full confidence in his integrity [...].  4:56:16 AM

Who Said It? D. Sidhe was the first to correctly identify our last Mystery Guest (the guy who said that the U.S. can't defeat terrorism without the strong moral foundation that comes from saying "Merry Christmas") as Bill O'Reilly (it was one of Bill's famous Talking Points Memos).  However, Mac was close with his guess, Gen J.C. Christian. On honor of Bill's brilliant insights, let's read part of the TPM ftranscript rom yesterday: Santa Claus symbolizes giving. Where's the downside? For the secular bunch, the downside is celebrating a philosophy that encourages peace, but also makes judgments about right and wrong. Yup, the reason that those evil secularists are trying to ban Christmas (by discouraging overt displays of religion in that Denver parade, and by having their employees say "happy holidays") is because they hate Santa for that naughty/nice list. And in other fantasy-land news, Bill also had this to say: You know you're winning when the fanatics start accusing you of bias. And that has started again. I'm not going to dignify. The defamation is dopey, other than to tell you it's exactly the same thing that happened when I defended Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus. Well, Bill already "dignified" on his radio program, as Media Matters reported -- and, of course, the folks at Media Matters (and the President of the ADL) are the "fanatics" whom Bill is talking about here.  The "defamation" is that MM reported about how a Jewish caller to Bill's radio show said that he objected to the pushing of Christmas in schools because when he was in school, it felt like people were trying to convert him to Christianity -- and Bill told him to "go to Israel then."  So the head of the ADL wrote a letter of protest about Bill's remarks.  Here, let's read the Media Matters account of what Bill said about them: The left-wing websites who are responsible for all of this kind of stuff, and the journalists in the newspapers who print it without any context -- are the worst element -- non-criminal element in the country. The worst. All right? They undermine freedom of speech. They undermine all fair play. They are despicable, vile human beings -- ankle biters. See, that's what happens when Bill "dignifies" something.  Oh, and it seems that Bill really hates it when people listen to his programs: [W]e have these creeps -- and they really are the most vile, despicable human beings in the country -- who listen to every word of the program. Bill has had a traumatic time recently (there will be no more falafels for him, alas), so I suggest that we do as he asks, and  stop watching "The O'Reilly Factor."  And everyone, be sure to never listen to a word of the radio program!  Do this as a personal favor to Bill. Oh, and here's my very favorite part of his comments: You criticize anybody, you challenge anybody, then you are a bigot. And that's the -- that's why nobody does it. That's why nobody sticks up for Christmas except me. Did Peter Jennings stick up for Christmas last night? I don't believe he did. How about Brian Williams, did he? Did Rather stick up for Christmas? How about Jim Lehrer -- did he? Did Larry King -- hello -- I love Christmas -- did he? No. I think that Santa should invite Bill to come live with him at the North Pole as a reward for being the only one in the world who stands up for Christmas.  Hey, wouldn't that make a great Rankin/Bass Christmas special?  I can hardly wait to see Ann, Michelle, Rush, Ben, and the rest on the Island of Misfit Pundits!  But the climax of the whole 30 minutes will be when the Abominable Snowman eats Bill. Now, who said this? I saw Spanglish tonight and thought it was a great movie. Not like Gone with the Wind great or Zulu great or whatever classic is yours to have and to hold. But a decent, sweet, heartwarming—and funny movie. [...] My favorite line comes when Adam Sandler and newcomer Paz Vega are at a near-no-turning-back point and Vega’s character says that when you have children there are some mistakes you just can’t make. Family. Responsibility. Parental love. The friendship between the Sandler and Vega characters was so real and, frankly (and now I get patronizing? Sorry.) useful I think for a NY artsy audience, which I happened to be mixed in with tonight. The blues can afford to be exposed to 90 minutes of those messages in a funny, breezy kinda way. Because, as we all know, it's those darned "blues" who are always getting divorces, and having children out of wedlock, and generally not supporting family values. Hint:our Mystery Guest added this comment two minutes after her first one about Spanglish: Can I have another total dork moment (see Cabinet bets from earlier)?I thought while watching Spanglish, George W. Bush would love this movie. The dad—the love for his awkward-aged, beautifully considerate daughter (really nicely played by Sarah Steele)—would be exactly the model W. seems to exude, just by being a father to his daughters. Hey, it's not at all dorky to be reminded of George Bush as you watch an Adam Sandler movie. 2:03:23 AM