Comments on: Why Bernard Kerik is Qualified

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:13:09 +0000

The actions of the Bush administration have made it pretty clear that homeland security is not a priority. It has been underfunded and poorly administrated from the start. The priority has been Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. America's security? Like bin laden, its not really a concern...

I also find it strange that Rudy Giuliani refused his country's call during wartime. This must be some form of patriotisim that I am not familiar with...

By: Grubbykid.com :: Words

Grubbykid.com :: Words — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:22:55 +0000

And the Kerik Smote the DHS
Is the President really serious about the Department of Homeland Security in light of his two nominations? Answer: Maybe.

By: Kappiy

Kappiy — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 04:40:22 +0000

"As proof, Giuliani cited Kerik's success in drastically reducing violence in city jails in the late 1990s as head of the Department of Correction, creating a statistics-based performance review program called TEAMS, fashioned after a similar technique then being used to great success by NYPD brass." Oh, the guy cut down violence in the jails--this is what Guliani suggests is evidence of his administrative acumen?!?!?! James, in Phil Carter's piece, which you term, "excellent," he gives this less-than-enthusiastic assessment: "In this role, Kerik must learn to act as chief executive, something he did passably as New York City police commissioner, and poorly as Iraq's interim interior minister." The important thing to understand about any large sprawling, federal bureaucracy is that the "chief executive" or "administrative" skills are the most essential. This Kerik character has a pretty poor-to-mediocre record in this regard. The guy has no business directing such an important bureaucracy. This is clearly a patronage job--Bush is clearly trusting the security of the US to a guy who is simply a willing part of his machine. This is deplorable.

By: The Astute Blogger

The Astute Blogger — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:37:49 +0000

FOUR ALGERIANS IN BUSH CABINET?!

By: Christopher Cross

Christopher Cross — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:13:01 +0000

Problem is is that the only arguable Dems that would be qualified (Lieberman/Biden)--would have to give up their senate seats--and it's unlikely any sitting Dem would be willing to do that.

By: Eagle1

Eagle1 — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:00:57 +0000

A real cop taking over a law enforcement job? Brilliant choice.

Yglesias is saying no Republicans can be trusted. I strongly disagree and remind him of which party won the election. There is no reason to be bi-partisan in a choice like this.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:41:58 +0000

Note to Matt:

"The ideal fix would have been to fill the job with a Democrat -- someone people on the other side would trust not to be manipulating the system."

If the people trusted Democrats they would have voted for them.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:39:27 +0000

So... Yglesias thinks the only right answer is for Bush to appoint members if the Democrat party...

Is Generalissimo Francisco Franco still dead?

Every time a Republican is elected, the liberals whine that said Republican should resign all power to a Democrat. After a while it just sounds stupid.

Come to think of it, it sounded stupid the first time.

If the Dems want to have power, perhaps they should do this little thing called "winning elections."