I don't really have a problem with Kerik, per say, but I do think it is indicative of the larger issue of sycophancy. This was a man who's every word during the past year was transparent in its motivation: provide a connection between himself and the President to conjure 9/11 memories while simultaneously positioning himself publicly for just such a position without all that pesky nuance or subtlety we are used to. Matthew Yglesias (the presumptive winner, even at this early stage, in the 2004 Best Liberal Blog" race) says it smartly:
But the terror alert system has developed a terrible problem -- the vast majority of the 48 percent of the population that voted for John Kerry has become convinced (and not without reason) that it's being manipulated for partisan political purposes. Such manipulation is, of course, wrong. But more to the point, the mere perception of manipulation makes it impossible for such a thing to be useful to the public.
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. Since the other issues the DHS covers are far from the core ideological dispute, it would be easy enough to find a qualified Democrat who agreed with the president's views on these topics. Thus, a credible, competent manager could, in a small but important way, help advance US counterterrorism policy.
Instead, Bush chose to take someone with no relevant qualifications who's campaigned for him as president and who brings back memories of 9-11, Bush's greatest moment of political popularity. It's all-too-typical.
The majority of the 48% will never accept anything that Bush does, does that mean he should do nothing?
BTW, it's 'per se'.
Posted by: Karol | December 04, 2004 at 11:06 AM