Memo To Pundits: Kerik Indictment Cuts At Core Rationale Of Rudy Candidacy
November 9, 2007 -- 4:21 PM EST // //
In light of the questions I asked yesterday about what today's coverage of the indictment of Bernie Kerik would be like, I took a quick lap through the news stories and punditry about Kerik and was actually surprised: A lot of it was pretty on point in some ways.
The New York Times devoted a whole piece to the political problem Kerik has become for Rudy, prominently mentioning that Rudy had pushed Kerik as Homeland Security chief high in the piece. The Associated Press had a similar piece focused on the same thing. CNN's analysts were pretty tough on Rudy: Gloria Borger said that it "calls into question his judgment," and even Wolf Blitzer got a little bit feisty, pointing out that it was kind of problematic that Rudy had pushed Kerik as DHS chief.
But for all that, a critical, fundamental point is still being missed in the commentary on this story.
The Kerik indictment isn't merely news because it calls into question Rudy's judgment or vetting skills on one appointment or even on his recommending him for DHS. Rather, its real importance lies in the fact that it undercuts the core rationale of his entire candidacy. It perfectly captures the fraudulent nature of Rudy's entire Presidential quest.
Rudy's argument to voters is simple: He's the candidate best equipped to protect us from what he likes to call the "terrorists' war on us." To justify this he likes to say that as Mayor he shouldered the burden of maintaining the "safety and security of 8 million people," and that as Mayor of New York on 9/11 he alone understands just how frightful the terrorist menace really is and hence would be most effective in countering it. This is Rudy's central message: I alone am the best equipped to keep the country safe from Islamofascisterror.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that the post of Homeland Security chief is kind of important when it comes to doing this. Despite this, Rudy is the primary reason that a cartoonish joke like Kerik was ever considered for the all-important post of defending the nation in the first place. Remember, Rudy privately vouched for Kerik to Bush. If somehow Kerik's various shenanigans and misdeeds hadn't come to light in time, it's not inconceivable that he could have ended up as DHS chief, with potentially catastrophic results that would have been primarily Rudy's fault. Now Rudy is telling us he's the guy to keep us safe?
Pundits are awfully quick to take the most minor gaffe committed by Dems and use it as a cudgel to beat their central rationale to death. John Edwards got a $400 haircut? That proves his poverty candidacy is a ruse. Al Gore uses lots of electricity? Hah -- his environmental crusade's a sham. And so on.
Your pundits are much more circumspect when it comes to Republicans. But in the case of Rudy and Kerik you have something incomparably worse: The candidate who is telling us that he will best defend us from terrorism cavalierly pushed a crooked crony, a complete buffoon, for one of the positions that is most central to the accomplishment of that goal. That is why the Kerik story is important and strikes what should be a lethal blow to Rudy's candidacy. And it would be cool to hear pundits close the circle and discuss this in terms just as stark as these.
To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.