An editorial in this morning’s USA Today argues that Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal from consideration to be the next head of Homeland Security was “fair,” because Kerik’s nanny problems “went to the heart of his character, exposing his questionable judgment.”
That’s one of way looking at it — although it’s not as if Kerik would have been the first member of Bush’s cabinet to display “questionable judgment” over the last few years. Some have even done so when the stakes have been higher than an illegal nanny, and we don’t remember USA Today ever suggesting they were unfit to serve.
What’s particularly absurd about the editorial, though, is that it takes at face value the administration’s (and Kerik’s) contention that it was the illegal nanny alone that did Kerik in. The only hint given that there could be anything further to the story is the assertion that “more may still be learned about the tough former New York police commissioner.”
Well actually, more has been learned. USA Today‘s editorial was published after all of the following pieces of information had come to light:
– “[As a top NYPD official], Kerik accepted thousands of dollars in cash and gifts without making proper public disclosures.” (New York Daily News)
– “A New Jersey judge had issued an arrest warrant for him in 1998 as part of a lawsuit over unpaid bills on a property he owned.” (Newsweek)
– “On Thursday, the day before he took his name from contention, Kerik, 49, was forced to testify in a civil lawsuit about an alleged affair with a subordinate … Plaintiff Eric DeRavin III contends Kerik kept him from getting promoted because he had reprimanded the woman, Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero.” (Newsday)
– “In the three years since Mr. Kerik left city government, he has made millions of dollars in the private sector, much of it working for companies that do business with the Department of Homeland Security and that are seeking to expand their sales.” (New York Times)
– “On six-month Pentagon assignment in mid-2003 to train Iraqi security forces, Kerik left abruptly after 3 1/2 months.” (Newsday)
– “Kerik had to pay $2,500 after New York City’s Conflict of Interest Board found he improperly used three city cops to travel to Ohio to learn details about his mother for his autobiography, The Lost Son. He also sent detectives to the homes of Fox television employees after his book’s publisher, Judith Regan, said her cell phone was stolen while she was on a Fox show.” (Newsday)
– “[Kerik] was expelled from Saudi Arabia amid a power struggle involving the head of a hospital complex where Kerik helped command a security staff. [He] said it was necessary because of the Saudis’ laws prohibiting drinking and mingling of the sexes in public.” (Washington Post)
In other words, by this morning, no sentient human being following this story believed that Kerik’s withdrawal was solely, or even primarily, because of the nanny problem. As a Democratic source told Newsday, “I don’t think [the nanny problem] was it. There were so many questions in so many areas — I think the nanny was just a convenient way to get out of it.”
But hey, the White House says it was all about the nanny. And that’s good enough for USA Today.
–Zachary Roth
Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.