OT: Department of Homeland Security

[Dutch]

Joe Lieberman would be a good choice to run this show.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

No way....I like.... Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer.

[Crapshoot]

Id trust them more than Ascroft or his ilk.

[GrantDawg]

Joe Lieberman would be a good choice to run this show.
Interesting choice. It is going to be hard to find a popular pick. Whose the favorite now?

[Fonzie]

Nobody could do that job better than The Fonz.

[CamEdwards]

Diane Feinstein?? Why on earth? Boxer I might understand, because of her support for the armed pilots program, but for the life of me I can't fathom Feinstein.

Although it would be great to get her out of the Senate... and the Governator would get to appoint a Republican to fill her seat.

[Flasch186]

anyone who will focus on our borders, hello!!!

[Senator]

Biting lip!!!

[Swaggs]

Former NYPD Commisioner Bernard Kerak will be the next Director of Homeland Security. There was a long article about it in this week's Newsweek magazine.

[CraigSca]

Swaggs, I think this thread started because Kerik has withdrawn his name from consideration.

[GrantDawg]

Swaggs, I think this thread started because Kerik has withdrawn his name from consideration.

Yup. He commited the cardinal crime of politics. He hired an illegal nanny and didn't pay taxes on her. You might get elected, but you'll never win senate approval.

[CraigSca]

That is quite hysterical. You can get caught smoking crack in a hotel room, but you can't hire a nanny and not pay taxes. Go figure...

[Tekneek]

That is quite hysterical. You can get caught smoking crack in a hotel room, but you can't hire a nanny and not pay taxes. Go figure...

Amazing the kinds of things you can be forgiven for...but that seems to be one that has become the third rail in politics.

[Glengoyne]

You know, I don't buy it. I mean it being the proverbial "third rail". I guess it is foolish to say it hasn't proven to be to date, but I just don't think it is great enough of an evil to disqualify someone from a Government Service.

I just think you have to weather the criticism. Not saying that Kerak should be the guy to break the cycle, but it does seem to be one of the weakest criticisms the opposition can level, and realistically affect the confirmation. It was something I was critical of Clinton for. I say the same for Bush. Stand behind your nominee. Now the president shouldn't be the one to say that this infraction shouldn't matter. But he should be willing to let the nominee weather the storm. This type of incident, should not disqualify a competent individual. Someone needs to stand up to this, and remove it as a disqualifying precedent. Until that happens otherwise qualified individuals are prevented from serving their country.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,
Joe Lieberman would be a good choice to run this show.

I think Lieberman would be a great choice for a hell of a lot of positions in Government. In fact, he was my choice for the top job.

[CentralMassHokie]

Kerik had bigger issues than just the nanny situation.

There's a whole bunch of suspect stuff in his finances, not to mention his aborted stint in Iraq early on.

[GrantDawg]

Kerik had bigger issues than just the nanny situation.

There's a whole bunch of suspect stuff in his finances, not to mention his aborted stint in Iraq early on.
So the nanny thing is a "save face" issue? Interesting.

[CentralMassHokie]

So the nanny thing is a "save face" issue? Interesting.

Well, I'm just saying there was more.

See here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/) and all of Josh Marshall's reporting here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/), particularly this one (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_12_05.php#004165) .

[GrantDawg]

Well, I'm just saying there was more.

See here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/) and all of Josh Marshall's reporting here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/), particularly this one (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_12_05.php#004165) .
Oh, I'm not suggesting there isn't more. I believe that. It is just interesting to me that the "nanny" issue is now being used as a way to deflect the bigger issues.

[Crapshoot]

That is quite hysterical. You can get caught smoking crack in a hotel room, but you can't hire a nanny and not pay taxes. Go figure...

Exactly- you can do cocaine in college, but damned a nanny is a crime. It is amusing.

[Glengoyne]

Oh, I'm not suggesting there isn't more. I believe that. It is just interesting to me that the "nanny" issue is now being used as a way to deflect the bigger issues.
I feel like they're directing spin right at me.

[flere-imsaho]

And if you're Henry Hyde (R-IL), you can commit adultery, and later impeach a president because of it.

[GrantDawg]

And if you're Henry Hyde (R-IL), you can commit adultery, and later impeach a president because of it.
That's funny, but I would like to point out that Hyde never lied about his affair under oath. But lets not go down that road in this thread.

[flere-imsaho]

Go ahead, hide behind technicalities. Since the Republicans are the party of morals, I'm sure none of them ever do anything immoral, unethical or illegal.

[Noop]

SO funny.

[GrantDawg]

Go ahead, hide behind technicalities. Since the Republicans are the party of morals, I'm sure none of them ever do anything immoral, unethical or illegal.
a) Not a Rebublican
b) Republicans do lots of illegal and immoral things? Actually, I think this thread is pointing out a Rebulican who did something wrong. Are you suggesting then that no one should ever be punished for wrong doing? Always, always, always a dumb arguement.
c) Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath about this. I'm not saying he should have been removed from office, but saying Hyde cheating means that Clinton can lie under oath is silly.

[Buccaneer]

I thought Kerik would have been a perfect choice for the post. But I guess DC and media politics do not permit that to happen. It comes down to who can hide them (past problems) the best. Now let's the next nominee is a real-world security organizer and not some political wonk that knows how to play the DC game.

[flere-imsaho]

On second thought you're right - this shouldn't go further because you're completely misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make (but perhaps I'm being too obtuse).

Also, I have to go outside and spread mulch on bits of the garden for a few hours. :)

Yup. He commited the cardinal crime of politics. He hired an illegal nanny and didn't pay taxes on her. You might get elected, but you'll never win senate approval.

What's interesting about this is that a large part of the debate on the recently passed (by the house) intelligence bill was a provision (now dropped) to allow illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses.

Now, whether one is for or against any of these issues, I would think we could all agree that the government is sending some seriously mixed messages about how we deal with illegal immigrants here.

Anyway, I agree with Buccaneer: I thought Kerik would have been a good enough man for the job, despite his past problems. I hope they get someone with some real-world experience in the job. Then again, with such an exciting proliferation of cabinet-level jobs in this administration (i.e. the pending new post of head of Intelligence), it's increasingly unclear to me who's in charge of what vis-a-vis our security. I hope they sort it out before it's too late.

[QuikSand]

So now, am I hearing that those of you who are all ticked off about another "nannygate" episode that you don't think this sort of thing ought to disqualify one for a high role in public service? Is that really your position?

Let's put this in some perspective, shall we?

Assuming this is true -- then what this person (and may others, of course) did was to:

- deliberately and (presumably) knowingly violate the nation's immigration and labor laws by illegaly hiring a person without proper documentation

- defraud the nation out of thousands of dollars in tax revenues by


If those allegations are true (for anyone, I don't claim to know any specifics about this case) -- then are you really saying that this person is still on your "okay" list to become the director of a major government operation? This is a person who has shown an open willingness to violate multiple federal laws, for the simple sake of money and convenience? Doesn't this open a window into his character, at the very least? Even if you personally don't think that "having an illegal nanny" is that big a deal?

If I'm on the Senate, I'd vote against anyone who has a pattern of willfully defrauding the country and violating immigration laws -- especially if the person wants to be in charge of the immigration laws, and in a position of high public trust.

Am I on an island here? WTF? I don't see this as being the same thing as jaywalking years ago... or even as a "victimles crime" like illegal drug use. Doesn't the nature, timing, and verifiability all make this a "third rail" for a damned good reason?

[flere-imsaho]

For the record, I have less of a problem with his hiring of an illegal nanny (although Quiksand brings up good points), then with the stuff I heard about how he misused his position and his staff in NY for personal gain (regarding some book he was doing, etc...).

[GrantDawg]

Am I on an island here? WTF? I don't see this as being the same thing as jaywalking years ago... or even as a "victimles crime" like illegal drug use. Doesn't the nature, timing, and verifiability all make this a "third rail" for a damned good reason?I agree that this a dis-qualifier, especially for this position. I do think just as serious crimes have been over-looked/forgiven (I don't think snorting coke or smoking pot is equal to this at all, but many White collar crimes are ignored in these processes that are equally as bad). My big thing on this is, isn't it interesting that he would use this to stop people from looking at other charges. He is using this as "spin" because he knows most people do not consider this serious.

[Tekneek]

Sure, having an undocumented person working for you (by itself) makes you unqualified to look after the security of the USA. Someone who plays any part in keeping an illegal alien here is inherently unqualified to look after our security.

I doubt that there is much difference amongst the Democrats and Republicans, on a national level, when it comes to shady personal activities. They do such a great job in their official activities, after all. Is it hard to believe they've got all kinds of nonsense happening that we never hear about?

Along the line of the Henry Hyde remarks, I wonder how many cheating husbands/wives actually support those "marriage" amendments. That is the biggest insult of all. Adultery is, apparently, not nearly as bad as letting gay people marry. Adultery is actually addressed in The Ten Commandments, while same gender marriage is remarkably absent...

[Dutch]

Adultery is, apparently, not nearly as bad as letting gay people marry. Adultery is actually addressed in The Ten Commandments, while same gender marriage is remarkably absent...

Rabbit humping is absent from the 10 Commandments as well, but what does this have to do with whether or not Joe Lieberman would be a good candidate fo the job?

[Draft Dodger]

Biting lip!!!

can we get you on the short list?

[Tekneek]

Rabbit humping is absent from the 10 Commandments as well, but what does this have to do with whether or not Joe Lieberman would be a good candidate fo the job?

Nothing. I qualified my statement as being related to the comments about Henry Hyde committing adultery and a thought that came to mind. You do this a lot. Is there a reason you choose to ignore words?

Lieberman would probably do fine. I doubt he would accept the offer if it was tendered.

[Dutch]

Nothing. I qualified my statement as being related to the comments about Henry Hyde committing adultery and a thought that came to mind. You do this a lot. Is there a reason you choose to ignore words?

There are many reasons, but in this case it was because I was fucking with you. :)

[Buccaneer]

QS, I would think that the defrauding and illegalities and unethical behaviors that goes within federal govt departments (and from the Senate members hypocritcally calling out others), esp. by those in positions of authority would be just the place for those engaging in 'nannygates'. But then again, I don't have have any specifics just let's just assume that such persons shall be disqualified because they do not meet the high ethical standards of Congress and federal bureaucracies.

[dubb93]

Dola,


I think Lieberman would be a great choice for a hell of a lot of positions in Government. In fact, he was my choice for the top job.

While I do respect Lieberman's opinions I will never vote for him for anything, or wish him to have any power due to his repeated attempts at censoring things he has no right to censor(wrestling in the mid-late 90's, videogames, music, etc).

[Dutch]

Maybe he would censor terrorists.

[Buccaneer]

I belive we need an outside organizer who is not afraid to make some radical changes - not some DC insider who would respect the status quo. I think there is way too much 'protecting of ones turf' going on, including within Congress, to affect real changes.

[GrantDawg]

I belive we need an outside organizer who is not afraid to make some radical changes - not some DC insider who would respect the status quo. I think there is way too much 'protecting of ones turf' going on, including within Congress, to affect real changes.
I agree completely, but it is very unlikely. Controlable would be the discription of the person that will probably be picked.

[flere-imsaho]

This just came to me, but didn't one of Clinton's original AG nominees not even make it to nomination because she had used an illegal immigrant as a nanny?

If so, I guess there's a precedent. And the Senate loves precedent.

[clintl]

This just came to me, but didn't one of Clinton's original AG nominees not even make it to nomination because she had used an illegal immigrant as a nanny?



Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the case.

Anyway, I'm sure Bush will want to name a Republican to this post, so why not Thomas Kean? Given his work as chair of the 9/11 commission and his history as a former governor, he is probably about as capable and knowledgeable as anyone about the current homeland security problems and issues, and as a political moderate, ought to be confirmed easily.

[Flasch186]

cuz Bush, in all honesty, hated the 9/11 commission...lets not all forget that, mmmmmk?

[QuikSand]

This just came to me, but didn't one of Clinton's original AG nominees not even make it to nomination because she had used an illegal immigrant as a nanny?

If so, I guess there's a precedent. And the Senate loves precedent.

Two of them, actually.


I'm not arguing that this issue isn't big enough to disqualify a candidate -- actually, I'm arguing that it definitely should disqualify a candidate. And I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that this has been a big issue before.. just perhaps debating whether it ought to be a big issue.


As for Bucc -- yes, we get it, you don't respect trust anything or anyone in government. Fine.

Whatever your level of mistrust, I still think it's reaosnable to expect that the Senate, in its authority to advise and consent on nominations, looks at this sort of issue seriously in deciding whether to confirm an individual for a position or meaningful authority and leadership. Whether the Senators themselves are a hypocritical bunch or crooks, or whether the subordinates in the bureaucracy are themselves bad people as well shouldn't bear on that duty.

[Swaggs]

I liked Kerik for this because, quite frankly, this position is a clusterfuck right now. Tom Ridge came in as a guy that was the potential VP successor and a posible moderate presidental candidate and left without a whole lot of political future left.

Anyone with any type of political history is probably not going to want to risk it by taking the position. Kerik pretty much had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Still, after reading about some of the things he had done for personal gain throughout the years, I am glad he will not be a part of the cabinet.

[Dutch]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the case.

Anyway, I'm sure Bush will want to name a Republican to this post, so why not Thomas Kean? Given his work as chair of the 9/11 commission and his history as a former governor, he is probably about as capable and knowledgeable as anyone about the current homeland security problems and issues, and as a political moderate, ought to be confirmed easily.

Actually, this is one of those rare times in history where you have a brand new cabinet position with no lobbyist history or agenda's. The person in charge will not do a good job for one party over another. The person in charge will either do a good job for Americans or for enemies of Americans. It's a pretty bi-partisan position.

Lieberman just seems like a good choice because the choice would be an olive-branch extended to the Democrats and he's a tough-talker when it comes to terrorism. It might piss the terrorists off that we put a Jewish guy in charge of homeland security, but hey, who gives a rats ass what the Answar el Islam thinks? It's a war and we need to get tough with the enemy leadership. The only way to get them is to get our (intelligence) shit together.

[Crapshoot]

Lieberman just seems like a good choice because the choice would be an olive-branch extended to the Democrats and he's a tough-talker when it comes to terrorism. It might piss the terrorists off that we put a Jewish guy in charge of homeland security, but hey, who gives a rats ass what the Answar el Islam thinks? It's a war and we need to get tough with the enemy leadership. The only way to get them is to get our (intelligence) shit together.

Answar el Islam ? cute.

[Dutch]

?

[Crapshoot]

?

It seemed to be that "Answar-El-Islam" was your generalization of all muslims- corect me if Im wrong.

[Flasch186]

It seemed to be that "Answar-El-Islam" was your generalization of all muslims- corect me if Im wrong.

Im jewish and I didnt get that feeling at all.....perhaps people who are Islamic should be able to delineate between themselves, their religion, and those that hijacked a peaceful religion and made it somewhat synonymous with terror (with the media's help no doubt - but the islamic leadership has done nothing to stave this course.)

[duckman]

Here we go again.... :rolleyes:

[Dutch]

It seemed to be that "Answar-El-Islam" was your generalization of all muslims- corect me if Im wrong.

I stated that putting Lieberman in charge of security would piss off the terrorists. Jumping to the conclusion that terrorists implies all muslims is your concern.

[Glengoyne]

So now, am I hearing that those of you who are all ticked off about another "nannygate" episode that you don't think this sort of thing ought to disqualify one for a high role in public service? Is that really your position?

Let's put this in some perspective, shall we?

Assuming this is true -- then what this person (and may others, of course) did was to:

- deliberately and (presumably) knowingly violate the nation's immigration and labor laws by illegaly hiring a person without proper documentation

- defraud the nation out of thousands of dollars in tax revenues by


If those allegations are true (for anyone, I don't claim to know any specifics about this case) -- then are you really saying that this person is still on your "okay" list to become the director of a major government operation? This is a person who has shown an open willingness to violate multiple federal laws, for the simple sake of money and convenience? Doesn't this open a window into his character, at the very least? Even if you personally don't think that "having an illegal nanny" is that big a deal?

If I'm on the Senate, I'd vote against anyone who has a pattern of willfully defrauding the country and violating immigration laws -- especially if the person wants to be in charge of the immigration laws, and in a position of high public trust.

Am I on an island here? WTF? I don't see this as being the same thing as jaywalking years ago... or even as a "victimles crime" like illegal drug use. Doesn't the nature, timing, and verifiability all make this a "third rail" for a damned good reason? Just checking back in, I had forgotten this thread.

I really don't have a problem if sometime in someone's past they paid a nanny in Cash instead of going through everything that is entailed in "Payroll". It just seems like it doesn't rise to the level of "Defrauding" the government. I understand that is what is happening, I just don't think most folks consider it that way at first blush. It is a decision that I think many people would make too callously, just because it probably doesn't seem like that big of a deal at the time it is done. In the scope of things I just don't think this matters for a number of positions. Attorney General is one that I guess would be an obvious exception. In the scheme of things this appears on my chart as somewhat less than a misdemeanor, and can be essentially discounted.

For goodness sake. Robert Bork, at President Nixon's request, fired the Justice department's special investigator looking into Watergate. He did so after the two preceeding Attorney Generals had resigned in protest over Nixon's request. To me, that appears to be a willful dereliction of duty, and a disgrace of the very position he was serving in. Yet that wasn't even a topic during his failed Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I think Bork's actions shed a lot more light on his character than anyone's dalliances with defrauding the government by paying a nanny under the table.


Edit: at some point I typed something to the effect that hiring an "illegal Alien" under the table violated a good number more laws, and since it does involve immigration laws it might well serve to disqualify someone from the Homeland Security post.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Lieberman just seems like a good choice because the choice would be an olive-branch extended to the Democrats and he's a tough-talker when it comes to terrorism.

You realize that most Democrats hate Joe Lieberman, don't you? He's probably #2 on the list of people Dems would like to trade to the Republican party for John McCain, right behind Zell Miller. But, I have to admit, he's the only possible nominee who could give Homeland Security Joe-mentum! :D :D :rolleyes:

[Glengoyne]

You realize that most Democrats hate Joe Lieberman, don't you? He's probably #2 on the list of people Dems would like to trade to the Republican party for John McCain, right behind Zell Miller. But, I have to admit, he's the only possible nominee who could give Homeland Security Joe-mentum! :D :D :rolleyes: Yeah, I don't believe that is the case. I think Lieberman is one of the most respected and effective Senators in the Democratic party. I think the Moveon.org and Michael Moore crowd might not like him, but not all that long ago those people were the extremist fringe of the party. Well until hatred for George Bush apparetnly drove many of the Democratic masses apparently mad.

You mention McCain, and I think there are a distinct minority of Republicans who "hate" him. In my perspective they are just and fringe, and just as dangerous as Democrats who "hate" Lieberman.