What would they do if the president's name were "Clinton"?

Others, most notably Josh Marshall and Steve Gilliard are covering the ever-escalating and eye-popping Bernard Kerik scandals better than I possibly could, so I defer to their coverage instead of re-inventing the wheel.



Still, I have to wonder: Given that we're looking at hot and cold running potential sleaze ranging from multiple adulteries to stalking to bigamy to hiring illegal aliens to talk of kickbacks from the mob, how on earth is it that the Administration can say this guy was fully vetted? And why, outside of the New York area, doesn't anyone care that a guy this unsavory nearly became our head of homeland security?



At the very least, this points to incompetence and/or extreme cronyism in the ranks of the Administration and the Republican party. At worst, it's arrogance of the first order. Somehow I think that if this guy had been named by a president named "Clinton", and all other facts were the same, House Republicans would be talking impeachment for trying to name a guy this corrupt to a post of this nature.



Of course, when it's a Republican president, and his name is "George W. Bush", he's accountable for NOTHING that happens in his administration.