Compassionate Cronyism

Before the volumes of "character flaws" worked their way into the public eye and persuaded Bernard Kerik to withdraw his nomination as Homeland Security Secretary, I had serious concerns about his professional qualification for the position.  He had no experience on the federal level, or with transportation and border issues crucial to homeland defense and preventing terrorism.  He had very limited experience with federal intelligence operations; less with coordinating multi-agency tasks; and even less involving international investigative cooperation.  The Department of Homeland Security is a big-government beast combining 22 separate federal agencies under a single umbrella.  The department head is in charge of 170,000 plus employees.  The top post requires a competent and experienced pro. 

Investigating these kinds of appointments falls under the job description of Counsel to the President, an office temporarily occupied by Alberto Gonzales; who failed miserably and on many levels in scrutinizing Bernard Kerik on behalf of the President.  It's been suggested that the Kerik nomination was an act of appreciation from the President to Rudy Guiliani, who's been a partisan cheerleader for Bush and gave the recommendation for Kerik.  This is cronyism.  Which isn't an excuse for Gonzales failure to conscientiously analyze the nomination.

He did claim to spend "hours grilling" Kerik, but he failed to use google in researching the about-to-be nominated Homeland Security Secretary.  Herein lies the problem with cronyism.  It's about saying to people what they want to hear, and only hearing what people want you to hear.  It's compassionate to it's friends, and it breeds the Peter Principle:  Everyone rises to their level of incompetence. 

Bush's crony and counsel, Alberto Gonzales, is making that rise.  His incompetence was again on display when the Government Accountability Office recently reported that the administration was in violation of federal law by producing and distributing television news segments (propaganda) with taxpayers money.  Again, responsibility for vetting these illegal propaganda campaigns falls under the job description of Counsel to the President. 

Here is Gonzo's official White House bio, and insufficient resume.  While he did spend time in the private sector working for the firm that defended Enron and Halliburton, compassionate cronyism again, he doesn't have one hour of experience that suggests he's qualified to be Attorney General. 

Democratic veteran Jo Fish, suggests questions for Gonzo far removed from defining torture, yet certain to expose more incompetence:

Gonzales has not a whit of experience as either a member of the prosecutorial or defense bar. It should come as no surprise that the memos he wrote for Preznit Texecution were so flawed; Gonzales lacked and still lacks the critical thinking and aptitude for behaving like a guy who can ask meaningful questions to enforce the law or run an investigation. Look how well he "investigated" Kerik. What a masterful job of getting any facts, much less the correct ones.

Why are some of the senators who have vast experience as prosecutors on both sides of the aisle allowing this sham of an attorney and human being to be presented as the face of law enforcement in this country? Will one Senator please ask Gonzales to explain some piece of the criminal code he's been nominated to enforce? Or even see if he knows what the elements of an actual indictable offense like say, money laundering are? Is that too much to ask? Or maybe something easy, like what does RICO stand for and how does it work?

I agree with Jo.  Filibuster him. 

--Zap

Comments

[Ted]

Good read Zap!

Maybe now someone could write "The Death of Outrage II"
this time with some real meaning! I came back to the Democratic party after a lengthy stay away from them, my bad! Outside of Sen. Boxer and a few reps the rest of them are nothing but a bunch of spineless yespeople.
Back to Independantville for me.

[Zap]

Thanks Ted. I agree the spinelessness of the left is sad state of affairs. I think they're completely worn down by the outrageous assault on liberalism and have completely lost the necessary opposition voice that's a form of checking and balancing things. They mutter and whine but are too chicken to really fight the bullies. American political parties best serve the people when they are the best of enemies and the worst of friends. Right now they seem to have that backwords.