OK, would someone please explain to me why ex-Senator Danforth is leaving his post after only about five months, and the President has tapped Kerik (the ex-NYC police comissioner) as the next head of the Department of Homeland Security? Danforth is a relatively respected politician, who got pretty good (initial) reviews as UN Ambassador. He seems to be a decent guy, who has bailed out after a very, very short tenure. Kerik is not a national politician by any means, and while he may have been a good police commissioner (the fact that he was during 9/11 isn't necessarily a recommendation - what, exactly, did the NYC police have to do during and after 9/11? It wasn't a criminal investigation, and the fire department handled most of the rescues), why is he remotely qualified to run the department charged with defending the homeland. What does he know about immigration? Coast Guard? Customs? Someone want to explain any of this to me.
Posted by baltar at December 3, 2004 10:38 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsWell, I presume Danforth saw little reason to stay in New York. He'd done diligent work in Sudan, and perhaps thought the UN gig would move him in line to become Secretary of State. That didn't work out, so why not retire and spend time with his family? He strikes me as the kind of guy who would prefer that to UN diplomacy.
As to Kerik - that appointment is weird. I would have thought the Rove pick would have been Asa Hutchinson, our that they would have continued the White House staff takeover and moved in Frances Townsend. Kerik? Very weird.
Posted by: Armand at December 3, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKThen why did Danforth agree only six or so months ago? I think it's just as weird. Not only that, but I gather that Danforth was relatively respected. What will his leaving due to our (already depressed) stature in the world?
Posted by: baltar at December 3, 2004 11:59 AM | PERMALINKAccording to the Washington Times - Danforth quit because he wanted the State post and didn't get it, and Kerik got the nab after a recommendation from Giuliani. I have trouble believing that's exactly why Kerik was chosen - it strikes me as just another example of the president's obsession with wrapping himself in 9/11 - but I suppose it's (remotely) possible.
Chuck Schumer has already come out in favor of Kerik so I suppose there won't be a fight over that one. That's a shame really. The more I read about Kerik the less good he looks. And I'm not talking about anything tied to ideology or partisanship. The guy looks unqualified and out of his depth. But apparently he'll be in charge of protecting us from terrorists for the next few years.
Posted by: Armand at December 4, 2004 02:25 PM | PERMALINKThe whole thing is very strange: Kerik does seem somewhat out of his depth just in terms of previous experience. What does he know about running DHS? DHS is a mess - it's the klugded together bureaucracy of 22 formerly separate agencies. How is Kerik, who really isn't a bureacrat, going to manage this? And Danforth may not have gotten state, but he was doing a good job at the UN. Is working under this administration so difficult that reasonable people have to quit?
Posted by: baltar at December 6, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINK