hello all! sorry that this post is a bit delayed - i know kerik's withdrawl has been in the news for days - but i know you've also been waiting with baited breath for my response . . .

so i have mixed feelings about this. first - i'm not going to like anyone Bush nominates for his cabinet - esp. this term where are the semi-quality people (read: colin powell) are dropping out and he's replacing all of them with yes-men (which in my opinion, are the real problem in politics). and kerik was obviously just a good PR choice. there have been several concerns about his management style in afgahnistan, and it's probably for the best that he won't be in charge.

however, this whole illegal nanny thing has got my confused. 1 - illegal immigration is obviously a real problem that no one seems to want to address, much less fix - we keep arguing about all the bandaid issues like drivers licesnses - but that won't solve anything. if people in the highest levels of our government don't recognize their own nanny as a problem i'm not sure what else can bring it home. 2 - i don't think that something like hiring an illegal nanny (which is probably incredibly common) should keep someone the president (any president - remember this happened with Bill too) from appointing someone whom he thinks is the best person for the job. if kerik really was the best person to be dealing with homeland security (just as baird may have been the best person in 92) then is it fair to the nation to keep that person out of office for something that seems so minor and has nothing to do with their ability to preform their job?

maybe i'm being naive, and i have to say that i am not well versed on immigration reform - but there you go.