Mob Ties?
I really don’t see what the big deal is. Mob ties for Bernard “Bernie” Kerik and Rudy Giuliani? So what? It’s more troubling to me, the fact that these guys have ties to the Bush Administration who seems to be putting on a CLINIC for mobsters up on ole’ Capitol Hill these days. While the mainstream media is having a field day, speculating whether or not ole’ Bernie’s and Rudy’s possible mob ties (and ties with each other, of course) will hurt “America’s Mayor’s” bid for the White House, I’m thinking these allegations should solidify Rudy’s position as a great Republican politician who is more than ready to grab the torch from “The Decider-In-Chief” and run with it, but that’s just MOI (and of course, I DO have some French blood coursing through my veins)…
From The New York Times:
Kerik’s Corruption Case Dogs Giuliani
By MICHAEL COOPER and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
AMES, Iowa, Nov. 8 — The scene outside the old Victorian-style courthouse in Dubuque on Thursday morning showed that the indictment of Bernard B. Kerik is at the very least a big distraction for Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign.
The site had been chosen with care: Mr. Giuliani spoke across from the courthouse, which has a statue of Justice atop its golden cupola. With him were two former United States attorneys who were there to talk about Mr. Giuliani’s record as a corruption-busting federal prosecutor before he became mayor of New York.
But the only federal corruption case that reporters asked about was the one being built against Mr. Kerik — his former driver, police commissioner, partner, and, briefly, choice to head the federal Department of Homeland Security. A grand jury on Thursday voted to charge Mr. Kerik, and he is expected to be arraigned on a sealed indictment at midday Friday in United States District Court in White Plains on corruption-related charges, according to people briefed on the case.
So Mr. Giuliani said once again said that he had made “a mistake in not checking him out more carefully.” …
Hmm…
There is something troubling me about this story. The BIGGEST question about this whole story is one which is highly unlikely to go discussed anywhere but HERE, at the good ole’ GTL is THIS: Why does it always seem to take TWO PEOPLE to write an article for The New York Times? What do they do? Does Michael write the first sentence, then William gets to write the next one? Or does William write the first paragraph then Michael writes the second paragraph? Perhaps Michael writes the title and lede then William takes over the body of the story with William writing the last paragraph? It’s really, really troubling me.
Would this be a better blog if, say, Michael Linn Jones and I collaborated to pen each post together as a team? Stories such as this one at the New York Times raise some VERY tough questions and I do believe I’ve done a fairly decent job of bringing them to light right here and all by my “lonesome” today.
And, I’ve been quite glad to provide this service for our readers this morning. Thanks for reading…
***
Other opinions by worthy bloggers – H/T to MemeOrandum: Brilliant At Breakfast (Adult language); Donklephant; Oliver Willis; Poliblog (TM); Hot Air (Right); The Mahablog; The Carpetbagger Report
Loading ...
4:26 pm on November 9th, 2007 1
One artical-two authors. To share the blame for mistakes?
Stick with writing by yourself.
I don’t trust much thats done by committee.
JEG
10:07 am on November 10th, 2007 2
It’s the media version of check and balances. Having two insures journalistic integrety and honesty- they cross check each others facts and make sure the story is written in a straight and unbiased manner.
(Dang! I got through that without laughing once!)
5:17 am on November 12th, 2007 3
More importantly, when a politician goes out of his way to say that he values “loyalty”, as both Bush and Giuliani have done, RUN! Cronyism and corruption are never far behind.