I understand the doubts about Giuiliani and want to scream when I hear Republicans touting him as a 2008 candidate, but he and Kerik both seem like acceptable candidates for Homeland Security chief. I would think that in NYC if you're going to have a political career you're going to cozy up to some folks that in a red state would probably be jailed. It seems to me that Kerik has made a pretty good life for someone who from the get-go wouldn't have gotten very good odds. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Kerik's all right for Homeland Security. If he wants to run for President or VP I'd give him another look - but I have no doubts that he would do everything he could to keep the citizens of the country safe from another 9/11, and isn't that what we want from Homeland Security?
No one can quibble with the conclusion. It's how we get there that's the rub. He's untested/unclear in his attitudes towards open borders -- and he has played Liberal games, and comes from NYC. Isn't that what the battle in the House was all about? The verdict is out...so we'll see.
It's also a bit hard to stomach the huge payday he got from Taser for doing next to nothing for them, a company that some of the Street analyst commentary I've seen has indicated should seek more USG contracts (having been criticized by some for having a business that hasn't done as well as hoped securing such contracts).