[OESY]

Kerik seemed the perfect candidate: battle-tested as NYC police commissioner during 9/11, fully aware of the needs and pitfalls of crisis communications and federal-state-local information-sharing, a results-oriented management style, private sector consultant experience working with Giuliani where he honed his teaching points, exposure to terrorism in Iraq and his Iraqi police counterparts, etc. Too bad the US values nanny taxes over effective Homeland Security leadership.

On the other hand, the DHS like the NID is a high profile position where the media can get their jollies by attacking the choice of color-coding and recommendations to stock duct-tape. Thus, the opposition party, assisted by the MSM, can easily undercut an administration by scapegoating the director and forcing resignations for spurious or trivial reasons. Since intelligence and homeland defense are imperfect blends of art and science, both successes and failures occur daily, but usually only the latter gets publicity.

That means such positions are highly vulnerable to partisan attacks, so the smartest appointment for a Bush administration is Sen. Lieberman, the inoculation candidate. He has virtually no executive management experience, except as Connecticut's AG, and thus very little meaningful and practical experience (of Kerik variety) in dealing with terrorism's challenges. This is especially the case since so many of the failures of intelligence can be traced directly back to Congressional meddling. Too bad for the US homeland security.

[politicalwit]

" fully aware of the needs and pitfalls of crisis communications and federal-state-local information-sharing"

The man was

a) too stupid to check the residency status of the nanny
b) knowningly violating federal law by employing an illegal alien.
c) knowningly violating federal tax law

...and you think he was the perfect candidate?

[Fatalis]

the smartest appointment for a Bush administration is Sen. Lieberman, the inoculation candidate.

Probably not.