The media bags another politician (not that there aren't enough to go around, anyway...)
Yahoo! news is running this headline: "Giuliani Hurt by Scandal Around Former Top NY Cop," referring to Bernard Kerik. The beginning paragraph begins much in the way a backpage teaser on a Harlequin romance novel might: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Illicit affairs, mob ties, a secret love nest. The hijinks of Bernard Kerik, disgraced just as he aspired to join President Bush's Cabinet, have also bruised the reputation of former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, seen by many as a White House contender in 2008." Link
So riddle me this: How, exactly, was Giuliani supposed to be privy to an illicit affair or a secret love nest or know that the guy's nanny was not a legal citizen or that he didn't pay taxes for her (whatever that criss-crossed story finally was)? Did Giuliani follow Kerik around with a camcorder and make sure the guy was decent?
Somehow I doubt it. Giuliani backed the guy based on the job he did, on the professional relationship and possibly friendship the two shared. Likely having presidential ambitions himself, Giuliani wouldn't want to back a questionable character and would never have done it had he known.
All the same, while I fail to see how Kerik's personal life is of interest to me, that's beside the point: I fail to see how I'm supposed to "hurt" Giuliani by mistrusting him for not knowing sordid details Kerik inevitably tried very hard to conceal.
So here's one American who still thinks Giuliani's an okay guy.
And here's one American who thinks our media and their all-encompassing power to ruin reputations and influence politics needs an overhaul.