White House

Is the nanny a disinformation effort?

It appears as if Kerik's nanny issue was simply disinformation fed to the public in an effort to withdraw focus from more serious charges against the embattled former DHS nominee. The New York Times reports today that an illegal alien nanny might not have ever existed. The Times:

Yet six days after Mr. Kerik withdrew his nomination, citing "questions about the immigration status of a person who had been in my employ," the figure central to the scandal - the nanny - remains a complete mystery.

Why use a nanny ploy? Scandals related to illegal nannies date back to Clinton nominee Zoe Baird and through and including Bush nominee Linda Chavez. So the issue is well-worn and the public has been desensitized, effectively shaking their heads in disgust -- but not calling for any public floggings. The looking-glass conventional wisdom says that an illegal nanny issue is a more acceptable a reason for a nominee to back out. We're, in a way, used to it. Much like we're used to presidents who avoided military service or smoked pot while in college. It just isn't that big a deal.

But fabricating an illegal nanny story IS a big deal. We've all fallen victim, time and time again, to the Bush neocon strategy of "Quick! Look over there!" But a lot of times, the "over there" is an item with some tiny shred of legitimacy. This time, it appears as if the distraction has been entirely a smokescreen.

Anyone who's familiar with the Rove Unit can recognize his oily elfin fingerprints all over this one. When are we going to hold these bastards accountable? Why are we allowing ourselves to play the role of the White House's battered spouse? Repeating the delusional, "If we just behave, the beatings will stop."