I was going to include the link to this article without comment. However as a native New Yorker, I must say that I disagree with the article when it states that Bush’s relationship with New York was changed on 9/11.
How? Unless the author and editor meant “for worse,” if that was possible. Bush made one speech, and we were supposed to stand behind him because he came to Ground Zero? As the article points out he had never liked New York. Why should we have changed our minds about him?
What did he do for New York that should make us like him? It’s my understanding that the New York City Police Department (after Kerik’s brief tenure) developed many counter-terrorism techniques on their own and/or with the FBI’s help. While the FBI is part of the federal government it doesn’t represent Bush.
How many more visits did Bush make to New York to speak to and reassure the people? We might have changed our opinions of him if we saw that actually cared and helped us.
The article states that in Kerik, Bush saw values similar to his; that they both think in black and white without any shades of gray to color their prefab opinions. The article didn’t talk about shades of gray, but obviously meant it.
About Kerik’s personal life: That his mother was a prostitute who abandoned his family and then was killed when his was two, and that he was a high school dropout usually would make me like him if he rose to the top on sheer ability. But he didn’t.
If you’ve been following the aftermath of Kerik’s nomination then you know his amazing values include: patronage jobs, owning or having a role in companies that had city contracts while he was employed by the city and much more.
My three word summary of Bush and Kerik’s relationship: slime meets slime.