Thursday, December 16, 2004

Josh Marshall and Steve Gilliard are still pursuing every Kerik story there is, and they're doing a great job -- but I think I'm going to lighten up on my Kerik obsession.

However, I'll add that Josh M.'s skepticism about the nanny story seems absolutely right to me -- he's wondered for days whether there ever was a nanny, and, as he noted last night, a story in today's New York Times echoes his suspicions. Kerik's lawyer doesn't know the nanny's name and didn't have any involvement when Kerik reportedly filed papers for her last fall; only one neighbor of Kerik's claims to have ever seen the nanny (and is vague on the details); many neighbors are sure they never saw a nanny; the neighbors say Mrs. K. cares seems to do the child care herself.

Did the Bushies concoct a lie when the nomination blew up in their faces, in the hope that the lie would be the story and the other matters they knew the press was investigating would all blow over? I think it's quite reasonable to suspect that that's the case. ("[T]he reason he withdrew his name is for the reason he stated Friday," Scott McClellan insisted at a subsequent press gaggle. Why was it so important for McClellan to stress that?)

It's hard to believe that the nanny couldn't be found. New York has the Times and (including Long Island's Newsday) three tabloids (although one of them is Murdoch's Post). The nanny would have worked in New Jersey, so the Jersey papers would want to look for her as well. Time Warner Cable in New York City has a 24-hour news channel, NY1, and six other TV stations in New York do local news (although Murdoch owns two of those). Believe me, these stations are quite willing to spend the money to put a reporter on a plane for a tabloid story that has a local angle. They'd all be thrilled if they could lead the late-evening news with "THE NANNY SPEAKS."


(I've added Steve Gilliard to the links, which I should have done a long time ago.)

No comments: