Reading New York Sen. Charles Schumer's Times op-ed on his support for Judge Mukasey for U.S. attorney general got me thinking. (It doesn't happen too often!) On the one hand, you have today's news that a New York grand jury has indicted former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik on multiple counts of corruption, to which Kerik has pleaded not guilty. Kerik, of course, is a former close associate and protege of Rudy Giuliani, and the indictment will dog the Giuliani campaign for some time. On the day the indictment came down, Mitt Romney's campaign issued a press release on its candidate's ethics reform agenda, and John McCain told a New Hampshire audience member that Kerik's fall is reason to question Giuliani's judgment. On the other hand, you have Mukasey, whom Giuliani has known for around three decades (they tried the Bertram Podell case together) and of whom one of the most partisan (and effective) Democrats writes:
There is virtually universal agreement, even from those who oppose Judge Mukasey, that he would do a good job in turning the department around. My colleagues who oppose his confirmation have gone out of their way to praise his character and qualifications. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, for one, commended Judge Mukasey as 'a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist and by all accounts a good man.' Most important, Judge Mukasey has demonstrated his fidelity to the rule of law, saying that if he believed the president were violating the law he would resign.
In Kerik, you have an instance in which Giuliani's loyalty to people who he thinks are effective at their jobs proved faulty. In Mukasey, you have an instance in which Giuliani's loyalty to people who he thinks are effective at their jobs proves a bipartisan success. The commonality is Giuliani's loyalty - a characteristic that helps a politician be successful but also carries significant risks. In any case, there is no reason to believe that a President Giuliani wouldn't continue to possess that characteristic. Which is to say that there may be more Keriks - and more Mukaseys - in our future.