The LA Times profiles New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, and notes his Presidential ambition. Our two cents - at a dinner party last Christmas, a Dem fundraiser assured me that Richardson had no hope as a Presidential candidate, because his personal life made Bernie Kerik look like a choir boy.
But what do I know?
MORE: In anticipation of a failed link, we have some Bernie-bashing below the break.
Daily News excerpt:
Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik conducted two extramarital affairs simultaneously, using a secret Battery Park City apartment for the passionate liaisons, the Daily News has learned.
The first relationship, spanning nearly a decade, was with city Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero; the second, and more startling, was with famed publishing titan Judith Regan.
His affair with Regan, the stunningly attractive head of her own book publishing company, lasted for almost a year.
Dramatically, each woman learned of the existence of the other after Pinero discovered a love note left by Regan in the apartment.
The revelations about Kerik's private life come as repercussions over his suitability to be nominated for the post of secretary of homeland security. Kerik, 49, married with two children from his current marriage, withdrew his name from consideration in a sudden and unexpected call to the White House on Friday night.
Kerik said that questions about the immigration status of his family's former nanny and failure to pay taxes prompted his decision to walk away from the job. But speculation has continued that there were deeper and more controversial reasons.
Yesterday, The News reported that a six-month investigation showed Kerik had accepted thousands of dollars in cash and gifts without proper disclosure, and had ties to a construction company that investigators believe is linked to the mob.
Now revelations about his private life also cast a shadow on his suitability for one of the administration's highest-profile cabinet positions.
Cherchez la femme, mais on prefere AAA; des avocats, des armes, et de l'argent.
================================================
Posted by: kim | August 14, 2005 at 11:23 AM
I understand it all except about the avocados.
Posted by: TM | August 14, 2005 at 11:35 AM
That's for face cream, to camouflage their real intent.
===================================================
Posted by: kim | August 14, 2005 at 12:01 PM
Well then you look up the etymology of avocado sometime.
Posted by: Martin | August 14, 2005 at 12:35 PM
here: I'll save you the clicks:
[American Spanish, alteration (influenced by obsolete Spanish avocado, lawyer), of Nahuatl ahuacatl.]
Word History: The history of avocado takes us back to the Aztecs and their language, Nahuatl, which contained the word ahuacatl meaning both “fruit of the avocado tree” and “testicle.” The word ahuacatl was compounded with others, as in ahuacamolli, meaning “avocado soup or sauce,” from which the Spanish-Mexican word guacamole derives. In trying to pronounce ahuacatl, the Spanish who found the fruit and its Nahuatl name in Mexico came up with aguacate, but other Spanish speakers substituted the form avocado for the Nahuatl word because ahuacatl sounded like the early Spanish word avocado (now abogado), meaning “lawyer.” In borrowing the Spanish avocado, first recorded in English in 1697 in the compound avogato pear (with a spelling that probably reflects Spanish pronunciation), we have lost some traces of the more interesting Nahuatl word.
Posted by: Martin | August 14, 2005 at 12:37 PM
What a peach of a piece of precursorese, Martin, thanks for the fruit of your flourishing etymological knowledge fertilized entomologically. I'll make it my avocation to be your advocate, at least in these matters, to which we vocalize. Argumentum ad vocum, or something like thatum.
=====================================================
Posted by: kim | August 14, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Kim -- The rough American translation, courtesy of Warren Zevon: Send Lawyers, Guns and Money
Posted by: richard mcenroe | August 14, 2005 at 05:28 PM
Or Shysters, Gats, and Loot.
============================
Posted by: kim | August 14, 2005 at 06:36 PM
No teases. Give us at least a hint of what Richardson's troubles might be. I'm not sure that affairs are any longer a disqualifier. If Guliani runs, we may find out. Now, Guliani vs Richardson; wouldn't that get a lot of panties bunched on all sides?
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | August 15, 2005 at 11:34 AM
I think TM has wisely limited his comments to repeating statements by someone who he had reason to believe would know the truth.
That's your free legal advice for the day.
As for Rudy, the dirt on his personal life (as far as family life and sex) is both extensive and well-known, if unverified in a few particulars.
Posted by: Crank | August 15, 2005 at 01:34 PM
As Joe E. Brown said to cross-dressing Jack Lemmon in Some Like it Hot:
Posted by: capitano | August 15, 2005 at 03:41 PM
Only the best movie line ever.....possible.
===================================================
Posted by: kim | August 15, 2005 at 07:28 PM
Let's Rock the Boat, Honey!
================================
Posted by: kim | August 15, 2005 at 07:30 PM
So he revels in the joys of fornication. A grand Democratic tradition upheld! Luckily, it's a very dry state...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | August 16, 2005 at 08:18 PM
The sqeaking hot springs of politics get the grease. Truth and consequences.
================================================
Posted by: kim | August 16, 2005 at 11:08 PM
At least Richardson is ahead of the curve on 'talking about' illegal immigration. That puts him ahead of almost all Democrats and, well, almost all Republicans, too.
Posted by: Les Nessman | August 16, 2005 at 11:11 PM
In the late '70's my spouse and I were driving down a somewhat remote but paved highway in south central New Mexico in the middle of the night, heading west and north to Silver City and the Gila Mountains when the landscape exploded in strobes and loudspeakers 360 degrees around us. I thought, My god they've gone to a lot of trouble to bust us.
Well it was the border patrol, and they turned us loose almost immediately. Wrong quarry. Unforgettable.
===========================================
Posted by: kim | August 16, 2005 at 11:24 PM
"But what do I know?"
Obviously, you don't know anything, but nevertheless are willing to slime through insinuation.
Posted by: dogfacegeorge | August 19, 2005 at 04:30 PM
Well, what he knows is hearsay, which doesn't necessarily falsify it, merely hinders its acceptance.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | August 20, 2005 at 11:25 AM