Chertoff was special counsel to the Whitewater Commission and a member of the Federalist society. Michelle Malkin wrote, "A look at Chertoff's strong, aggressive record and statements on homeland security shows that Chertoff supports the kind of hard-headed, threat profiling measures and immigration enforcement opposed by the anti-profiling zealots". Read more here.

From the above, it's pretty clear that Chertoff is not a friend of the Bush-bashing crowd. It was probably an astute move for GWB to nominate a person who ruled against asylum for a tortured man from Bangladesh, or a woman sterilized against her will in China since Kerik's reason for withdrawing from the nomination had to do with hiring a foreign worker, and perhaps appearing soft on immigration. Chertoff's position on foreigners certainly fitted in with the direction that Homeland security had been heading with the Patriot act.

Kerik himself probably withdrew from the nomination for more reasons than not paying taxes on a nanny. Wikipedia says the following:
On December 2, 2004, Kerik was nominated by President Bush to succeed Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security. But on December 10, after a week of press scrutiny, Kerik withdrew acceptance of the nomination. Kerik stated that he had illegally hired a foreign worker as nanny and housekeeper and that he had failed to pay taxes required for her employement. Similar violations of immigration law had previously caused the withdrawal of the nominations of Linda Chavez as Secretary of Labor by G.W. Bush and of Zoe Baird as Attorney General by Bill Clinton.

Shortly after withdrawal of the nomination, the press reported on several other scandals which might also have posed difficulties in gaining confirmation by the Senate. These include outstanding arrest warrant from 1998 stemming from unpaid bills on the maintenance of a condominium (documents regarding this warrant were faxed to the White House less than three hours before Kerik submitted his withdrawal of acceptance to the President), questions regarding Kerik's sale of stock in Taser International shortly before the release of an Amnesty International report critical of the company's stun-gun product, two simultaneous extra-marital affairs, a sexual harassment lawsuit, allegations of misuse of police personnel and property for personal benefit, connections with a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime, and failure to comply with ethics rules on gifts.
I'm not sure who I'd prefer to have as the head of FEMA when the choice is between a hardline, right wing ideologue, or a man who plays quick and fast with the law.

It is impossible to accept that from all the talented individuals in the United States only these two were worthy of nomination. Frankly when I read "I hope these people are happy with the death and suffering they exacerbated" with respect to the people who investigated Kerik and prompted his withdrawal, I believe a more worthy target of that moral outrage would be the person responsible for nominating two men with such dubious credentials.

I do think that the comparison between Kerik and Chertoff raises an interesting question. In very crude terms, Kerik represents the saviour who reacts to immediate catastrophe. Someone like him might well have been the difference between life and death in NOLA. Chertoff represents the guardian who prevents catastrophe by cleansing a country of its evil elements and holding the foreign barbarian hordes at bay. For those who believe that there is real chance of a terrorist attack in the US, someone like Chertoff might be the better man for the job.

What I’d like to know then is this; Why FEMA doesn’t have both someone to prevent bad things, and someone to respond to bad things? And why did they fail so badly?