Ho-hum, yet another story about corrupt Republicans
What a difference a week makes. Last week no one
knew who the Secretary of HUD was (I won't keep you in suspense; his name is
Alfonso Jackson). This week everyone is saying he should resign.
The story has finally made it to the New York Times, about a day and a half after hitting the blogosphere. It starts like this:
An account of Mr. Jackson's speech in the May 5-11 issue of the Dallas Business Journal has him describing someone who had been trying for a decade to land a contract with HUD.
"He made a heck of a proposal and was on the G.S.A. list, so we selected him," the secretary said, alluding to the Government Services Administration.
Mr. Jackson then recalled how the publisher came to see him in Washington to thank him and how the man then volunteered, "I don't like President Bush."
"He didn't get the contract," Mr. Jackson told the real estate forum, according to the Dallas publication. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
Good for him. If you believe we ought to bring back the spoils system (not that we haven't), you should be up-front about it. Why should a deserving contractor be "rewarded" with the taxpayer's money if he or she doesn't like the president? There you have it, corruption so ingrained and second nature that they forget they're supposed to hide it.
Now at first, being as they're all ethically challenged, his spokesperson was unaware that there might be something a tad unethical about all this, so she volunteered that "the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was 'an advertising contract with a minority publication,'" Later the spokesperson explained that, no, she had been lying about that, because in fact, Jackson had been lying, and the conversation he described never took place:
Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson's comments at his April 28 speech were purely "anecdotal."
"He was merely trying to explain to the audience how people in D.C., will say critical things about the secretary, will unfairly characterize the president and then turn around and ask you for money," Tucker said. "He did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process."
Actually, her command of English is not that great. "Anecdotal" doesn't mean "it didn't happen", nor is it a synonym for "parable", but clearly that's what she's trying to say.
One thing she's right about, it probably didn't happen the way Jackson described. As a commenter at Talking Points Memo pointed out, someone looking for a contract from any administration, and especially the Bush administration, is unlikely to volunteer his or her negative opinion about the president. Discrete silence would be the prudent course. In any event, why should politics be part of any conversation in the contracting process? Why indeed, unless the good Secretary was putting the arm on the potential contractor for a political donation?
By the way, Joe Lieberman has joined the pack demanding an investigation. A golden opportunity for him to burnish his newly discovered anti-Bush credentials.
The story has finally made it to the New York Times, about a day and a half after hitting the blogosphere. It starts like this:
An account of Mr. Jackson's speech in the May 5-11 issue of the Dallas Business Journal has him describing someone who had been trying for a decade to land a contract with HUD.
"He made a heck of a proposal and was on the G.S.A. list, so we selected him," the secretary said, alluding to the Government Services Administration.
Mr. Jackson then recalled how the publisher came to see him in Washington to thank him and how the man then volunteered, "I don't like President Bush."
"He didn't get the contract," Mr. Jackson told the real estate forum, according to the Dallas publication. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
Good for him. If you believe we ought to bring back the spoils system (not that we haven't), you should be up-front about it. Why should a deserving contractor be "rewarded" with the taxpayer's money if he or she doesn't like the president? There you have it, corruption so ingrained and second nature that they forget they're supposed to hide it.
Now at first, being as they're all ethically challenged, his spokesperson was unaware that there might be something a tad unethical about all this, so she volunteered that "the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was 'an advertising contract with a minority publication,'" Later the spokesperson explained that, no, she had been lying about that, because in fact, Jackson had been lying, and the conversation he described never took place:
Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson's comments at his April 28 speech were purely "anecdotal."
"He was merely trying to explain to the audience how people in D.C., will say critical things about the secretary, will unfairly characterize the president and then turn around and ask you for money," Tucker said. "He did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process."
Actually, her command of English is not that great. "Anecdotal" doesn't mean "it didn't happen", nor is it a synonym for "parable", but clearly that's what she's trying to say.
One thing she's right about, it probably didn't happen the way Jackson described. As a commenter at Talking Points Memo pointed out, someone looking for a contract from any administration, and especially the Bush administration, is unlikely to volunteer his or her negative opinion about the president. Discrete silence would be the prudent course. In any event, why should politics be part of any conversation in the contracting process? Why indeed, unless the good Secretary was putting the arm on the potential contractor for a political donation?
By the way, Joe Lieberman has joined the pack demanding an investigation. A golden opportunity for him to burnish his newly discovered anti-Bush credentials.
Posted: Wednesday - May 10, 2006 at 09:42 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM