Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law
Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson publicly admitted that he canceled a government contract with a business because the CEO was critical of President Bush. From the Dallas Business Journal:
“He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,” Jackson said of the prospective contractor. “He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’
“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’ I thought to myself, ‘Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.’
“He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “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.”
Jackson’s conduct appears to be in violation of federal law. From the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 3.101-1:
Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct.
Jackson has admitted that this particular contract was not awarded with “impartiality.” The business that would have been awarded the contract was excluded because of the contractor’s political views.
The Competition in Contracting Act (41 U.S.C. 253(b)(1)) details the six circumstances in which a particular contractor can be excluded. Needless to say, political views are not on the list.
It is also highly unusual for a cabinet secretary to be involved in the awarding or cancellation of a particular contract. More on this story soon.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I find it odd that the contracor would bother saying anything about the president to the HUD official. I agree that a contract should not be canceled or handed out due to political reasons, but why even bring it up?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pmMan, this is just another example of one self-destructive act after another. It has become more sad than funny at this point.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTypical conservative attitude. Defend the president and break the law at all costs.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pmINDICT!
May 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI just read this thread over at Wonkette.
I was amazed at the guys honesty. We don’t get alot of that from this administration. Maybe this is why….Hmmmmm.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pmI agree with #1, I hate the pres, but I wouldn’t let the Sec. reviewing my contract know that. It’s not pertinent information for the Secretary to know.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pm“He didn’t get the contract,†Jackson continued. “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.â€
Oh my god! This has to be the Twilight Zone. This cannot be serious. What a load of anti-American censorship!
May 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI would call this a pretty damn good advert for the contractor in question.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pmYou can tell this guy was the lowest bidder. To stupid to keep his yap shut. Someone that dumb doesnt deserve thecontrac.t
May 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pmIf I say his S smells like roses can I get the contract to build his throne?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAbove reproach. What a concept.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:34 pmJust did a Google news search on this story. Wonkette. Think Progress, Raw Story. Otherwise….
*crickets*
May 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pmKenny: Too stupid to type, too stupid to spell, too stupid to punctuate. Just too dang stupid.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pmUmm, lets see now, wouldn’t this mean it is time to file class action suits against the HUD for discrimination? I mean, the law is the law.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmThere is a theory in Psychology called the “false consensus effect”. Basically, it occurs when a group of like minded individuals isolate themselves such that they reinforce the false perceptions they each hold.
In the model, they tend to operate in a vacuum whereby outside views and opinions rarely penetrate the dialogue in order to broaden the view and the conclusions of the group.
Seemingly, this administration and its appointees are operating as a textbook example of this phenomenon. I can’t think of a better way to explain the otherwise absurd statements and actions of so many of these individuals. Mr. Jackson is simply a classic case. He must be completely oblivious to the reaction such remarks will elicit. Amazing!
more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
May 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmAfter working ten years to get the damned contact I can understand a hyper-emotional meeting where one has this urge to bare their soul, showing gratitude with extreme honesty. He was saying. “Even though we disagree on the direction our government is going, I’ll show you that Dems have good hearts.” Dumb move, sure. But understandable for the president of a small company. I’ve been there.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pmYou wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here.
It doesn’t sound very plausible that the contractor would just diss the Unitardâ„¢ out of the blue like that.
But I found the quoted sentence very telling. Apparently the contractor was not only legit, but he had made a “heck of a proposal”. What the secretary really meant was, “You won’t get the contract because I’m sitting here.”
May 9th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThere is a theory in Psychology called the “false consensus effectâ€. Basically, it occurs when a group of like minded individuals isolate themselves such that they reinforce the false perceptions they each hold.
–
Sounds more like liberals than people with moral values like Bush.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pmIf this wasn’t a gov’t contract I would say serves him right. Why would you ever think it’s ok to bad mouth the people your hoping to get a contract with? Thats just bad business.
However it was gov’t which means it’s my tax dollars, so I don’t care if the contractor thinks France is the best thing since sliced bread, if his bid is the lowest he should get the deal.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pmExcuse me you swarmy American? You dont like King George? Well then we will just have to tax your tea double. And what is with that indian outfit?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pmBush admin: all cronyism, all the time.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmWhy doesn’t this surprise me? And what I think is worse..impartiality was tossed right out the window..Facism anyone?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI’m guessing this is one of those laws they choose to ignore.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pmSounds more like liberals than people with moral values like Bush.
Comment by Debbie Schutstaffel
In a druged up Rush Limbaugh world sure/
May 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pmMGMcG
Either a dumb move, or a brilliant one. Now that you have the Sec being stupid enough to admit his reason’s for cancelling the contract were pure politics, and actually against the law, this guy can sue, and so can any other Democrat run business the Republicans passed over in various bids for government contracts.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pmIf this wasn’t a gov’t contract I would say serves him right. Why would you ever think it’s ok to bad mouth the people your hoping to get a contract with? Thats just bad business.
However it was gov’t which means it’s my tax dollars, so I don’t care if the contractor thinks France is the best thing since sliced bread, if his bid is the lowest he should get the deal.
Comment by squegeeboo
The government doesnt belong to the person in the white house. This guy wasnt getting a contract from Bush or his lovers… He was getting a contract with America which despite reichwing belief is equally republican and democrat and green and all the other parties as well.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#
There is a theory in Psychology called the “false consensus effectâ€. Basically, it occurs when a group of like minded individuals isolate themselves such that they reinforce the false perceptions they each hold.
In the model, they tend to operate in a vacuum whereby outside views and opinions rarely penetrate the dialogue in order to broaden the view and the conclusions of the group.
Seemingly, this administration and its appointees are operating as a textbook example of this phenomenon. I can’t think of a better way to explain the otherwise absurd statements and actions of so many of these individuals. Mr. Jackson is simply a classic case. He must be completely oblivious to the reaction such remarks will elicit. Amazing!
Or, as another example those on this website
May 9th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThinking about it, why would the contractor discuss politics at all? I am wondering if the secretary brought up politics as the final vet for the contractor?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWell, to all of you wondering why this contractor was stupid enough to open his mouth–how do we know he actually did? We only have Jackson’s account of the story.
For all we know, Jackson spotted a bumper sticker on the guy’s car and asked about it.
Or, after initially awarding him the contract, asked him specifically if he supported Dear Leader.
I have a hard time believing that anyone would just walk up to the person who had control over a contract, and instead of saying “Nice to meet you” or “Hope you found what you needed in my proposal” would instead say “By the way, I think Bush sucks.”
May 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pmPost #18, wake-up and smell the coffee. There are no moral values of Bush at play here. The point is that government contracts aren’t rewards for the politically loyal. This stiffles the freedom of expression, you can be the low bidder and still think the King is a horse’s ass.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:57 pm[...] From Think Progress, this amazing tale of loyalty carried to an illegal extreme. The Bushites continue to thumb their noses at anything that smacks of another a contrary opinion. Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pm#18, Schutstaffel? As in Hitler’s “SS” ?
Are you a troll with a warped sense of humor or a lefty trying to stir up some anti-conservative sentiment?
Either way, I don’t care for your methods. . .
May 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pmf.y.i – just hread on al franken’s show:
May 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pma full hour of RICHARD PERLE on thursday
stream it online if you have to…
Debbie Slutstaffel,
I assume you’re using irony, right? I thought so. Obviously Bush is without morals. He kills, he tortures, he lies his f*****g ass off. He divides the country through hate and fear. I’m glad you agree he is immoral.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pmthis sounds like a bribery issue beyond the obvious discrimination lawsuit for the victim. you would have asked “how stupid could this jackson be” but you know the answer, he was appointed by another idiot to get paid favors from the donors.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pmjackson needs to do hard time, this is fraud at the highest level of our government. wonder which presidential award he gets before the indictment?
Or, as another example those on this website
Comment by bhealy
and 68% of the rest of America… and all the republicans that are calling foul on this adminsitration also… but those are just the little guy republicans not the rich protitute fiddling, watergate poker playing republicans… but republicans none the less.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:01 pmOr, after initially awarding him the contract, asked him specifically if he supported Dear Leader.
It’s The Decider to you.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:08 pmThe Dear Decider? or just The Decider?
May 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe really just don’t get it. They were elected (sort of) to /govern/. they were not elected (sort of) to /rule/.
They really, really think they /own/ the american government, and that as owners they get to do anything they like with it. It’s theirs after all.
all citizens should have to take a refresher course on representitive government and rights and responsibilities.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:12 pmWhy not go with Dearcider, it works, on so many levels
May 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#13 ROB, Sorry for the typo’s I’m multi tasking between here and day trading. I’ve made plenty off of both municipal and federal contracts. Why tell the gov’t more than required? My first govt contract set me for life. The rest were just for buying TOYS. If this guy kept his mouth shut he’d have PLENTY to support or oppose anyone he wanted. Shame on him.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pmand 68% of the rest of America… and all the republicans that are calling foul on this adminsitration also… but those are just the little guy republicans not the rich protitute fiddling, watergate poker playing republicans… but republicans none the less.
And 68% are calling for impeachement, 68% claim 9/11 was an inside job, no. Your example fits a website such as this perfectly, a place where they:
May 9th, 2006 at 3:15 pmtend to operate in a vacuum whereby outside views and opinions rarely penetrate the dialogue in order to broaden the view and the conclusions of the group.
Could the meeting with Jackson have taken place post-Katrina? You can bet that many people sensitive to the fate of New Orleans’ communities of color could have had good reason to express dislike of the administration’s handling of the aftermath. As Mike Davis reported in October 2005, “Public-housing and Section 8 residents recently protested that ‘the agencies in charge of these housing complexes [including HUD] are using allegations of storm damage to these complexes as a pretext for expelling working-class African-Americans, in a very blatant attempt to co-opt our homes and sell them to developers to build high-priced housing.’”
http://www.cantstopwontstop.com/blog/2005/10/gentrifying-disaster-latest-from-mike.cfm
Someone please find this contractor and get their side of the conversation. I suspect that they took exception to Bush’s actions (or lack thereof) with regard to minorities, which Jackson perceived as an attack on Bush the man.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:16 pmI have to agree with Kenny here. The guy is an idiot for bringing politics into it. Take the contracts on their merit and do what you want with your private funds.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:17 pmVery few of the regular posters here believe that 9/11 was an inside job. As for calling for impeachment; no 68% of the country do not support impeachment. However less then 50% of the public called for Clinton’s impeachment, but that did not deter the right.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhat is the background on this guy? He is so obviously qualified for this job. Did he help Brownie with the”my little pony”shows or something? Maybe he was the beer gopher at Bush’s ol college frat parties /snark
May 9th, 2006 at 3:18 pmMany commenters are suggesting that Jackson screwed up by admitting this…why? It’s not like they have to worry about Congressional oversight, right? Or, apparently, much media scrutiny. Meanwhile, Bush yet again gets the word out — make nice with us or you lose. All authoritarian regimes operate in this manner. They don’t hide their abuse of power, they make sure everyone is quite clear about it.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:18 pmToo bad this contractor didn’t offer up some HOOKERS! That sure seems to seal the deal with these Bush people.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#18: PLEASE learn to spell correctly when using your Nazi alias(es?). It’s “Schutzstaffel”, and refers to Hitler’s SS. You would have been severely disciplined in German grade school in the ’30’s for this.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:22 pm#48 Hookers, Kickbacks, From my experinces dealing with HUD is worse than dealing with the MOB. Same vig less opportunity.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:24 pmDebbie Schutstaffel: You are a perfect example of the described phenomenon. Bush has morals? You have got to be insane.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:24 pmGood to see that the author of this article pays attention to Federal Regs and has the intelligence to connect Federal Contracting and the FARS together, thus bringing the reader up to par on what gives with those that aligned themselves with this administration. It’s high time public awareness is brought up to speed on shoddy mismanagement and oversight involving ethics and contracting with the government in general. Hope DCCA is involved in this particular one – no governmental agency, military personnel, etc. is above the law in this area.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI bet the “pay to play” idea came up – probably brought up by HUD Sec. or someone on his staff. Contractor said “no thanks” (meaning no intent to help fund raising for Repubs.) and Sec. said sorry, no contract.
HUD sec. needs to leave for stupidity in describig his MO – plus giving his ethnicity a bad reputaion for lack of saavy about what to tell the press.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pmTundra,
Given that a huge government contract was on the line, I wonder if he did bring politics into it? or if bush’s homeboy did. If I was a salesrep, and was about to close a huge deal, I wouldn’t bring up that I think the guys boss is an idiot. I wonder what’s the other side of the story.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pmAs a consultant in the energy industry, I have to bite my tongue on a daily basis. For instance, imagine being on a call with an Exxon [name changed for the sake of anonymity] executive who says it will be difficult to get funding to bring their a major portion of their B2B technical architecture into the 21st century because, and I quote, “money is very tight right now and we are being asked to cut IT spend.” Talk about a “spitting your milk out suddenly” moment. I actually did laugh out loud at that one! My motto is that “I feed from the very trough which I loathe” but it pays the bills quite nicely :) (and at the end of every day, I take a looong hot shower!)
May 9th, 2006 at 3:27 pmUnfortunately, Jackson seems to be an idiot in several ways. Check out the quote on the third page:
One government contract from HUD, in a fair competitive environment, should not be enough to make someone wealthy. It’s also clear from Jackson’s comments that he views his job as bestowing largesse on favored courtiers.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmVery few of the regular posters here believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
And what percentage of these posters use blogs or websites that extend post #15 “false consensus effect”
As for calling for impeachment; no 68% of the country do not support impeachment. However less then 50% of the public called for Clinton’s impeachment, but that did not deter the right.
And more than 50% of the house callec for impeachment, the senate did not, justice was done.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI have to agree with Kenny here. The guy is an idiot for bringing politics into it. Take the contracts on their merit and do what you want with your private funds.
Comment by Tundra — May 9, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Common sense, sure. But the Constitution guarantees he can. I wanna protect what’s left of our Bill of Rights by being appalled by this egregious act. We have to at some point if we want to keep it.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pm#56 I take exception to that. See #41. I didnt go into business NOT to make money. No one ever does.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pmGiven that a huge government contract was on the line, I wonder if he did bring politics into it? or if bush’s homeboy did. If I was a salesrep, and was about to close a huge deal, I wouldn’t bring up that I think the guys boss is an idiot. I wonder what’s the other side of the story.
As do I. but if I was closing a contract and felt the need I would be interested to draw out the opinons of the contractee. Have them reveal their beliefs. It’s far easier to award a contract to a person with like minded beliefs and often they do better work.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pmYou’all ever hear of Dredd Scott?
May 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAs for calling for impeachment; no 68% of the country do not support impeachment. However less then 50% of the public called for Clinton’s impeachment, but that did not deter the right.
Comment by Krazny
If the president broke the law, he should be impeached, period.
He has admited to warantless wiretaps, which by the way is illegal, and was part of the basis of drawing up the articles of impeachment for Nixon ( which pushed him to resign )
May 9th, 2006 at 3:39 pmSo, either Jackson is lying, or he’s broken the law.
I suspect it shouldn’t be too tough to find out which is which.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:39 pmMaybe Jackson was soliciting a “contribution” and the remark was an explanation of why the contractor wasn’t interested in “donating”.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:40 pmbush is a jack ass and if someone feels like saying so then so the f what ?
May 9th, 2006 at 3:41 pmi think this is still america ?
#60 Awarding a govt contract goes by bidding a specific project or job. Like minded or not it is SUPPOSED to go to the best economic proposal. Not by whether you agree with someones politics. I’ve done business with last 3 administrations. No one ever asked about politics. Jackson should be canned.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:41 pmAnd what percentage of these posters use blogs or websites that extend post #15 “false consensus effectâ€
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Not sure what this has to do with you call for a liberal false consensus. If we were so insular, they would not allow any posts, kind of like Powerline.
Congress does not make up the US public. Near as I can tell, the most that anyone was interested in impeachment of Clinton was high of 40%. I am discounting the 45% yes on the question about if it was the right thing for congress to begin impeachment hearings because some who did not want to Clinton impeached may have said yes, in the hope that by clearing the congress it would lay the matter to rest. yes congress voted yes to impeach, but as this CNN article describes. the vote was along party lines, with a few exceptions.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/
link here for questions, and results.
http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls
May 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThe problem is “he made a heck of a proposal . Any compliment from within this administration is the kiss of death.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:44 pm“money is very tight right now and we are being asked to cut IT spend.†Talk about a “spitting your milk out suddenly†moment. I actually did laugh out loud at that one! My motto is that “I feed from the very trough which I loathe†but it pays the bills quite nicely :) (and at the end of every day, I take a looong hot shower!)
Comment by cosmo
IT???? That’s funny. It’s the first place that gets cut and the last place anyone wants to spend. This is the energy industry bozo and what doesn’t make a profit isn’t worth spit. Hell the guys you’re trying to sell probably don’t even work for the oil company as they started outsourcing IT employees years ago or hiring private firms to unload the IT employee overhead. You feed from the trough you loath do you? Next time you’re in talking to one of their guys why don’t you tell them your motto? You’ll get bitch slapped all the way out the door. F’ing left wing assholes shouldn’t even be allowed to flip burgers.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI would be interested to draw out the opinons of the contractee. Have them reveal their beliefs. It’s far easier to award a contract to a person with like minded beliefs and often they do better work.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
That is illegal. I would like to see your statistics on how many have done a better job because they have a like minded belief? The other funny bit is you accuse us of living in a bubble. Please, what does the above statement say about you?
May 9th, 2006 at 3:47 pm“so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?” – It is interesting that the Secretary sees so much surplus in government contracts that each one involves plenty of extra money to be spent on political campaigns. No wonder we have record defecits instead of record surpluses.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:49 pmAwarding a govt contract goes by bidding a specific project or job. Like minded or not it is SUPPOSED to go to the best economic proposal. Not by whether you agree with someones politics. I’ve done business with last 3 administrations. No one ever asked about politics. Jackson should be canned.
Yes I would have to largely agree.
However in another sense, go ahead and award a contract to someone who wants you out of the business, they have every chance to make you look bad. Furthermore, not every company who wants a government contract is able to make their case to the feds, only those selected and who make enough waves to elicit consideration
Should the government be able to choose who gets contract, yes of course. How those decisions are made depends on wo is giving out the contract but ultimately it comes down to 1 or small group of peoples’ decision.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI think there’s probably some details missing from the HUD secretary’s narrative. I can’t see the contractor bringing up Bush out of the blue, but I can imagine Jackson going on about how great Bush is, fishing for agreement from the contractor, and *then* getting the “I don’t like Bush” remark.
I would really like to hear the contractor’s side of the story!!
May 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#18 –
There is a theory in Psychology called the “false consensus effectâ€. Basically, it occurs when a group of like minded individuals isolate themselves such that they reinforce the false perceptions they each hold.
–
Sounds more like liberals than people with moral values like Bush.
Comment by Debbie Schutstaffel — May 9, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
Debbie.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pmSurely you jest. Bush has no moral values. If he did, he wouldn’t have bombed babies in Iraq. He wouldn’t have led this nation into an illegal war based upon lies. He wouldn’t have broken 750 laws. Do I need to present more of his immoral behavior?
I don’t think one needs an obscure regulation buried in the Code of Federal Regulations to ground a conclusion that this is illegal. In the U.S., we have freedom of speech. Or at least we used to before the President’s inherent authority to do anything he believes will advance the national security usurped the Bill of Rights.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pmAnd what percentage of these posters use blogs or websites that extend post #15 “false consensus effectâ€
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Not sure what this has to do with you call for a liberal false consensus. If we were so insular, they would not allow any posts, kind of like Powerline.
I call for nothing. I contend that #15 uses a psychological analysis to support that the administration believes they are right because they have no one to tell them otherwise. The same rule applies in forums such as this.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmAnd 68% are calling for impeachement, 68% claim 9/11 was an inside job, no. Your example fits a website such as this perfectly, a place where they:
tend to operate in a vacuum whereby outside views and opinions rarely penetrate the dialogue in order to broaden the view and the conclusions of the group.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
this is a perfect example of how right-wing propaganda media has infiltrated the minds of weak individuals. the dialogue has become so diluted by the the o’reilly’s of the world. they project their own god-awful-ness on to liberals so when it comes time for true recognition of the facts, the weak minded individuals can not differentiate. it truly is quite evil how they manipulate language.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmheh.
I’m guessing this is one of those laws they choose to ignore.
It would be much easier if the administration would be so kind as to give us a list of the laws they’ve chosen to follow.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pmr, as another example those on this website
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
If you are so offended by those on this website, then stay the f*ck off.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:59 pmI would like to see your statistics on how many have done a better job because they have a like minded belief?
There is no precendent because they don’t get the contracts.
The other funny bit is you accuse us of living in a bubble. Please, what does the above statement say about you?
The bubble idea was just brought up by #15 who applies it to this administration, when the idea itself can be better applied to a smaller group of people on a likethinking message board.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#15.
1. “folie á deux”-
May 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pm(Shared psychotic disorde)r is a rare mental illness also referred to
as \”folie a deux (\”the folly of two). In this disorder, a person who
is in a close relationship with another person develops a delusion
similar to one held by the other party. This usually occurs between two
people, such as a married couple who has been together many years. It
can also occur in groups, such as with a family. The delusion \”taken
on\” by the related person is very similar to the delusion of the
person affected first.
I didn’t realize government contracts were used rewards. I thought there were bids and decisions were made on that and quality. Oh wait, this is the Bush administration. Cronyism. Corruption. Everything is politicized. You don’t hire people that have skills and qualifications, you hire people who can tow the party line, and will kiss Bush’s …., so he remains isolated from the real world. Bush will turn our great country and government into a 3rd world corrupt shell yet.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:07 pmThe title of this article “Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law” seems to be written poorly. It makes it sound as though the violation of the law was “criticism,” not “cancellation.”
May 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pmYour conjecture might be correct Bhealy except many of the posters here read several new sources, such as newspapers, websites, and gather information from a number of places. I do anyway. I don’t always agree with TP, and I think there are somethings they post about that they don’t need too. However since I gather information from multiple sources, I can make an informed decision instead of whatever is being spoonfed to me.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pmAnother item that hasn’t been commented on above is the line about his fear that the contractor will “use funds to try to campaign against the president.” The Secretary is apparently unaware that it would be extremely illegal for the contractor to use the funds that way, and most if not all contractors are closely audited by the DCAA to verify that the funds are properly spent.
It is legal for contractors to lobby or engage in other political activity, but they have to be prepared to clearly prove that they did it on their own dime.
As noted above, the Secretary also appears to be unaware that it would be unusual for a contractor to get rich from a government contract, since the profit margins are also negotiated by the government and are the kinds of numbers that would make any other industry laugh.
This would be in addition to his lack of awareness that he just admitted to behaving illegally. The HUD IG is going to have to jump up and down on the Secretary now, which they’d probably rather not do.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:09 pmIt’s far easier to award a contract to a person with like minded beliefs and often they do better work.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Yeah – like “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:10 pmMakes me wonder what proceeded the contractor’s admission – was he being vetted politically in person by the director of the agency?
May 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmMakes me wonder what preceded the contractor’s admission – was he being vetted politically in person by the director of the agency?
May 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmI didn’t realize government contracts were used as rewards.
Yeah, I thought any moron could get them.
Your conjecture might be correct Bhealy except many of the posters here read several new sources, such as newspapers, websites, and gather information from a number of places. I do anyway. I don’t always agree with TP, and I think there are somethings they post about that they don’t need too. However since I gather information from multiple sources, I can make an informed decision instead of whatever is being spoonfed to me.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmCool!
Has anyone thought of contacting the Inspector General? They usually take a dim view of official misconuct, that is if Cheney/Rove hasn’t got to them yet.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:15 pmSomeday soon, God willing, a Democrat will again be president. You can be sure that all the Republican contractors currently feeding at the government trough will suddenly be reborn in their belief in the need for impartiality in government contracting and the sanctity of free speech. After all, even if the contractor says nothing, his political contributions are public record for all to see. Mark my words, suddenly, the K Street project will be considered unAmerican. And suddenly, all of the trolls on this web site will immediately change their tune and denounce preferential treatment based on politics. It only goes to show that IOKIYAR.
Me, I will continue to believe that contracts must be based on impartial, objective standards. Even though it is a lovely fantasy to imagine all those overpaid right wing contractors with no government contracts filing bankruptcy (under our new bankruptcy laws, no less.) However satisfying that would be, it would be wrong. But, that’s the difference between the left and the right. The left believes in doing what is good and right, the right believes in doing what is good for the right.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI would have been curious about the logic of the offeror/contractor badmouthing Chimpy if it were not for the fact that i’ve worked in government procurement before and have heard all manner of wisecracks made by bidders about the procurement officers, the legislators and every other political functionary above and below the process.
The thing is, though, as long as their offer is solid and the evaluation criteria have all been met, any other reason for rejecting a contract invites litigation by the bidder on the grounds of inappropriate action on the part of the Agency.
In short, The HUD guy should have his figurative tits in a vise over this one.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmIt seems very fishy to me that a small business owner who is being awarded a contract by HUD would just bring up politics out of the blue. My speculation would be that Sec. Jackson asked for a kickback and when the contractee refused and was asked why, he then stated his belief. In reality though, we have very few details as of yet on this deal (basically all we have to go on are the SecHUD’s words). Regardless, we still have a 1st Amendment in this country and under the Code of Federal Regulations, it is illegal to withhold (or give) preferential treatment in the awarding of Government contracts because of one’s political beliefs. Judging by Jackson’s statements, he should be immediately fired and investigated to ascertain if he has broken the law. I think it will be very interesting to here the other side of this story.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:18 pmIt’s far easier to award a contract to a person with like minded beliefs and often they do better work.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Yeah – like “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a jobâ€.
Comment by cats are flyfishn — May 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
As opposed to: “well, thanks for doing a crappy job but at least you made us look bad, thanks maybe if you make us look worse your person can get elected.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:18 pmI would recommend that any contractor that was found to have participated in the current circus of corruption should be barred from federal contracting for 20 years.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pmMaybe it was the twice-life size floodlit portraiit of W above his desk–you know, the one with the nimbus of light around his head…
May 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pm[...] If the President does not fire this apparent law breaker, then he will have reduced the public’s businesses to the status of a mob deal, where what matters is not how well you do your job but who you kick up to. Only the right people, as defined by their political contributions, would be allowed to have jobs. [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pm. “folie á deuxâ€-
(Shared psychotic disorde)r is a rare mental illness also referred to
as \â€folie a deux (\â€the folly of two).
Must have been in the koolaid because there are still 31% drinking that stuff.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pmbhealy-
Preemptive conspiracy theories are not a reasonable basis for a theory of governing. You are a crackpot.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pmhttp://www.hud.gov/complaints/fraud_waste.cfm
May 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWhat don’t you guys get about the intrusion of politics into this? People keep posting “what an idiot that contractor was!” for telling Jackson that he “had a problem with the president.” As many have pointed out this occured, if it occured at all, in a strange and unusual personal meeting with the secretary–a man who confesses in the next line that he sees all contracts as a straight up ATM transaction for the bush re-election campaign. It seems obvious to me that the “I have a problem” with the president comment (if it occured at all) happened in the context of Jackson *hitting the contractor up* for major donations for Bushco at the same time as he held out the possibility of the contract being approved. Jackson was asking for a bribe, or a kickback, for bush in the form of campaign donations (which he thinks is perfectly legal) and the contractor responded “I have a problem with bush” or outright refused to do it.
aimai
May 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmThat bastard needs to go, Lowdown piss ant.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSounds to me like the guy’s just admitting what we all know – that the US is a kleptocracy where bribery (disguised as campaign financing) is the name of the game.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pmI really have to respond to comment #72. First, my background:
I was a Senior Trial Attorney with the United States Air Force Office of the Chief Trial Attorney. I represented the Air Force, NSA and CIA in government contract litigation for over ten years. As a reserve JAG, I participated in the defense of contractor bid protests for a like period of time. I did an additional nine years as an inhouse counsel for a defense contractor with responsibility for government contracts. Again, I handled claims, bid protests and other related compliance issue.
I also taught government contract law and complex litigation management for the Air Force Institute of Technology.
Your post exhibits an amazing amount of ignorance of government contract law. Indeed, the extensive regulation of government contract awards has everything to do with a history corruption and partisan favoritism shown in past contract awards. One merely need review the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Departmental Supplements, GAO Bid Protest decisions and Competition in Contracting Act to understand that the action taken by the Secretary was just wrong. The history of procurement history and the numerous scandals that have errupted in the past fully justify the requirement for objective criteria. This includes past experience with the contractor, management review, technical qualification and so forth. Your arguments just do not hold water. As an experience government contract attorney with experience on both sides, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
The Secretary should be investigated for gross malfesance in office. He should be immediately removed from any input into contracting matters and should be dismissed after a fair review. (Yeah, he is entitled to due process; however, his admission against interest should pretty well cook his goose.)
May 9th, 2006 at 4:25 pmThe problem is this isn’t a contract with President Bush, or a contract with the republican party, or a contract with the conservative voters of the United States of America. This is a contract with the government of the United States of America, which is supposed to represent all of us, not just those who happen to be in power at any particular point in time.
We are a nation of many peoples, not a nation of a priviledged few.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:25 pmAs opposed to: “well, thanks for doing a crappy job but at least you made us look bad, thanks maybe if you make us look worse your person can get elected.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
May 9th, 2006 at 4:28 pmHuh? There is no logic to your statement nor is there any intelligence in your statement. Keep drinking the koolaid – it helps lessen the pain of living in a country that was once a Democracy and is slowly turning into a Dictatorship.
Our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development knows on which side his bread is buttered, and the taxpayers have only margarine.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:28 pmThe bubble idea was just brought up by #15 who applies it to this administration, when the idea itself can be better applied to a smaller group of people on a likethinking message board.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Or, as another example those on this website
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
bhealy,
Are you redoubting the elusive point you are so weakly persuing to say that there is some un-named like-thinking message board where an insular bubble effect might exist as a generalized possibility? Or do you stand by your original accusation that this message board is such? If so, do you consider yourself inside that insular bubble, since you are very much a part of this message board? Or are you just making idle accusations without any consideration as to whether they have any rational basis or not?
Just wondering.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:30 pmI don’t understand why people get so surprised and shocked when assholes act liike assholes.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:32 pm[...] “Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called on President Bush to ask for the immediate resignation of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson if a report about government contracts being awarded based on the contractor’s opinion of President Bush are accurate.” 4:33 pm | Comment (0) [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 4:34 pmjmoor
Thanks for your informative comment. Unfortunately, it will not stop the koolaid drinker because he forgot to get a brain that works and he will never be able to process your comment.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:36 pmI disagree with those who are saying it was stupid of the contractor to speak up. If I had a chance to tell a cabinet officer something I’d like Dubya to know about, I’d do it too.
If the contractor did short-circuit, it was in thinking a man appointed by Bush would actually obey the law, doing what’s right instead of what’s politically expedient.
And in that regard, isn’t it interesting that Jackson is actually boasting about this unethical dereliction of duty? He’s proud of it. He takes it for granted that any other person in his position would do the same.
Oy!
May 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pmbhealy-
Preemptive conspiracy theories are not a reasonable basis for a theory of governing. You are a crackpot.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, But go ahead give a contract to those who want you to fail.
As opposed to: “well, thanks for doing a crappy job but at least you made us look bad, thanks maybe if you make us look worse your person can get elected.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Huh? There is no logic to your statement nor is there any intelligence in your statement. Keep drinking the koolaid – it helps lessen the pain of living in a country that was once a Democracy and is slowly turning into a Dictatorship.
You dispute nothing.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:39 pm#110 – New Jersey is certainly a progressive State unlike PA that has man on dog Sanitorium.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pmHe left out one crucial part of the conversation, the part where he said to the contractor, “You are of course going to kick back 15% of the contract ot the RNC, you do know that’s a customary requirement of these contracts, right?”
May 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pmIf it GW Bush’s company it would make sense. But here is the very crux of the point.
Alfonso Jackson, like George W Bush and many in his administration view OUR TAX DOLLAR as their PERSONAL SLUSH FUND.
Alfonso’s supposes that we shouldn’t dis the Pres is we want to get a contract with the American People. Here’s a clue Alfonso – GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY CASH! You greedy son-of-a-bitch using my tax dollar as a cash reward to your friends!
May 9th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#116
Thanks for the explanation - personal slush fund. That explains the deficit.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThis is why EVERYONE should be paying LESS taxes. Give the govt as LITTLE as you can get away with.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:56 pm“Jackson’s conduct appears to be in violation of federal law.”
May 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pmNot likely. I’m sure Bush issued a signing statement.
Is that what Bush Cheney and the GOP Neo-Cons call a”Free Market”?
or is it just “Good Ol Boy” Privatization?
So much for Freedom Equality and Brotherhood.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:58 pmmore like.
Torture, Inequality, and Division
If it’s illegal, he’s out.
But once he’s out, there’s gotta be a way to sue his ass into a hole in the ground.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:58 pm.
#121 After he’s out he’ll be a lobbist for a contractor. Circle of Life in D.C.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pmTypical right wing nuttery: Blame the victim. If someone from the previous admin had done something like this they’d be screaming bloody murder. Assholes.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pmbhealy (113)-
You are incomprehensible. You truly think that the Bush administration should award all contracts to GOP-faithful contractors because there may be someone out there who might shoot himself in the foot, just to make the Secretary of HUD look bad, just to make the President look bad, just so maybe a Democrat could get elected 3 years from now?
Give it up.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pmOf course, this means that fewer than one out of every three Americans is “qualified” (i.e., ideologically pure enough) to get a HUD contract.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pm.
[...] Hat-tip to Think Progress, which has the rest of this breaking story. Anybody surprised? [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#
As a consultant in the energy industry, I have to bite my tongue on a daily basis. For instance, imagine being on a call with an Exxon [name changed for the sake of anonymity] executive who says it will be difficult to get funding to bring their a major portion of their B2B technical architecture into the 21st century because, and I quote, “money is very tight right now and we are being asked to cut IT spend.†Talk about a “spitting your milk out suddenly†moment. I actually did laugh out loud at that one! My motto is that “I feed from the very trough which I loathe†but it pays the bills quite nicely :) (and at the end of every day, I take a looong hot shower!)
Comment by cosmo — May 9, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Gonna take alot more than a shower to wash that kind of slime off.
My motto is You are what you eat.
Does that food you buy taste slimey? That car you drive do you give it a hot shower every day? why not? it washes the SLIME off deosn’t it?
May 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pmHow can you be proud of what you just said?
Pay to Play. This is the Republican’s vision of America.
It has been their M.O. since the 1994 takeover of Congress. The K-Street Project. Lobbyist written legislation. Earmarks. They don’t hide the fact, they do it in the open. The Secretary had an unguarded moment and let the truth slip.
When they control the purse, money goes only to those on their team. Party before country, that is the reality of Republican government.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pmSa are we living in an oligarchy or a cleptocracy? I can never keep those two straight. Could it be an oligarchic cletpocracy??
May 9th, 2006 at 5:14 pmThe bubble idea was just brought up by #15 who applies it to this administration, when the idea itself can be better applied to a smaller group of people on a likethinking message board.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Them’s fightin’ words! Show me where I have ever agreed with anyone about anything! That’s the republican’s thirteenth commandment; “never speak ill of another republican.”
May 9th, 2006 at 5:21 pmBut if you look at the posts, you’ll see we slam dems also, so your assertion holds no relevence. Getting liberals to agree on anything is “like herding cats” -or hadn’t you heard that? So you were saying…?
“You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here.”
Hmm. Very curious thing to say.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:21 pm[...] Think Progress » Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pmAs opposed to: “well, thanks for doing a crappy job but at least you made us look bad, thanks maybe if you make us look worse your person can get elected.
Comment by bhealy — May 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
So is Halliburton is trying to overthrow the Bush regime?
May 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pm[...] The Bush Administration does it again! [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThe BHEALY series of comments are very disturbing. The train of thought really does capture a certain mental instability, paranoia and ignorant narrow minded view point of many fringe Republicans. Anyone who fails to suscribe to their viewpoint is by definition “out-to-get-them” Indeed, bhealy belies the prejudice and paranoia very nicely. First, bhealy suggests that there will be better contract performance if the contractor likes Bush because they will be like-minded. Such a broad brush stroke. There are many issues that a Democrat may agree with Bush on even though he thinks Bush is a bad president. Similarly, Bush and a good Republican may very well think Bush to be a great president but have diametrically opposed visions on a technical issue of contract performance. The assumption that a contractor of a small, minority owned contractor would purposefully put their business and personal financial security at risk, merely to embarass the president is absurd. Does bhealy really believe that this contract and its failure would receive national news coverage and so taint Bush that the government would fall. The behealy arguments expose a viewpoint that threatens are democracy by indicating that one can only participate by enrolling in the true belief and that dissenters do not merely disagree but constitute a threat to the pure religion. PLEASE SEEK COMPETENT MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pmGiven that a huge government contract was on the line, I wonder if he did bring politics into it? or if bush’s homeboy did. If I was a salesrep, and was about to close a huge deal, I wouldn’t bring up that I think the guys boss is an idiot. I wonder what’s the other side of the story.
I’d like to know the other side as well. One thing either should have been smart enough to do or not do, is discuss politics during a business meeting. Of course with the politicians on the hill now adays, Sex/religion would have worked better.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:49 pmI find this hard to believe. Not that Jackson would do what he did, but that this contractor, after 10 years of trying, woudl finally get a contract, and the first thing out of his mouth is “I have a problem with your president.” I don’t believe that for on e second tat the contractor said that. It was probably something even less direct or innocuous. Maybe the man had an anti-war lapel pin. Maybe Jackson percieved him to be a liberal or something. And then, in true wingnut fashion, broke the law to exact a political price.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pmthis is amazing. as noted here, corruption in government is one thing, but open corruption?
May 9th, 2006 at 6:06 pmNot sure who was more stupid – the contractor for talking politics, or the HUD secretary for admitting he cancelled the contract over the contractor’s politics – in so doing EXPLICITLY BREAKING F*ING FEDERAL LAW! And is this blog the only place I’m going to see this? Maybe Olbermann’s “worst person of the year’ if we’re lucky… but probably not by some Senate oversight committee.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pmY’all are making a fundamental mistake with everything posted so far. You are assuming that the HUD guy was accurately describing the events that led the stalwart Bush-supporter to yank the contract.
What has the contractor said aboout the same event?
May 9th, 2006 at 6:12 pmIDIOT! Pretty simple. Just a plain ol’ IDIOT.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:21 pmI have to wonder whether this is a real story or a made up one. Is the contractor identified anywhere are have we heard from this contractor?
In either case what stands out above all else is the mobster-like protection-racket type of story the HUD secretary delivered. It has been clear for some time that laws don’t exist for these Bush people, they just act on the spur of the moment without regard for, or with total disdain for (if they even bother to educate themselves about law) the laws.
This is incredibly arrogant, not just because of what he said but that he said it in such a public fashion as part of a presentation to what he must have considered his “home” audience. Still this was a public forum, hardly a smoky back room with a tiny number of whiskey-sipping cronies from some 1930’s movie.
This guy should be fired on the spot, as should the rest of these mobsters who dare to call themselves and administration.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pmAll people appointed by W are political hacks and most unqualified to do anything let alone run an agency. They are empowered by W and they don’t even bother to look ethical. What you see folks, is what you get. Dumb hacks, the whole lot, selected by “the decider”. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:05 pmComment 140 really lacks logic. At this point, the HUD secretasrty has publicly noted that the politics of a contractor are considered to be a relevant (if not controlling) factor in awarding a contract. He expressed that opinion to potential contractors. Comment 142 picks up on the inappropriateness of the comments. It is really irrelevant. His comments clearly show his belief that Federal Procurement Law does not govern and that well thought out policy to eliminate corruption and partisanship from contract awards has been attacked at the highest level of the Department. What would you get as the message? Most would know that the administration should never be criticized. Smart ones would make sure that they donated to the Republicans and work it into the conversation, if not leave behind a copy of the receipt or FEC filings to prove it.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:12 pm“Kindness” wrote “I was amazed at the guys honesty”.
No, Darlin’ – he’s just ignorant. He thinks this is how government works. He hasn’t a clue that the’s there to serve the interests of the people.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:40 pmThose of you who keep commenting about what a fool the contractor was for speaking up seem to think he just offered up the comment out of nowhere. I guess you missed the part of Jackson’s story where the contractor had come to him to thank him for getting the contract in the first place. It’s fairly obvious that some sort of conversation took place and the guy probably responded to a comment of Jackson’s..
Assuming, of course, that the story is true and Jackson’s not only stupid enough to have done this but stupid enough to say he’d done it without actually having done it.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pmRe: Post number 29, you’re probably spot on.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:52 pmLast I checked little Bush’s approval rating was at 31% (and dropping).
Does that mean 69% of US citizens are not eligible for government contracts anymore?
My God – how much more corrupt and clueless can these people get?
May 9th, 2006 at 7:55 pm[...] A spokesperson for Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson responded today to reports that Jackson publicly admitted cancelling a government contract with a business because the CEO was critical of President Bush. Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson’s comments at his April 28 speech were purely “anecdotal.” [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pmwhat?! a bush appointee conducting the people’s business in a completely partisan way?! but…but…that just doesn’t make sense! we all KNOW bush PROMISED to be a “uniter, not a divider”!
this is clearly a lie! you are all bush-haters, and by extension, america-haters also!
May 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pmMy take on the “why did the contractor bring it up?” issue is that he was raising the question of whether his views would be a problem.
And this douche answered the question with a resounding “Yes, it IS a problem”.
My prediction: there will be months of conflicting stories about whether it actually happened, then the guy will receive his Medal of Freedom and go spend more time with his family.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:23 pmHow moronic, embicilic and pathetic. The thesis that America and its people have been on the dumb down for over thirty years is supported and validated here. And the idiots who can process information only through the prism of “Liberal” versus”consevative” serve no more purpose than to take any worthwhile dialogue and examination of issues and reduce that dialogue and examination to further lows. This is the case of a blind follower in a position granted through patronage now clearly breaking the law that the fearless leader has swarn to uphold. They should all be joining Moussaaoui in Super Max.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:42 pm[...] Predictably, enough, the Pollyannas of the left (Pink Progress and Duncan Jackass) have their panties in a twist about this. [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 8:48 pmI actually agree with you, Debbie. I think the biggest problem in this country is Bush’s morals – They are few and far between.
You see, liberals HAVE strong moral values, like fairness and justice for example. Bush doesn’t appear to have those kind of values, and people with moral values like Bush’s have gotten put in charge. They confuse power with wisdom and we’re all going to be paying for it for a very long time!
May 9th, 2006 at 8:53 pmRestricting the power of an agent of the President in a time of war is an improper infringement on the executive branch. Further, Reagan proved that blatant partisanship is impartiality. Lastly, any discussion of housing and urban development these days must begin with a few remarks about the progress we are making in Iraq…
May 9th, 2006 at 9:06 pmBottom line: if you want the president’s money, you keep your criticism to yourself. The HUD doesn’t hand out charity, it gives money to people that will support the White House. Elections have consequences. If you want money from a Democratic president, try electing a Democratic president. Until then, keep your opinions to yourself if you want the government’s money.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:22 pmJust like how Guiliani played politics with HUD funds in NYC in the 90s – http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/9/194521/2334
May 9th, 2006 at 10:21 pmThis is just the tip of the iceberg.
I bet the Bush administration has run out of LITMUS PAPER by now. And as they are reordering, they will only order from a contractor certified to be Republican or an Evangelical Religious Fundamentalist..
In other words, what the Republicans (think Delay) have done to K Street, and the Republican hand-picked Generals have done to the military, the Bush administration, along with their crony appointees, have done to the procurement process of OUR DEMOCRACY.
So, why do I not believe what this Jackson partisan hack said: “Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’” Riiight.
Now we know what a one-party COMMUNIST police state looks like…from the inside, unfortunately. Cronyism. Corruption. Incompetence. These are the true colors of the neo-con Republican Party…not red, white and blue.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:28 pm[...] “He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “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.” Think Progress explains how his actions are likely illegal. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has demanded that Jackson resign immediately if the statement is accurate. And MA Congressman Barney Frank is calling for an investigation: “If this account is accurate, your comments and actions were improper and most likely illegal,” Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Henry Waxman of California wrote to Jackson on Tuesday. [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 10:43 pmWhy did Jackson automatically assume that contract payments are supposed to kickback to support the president? It that de riguer in this culture of corruption?
May 9th, 2006 at 11:16 pmBest Guess: The Secretary hit the poor SOB up for a “little contribution” for the cause: in those circumstances, I woulda splattered the guy all over his office, so merely pointing out that I didn’t like Der Bungle would have been restraint beyond MY limited powers.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:27 am[...] HUD Secretary Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law “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.” [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 1:11 amYou can tell this guy was the lowest bidder. To stupid to keep his yap shut. Someone that dumb doesnt deserve thecontrac.t
Comment by Kenny — May 9, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Maybe we should all just be quiet about our political opinions, ESPECIALLY, if our livlihoods are involved. NOW THAT’S AMERICA!
May 10th, 2006 at 7:15 am[...] U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson knows which side his bread is buttered. Mr. Jackson loves his President and won’t take any crap from unpatriotic pinko commie Bush hating liberals. Apparently, Jackson runs his department with a focus on loyalty. Anyone messes with the President they mess with him. He believes you are either with the President or against him; and he is willing to use the power of a federal agency to show you exactly what being against the President will cost you in real hard cash. So, beware you moonbats, commies and "hate America first" bleeding heart contractors. Get with the program or get lost. [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 9:21 amYeah? THAT’S RICH! A policy of doing business with only pro-Bushy’s is going to leave them in one PRETTY TIGHT CORNER considering the man’s approval rateings. If the trend continues, and I’m pretty sure it will, there very well may soon be no one left to contract WITH!
May 10th, 2006 at 9:43 amWho is the bigger idiot? The contractor or the Housing Secretary.?
May 10th, 2006 at 9:52 am#166 That would be Jackson. You have no idea how politics were brought into the conversation do you? For all you know, it was Jackson asking about it. ASSuming is naive.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:25 amBusinesspeople should be able to openly to express their political opinions without that affecting whether or not people do business with them. Business to business (or business to government) transactions should be about getting the best deal, even if the business partner is a political enemy. The reputation of businesses are built upon the superiority of their product and the quality of their service and customer relationships, not the personal politics of its employees or leaders.
Our economic system traditionally has held sway over partisan politics in the U.S., but now the Bush reichists want to upend that tradition?
Oh that’s right, this regime has no sense of history, integrity or honor.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:47 amThis is what one can expect living in a Fascist state.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:04 amhttp://www.politicallyoutspoken.com
[...] Now, of course, there’s a little problem with that anecdote: if true, Jackson broke the law. [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amWhern you guys stop poo-poo-ing the overwhelming evidnce that our government ans society are being manipulated from places beyond our shores, and start accepting the basic principal of the agenda of International Bankers – the wealthiest people in the world, Bill Gates considered – all of this Twilight Zone stuff will start to make sense.
Until we do, we’ll continue to sit around and scratch our heads over the back and forth pendulum swing of American politics. They play ball with both sides, and right now it’s the Democrats’ turn to pretend to be in power. The Right is being thrown under the bus now, so that we can all enjoy the illusion that our ideological contests are not simply Pro Wrestling theater. And we do love or political theater, don’t we?
Hopefully, some day we’ll wake up.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:23 pmAs disgusting as it may look, this is just another example of this administration’s culture: CRONYISM!
Also, laws and ethics don’t matter to this admin much. We are indeed inching towards a dictatorship.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:33 pm[...] Think Progress » Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pmPer comment 149
The HUD Secretary may not have actually denied the guy a contract.
This explination sounds a little iffy, but could be true.
http://www.nylawyer.com/display….s/06/05/ 051006b
(requires registration)
The HUD Secretary spokeswoman acknowledged that Jackson told the story. But, she said, the story was untrue.
“The secretary’s story was anecdotal. He is not part of the contracting process,” said HUD spokeswoman Dustee Tucker. “He was trying to explain to this group how politics works in D.C.”
Jackson, speaking at an April 28 forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, told about a minority contractor who had finally landed an advertising contract with HUD after trying for 10 years, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal.
(from the Dallas BJ)
“He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president,’” Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper.
“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’” Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry.
“He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson said. “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.”
May 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm[...] On April 28, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson told a real estate group that he had canceled a government contract because the contractor criticized President Bush. (If true, Jackson’s conduct appears to violate federal law.) [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pmKrazny asked ‘Why even bring it [the fact you don't like the president] up’. The answer is that it isn’t necessary to bring up, but it most certainly is telling about the state of American democracy.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:30 amWhy not bring it up? The only reason is to avoid the fear, persecution and retaliation regularly practiced by this mean-spirited, incompetent administration.
In a real democracy, there’d be no reason not to bring it up, and I guess the contractor forgot where he was living.
What, not support the mafia godfather, how unamerican! Is this not the standard mode of operation on “K” street???
May 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pm[...] There’s little reason to trust in the Administration anymore, as they’re all crooks and liars. Not even the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can be trusted. There are prostitutes all over Washington — and some of them aren’t Congressmen! Washington is currently caught in a state of fear and loathing, and all of it is being done by one petty man. Soon, Tony Snow will turn to Ron Ziegler, because history is the greatest passion play and Republicans love reliving the past. [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 1:57 pm[...] It’s not about providing a valuable service at a fair price. It’s about getting on the list, getting the money flowing and making sure you don’t criticize the President. Whether the details of Jackson’s speech were fact or fiction, it’s a grossly irresponsible message and a violation of the public trust. [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 4:27 pmi’ve been waiting since 1980 for HUD to fix my home ; — i was one of the first in scranton pa to ask for help and have been ignored ever since asking
May 11th, 2006 at 5:04 pmWas someone expecting ANYONE in the Bush flushbowl to behave like anything more than a hominid? It doesn’t matter that a contract was jerked because the man didn’t like bush. No one walking upright likes Bush, unless rich or stupid or both. Further, no bid contracts are against the law as well, but Halliburton picked up their checks. Didn’t do most of the work and over charged the American people, but why are people choking on yet another Bush crime. At some point we can only hope someone will catch these perverts in a gaggle and riddle them with bullets. Clearly talking and “calling on” “elected officials” has produced nothing. There comes a point when the talking stops and the action begins. The US passed that mark six years ago. There are no elected officials, and there hasn’t been a government closely resembling a decent social control construct in six years. The President of the United States has yet to assume office. When the Republicans leave, die, are killed, or by some other means disposed of and dispatched forthwith, then we can hopefully try to get back to the rough road to democracy, not before.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:58 pmWho knows the difference between a republican and a catfish? No ideas? One of them is a scum sucking bottom feeder, and the other is a fish.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:01 pmA Bush appointee who is foolish enough to admit a violation of the law by denying a contract based upon the contractor’s political preference is also foolish enough to have asked the contractor about his politics, which would also be unlawful. I would not just accept at face value that this contractor just blurted out his political views without first being asked about them. Too bad the reporter did not find out who the contactor was so the contractor could be asked his version of the conversation with Alfonso Jackson.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:40 pmDoes anyone remember: “Those whose countries weren’t part of the Coalition (sic) won’t be allowed to bid on Iraq reconstruction contracts.”
The rot starts at the head. At most, poor Foot-in-Mouth Jackson will be a scapegoat for an administration who set this “pay to play” tone long ago.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pm[...] I'm not sure whether this is irony or just the fine madness that has griped our nation at the hands of dull conservative minds, Housing Sec. Canceled Contract Because Contractor Criticized Bush, Apparently Violating Law “He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “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.” [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 3:29 amAs a Republican, I believe it should be a criminal offense, preferably felony, to criticize the president.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:38 amI am NOT surprised that Bush has ordered FEMA to pull out of New Orleans, but where did all the billions of dollars go that supposedly have been spent? There needs to be an audit to determine if FEMA funds were pilfered or stolen > if proven, then Bush must be arrested and given a prison term!
November 20th, 2006 at 7:33 amAnyone who fails to suscribe to their viewpoint is by definition out-to-get-them Indeed, bhealy belies the prejudice and paranoia very nicely. First, bhealy suggests that there will be better contract performance if the contractor likes Bush because they will be like-minded.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:10 amBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 6:40 amwomen’s wrestling
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:12 amfarmer’s market
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pm[...] friend” and former neighbor — famously questioned, “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 [...]
March 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pmBoobs Monster Tits Big Tits Round Asses
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pmMelissa
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:48 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 11:53 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 3:05 amCar Hire Quote
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:08 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pmReward Points
Collateral Mortgages
March 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 9:51 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:02 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:53 amBig Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:22 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pmEric
One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger.) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack
March 19th, 2008 at 9:58 pmBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 amJack
I had to read your post twice. The idea you have just shared is really very good. Thanks for the post. Great stuff.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:12 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 6:22 am[...] 28, 2006, Jackson recounted a conversation he had with a prospective contractor who had a “heck of a proposal.” This contractor, however, told Jackson, “I don’t like President Bush.” [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 10:28 amMarriage Counselling…
Living in Mallorca can be both exciting and challenging at times, but when you find yourself a bit overwhelmed by life the British Counselling Service are there…
November 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm