Bush Housing Secretary Is Under Investigation

[IJ Reilly]

Alphonso Jackson told a business group that he denied a contract to a critic of the president.

WASHINGTON — An inspector general is investigating Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson's comments to a business group that he rejected an advertising contract because the contractor had criticized President Bush.

"We have received a number of complaints from the public as well as from members of Congress," Michael Zerega, spokesman for HUD's inspector general, said Friday. "We are reviewing this matter and will look to the facts and any applicable law or requirements."

Jackson issued an apology Wednesday, saying he made up the story. He won Bush's support Friday.

"Alphonso Jackson has admitted that what he said earlier was improper, that it was a mistake, and the president accepts that and still supports a man with whom he's had a long and close relationship," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said.

The Congressional Research Service issued a memorandum saying it would violate federal law — and perhaps the Constitution — to deny a contract to someone because of his or her political affiliation.

"Contracts may not be awarded on the basis of personal or political favoritism, and all potential contractors should be treated with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none," the memo said.

Jackson told a Dallas business group April 28 about a minority contractor who finally had landed an advertising contract with HUD after trying for 10 years, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal.

Jackson said that when the man approached him to thank him for the contract, the contractor said he didn't like Bush.

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper. "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."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hud13may13,1,4508498.story

[aristobrat]

"Contracts may not be awarded on the basis of personal or political favoritism, and all potential contractors should be treated with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none," the memo said.
Yay, Clinton's Travelgate part 2?

[IJ Reilly]

Yay, Clinton's Travelgate part 2?

How so?

[solvs]

Not surprised at all anymore.

[Queso]

We are now watching the Bush administration disintegrating. Unfortunately it looks like the USA is going to suffer two years of complete paralysis as a result.

Is there any way under your Constitution that presidential elections can be called early? This isn't healthy for the world, let alone the USA.

[pseudobrit]

Yay, Clinton's Travelgate part 2?

Now that's a hell of a stretch. Maybe try comparing it to Lewinsky next time. At least that scandal had the familiar patina of illicit sex on it.

[Thomas Veil]

We are now watching the Bush administration disintegrating.Amen, brother. I don't think even the most optimistic of us, watching Bush's speech about "spending his political capital" in January of 2005, expected things to fall apart as quickly, thoroughly and disastrously as they have. I can't believe it myself. On one level, it delights me. But as an American, it horrifies me. It's like watching a slow-motion 30-car auto pileup.

Is there any way under your Constitution that presidential elections can be called early? This isn't healthy for the world, let alone the USA.You're right about that...but nope. Best that can happen is that Bush and/or Cheney are impeached and removed, which just bumps everybody else up a notch. There is no provision in the Constitution for a no-confidence vote, calling a special election, or anything like that.

That question gets asked so often lately by non-Americans that we really ought to make it a sticky at the top of the political forum. ;)

[skunk]

There is no provision in the Constitution for a no-confidence vote, calling a special election, or anything like that.

That question gets asked so often lately by non-Americans that we really ought to make it a sticky at the top of the political forum. ;)Perhaps you should amend your Constitution to allow it.

[Queso]

It's like watching a slow-motion 30-car auto pileup.

That's exactly it. Fascinating to watch, although it leaves you with feelings of horror and unease as the events unfold.

Perhaps you should amend your Constitution to allow it.

Amend the Constitution for something this trivial? Surely only important things like Gay Marriage warrant such drastic measures?

[skunk]

That's exactly it. Fascinating to watch, although it leaves you with feelings of horror and unease as the events unfold.Unfortunately, it's spewing wreckage all over the highway: hard for the rest of us to avoid hitting something.

Amend the Constitution for something this trivial? Surely only important things like Gay Marriage warrant such drastic measures?Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight.
:o

[FFTT]

Amen, brother. I don't think even the most optimistic of us, watching Bush's speech about "spending his political capital" in January of 2005, expected things to fall apart as quickly, thoroughly and disastrously as they have. I can't believe it myself. On one level, it delights me. But as an American, it horrifies me. It's like watching a slow-motion 30-car auto pileup.



I'd prefer things to happen faster giving the guilty less time at the shredders.

The trouble is that I can't think of anyone worthy of the office at the moment.

The lawmakers don't want to regulate themselves out of their cushy jobs, so
where does that leave us with finding a worthy leader.

What a mess

[mactastic]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight.
Very punny sir. Does your wife know this? ;)

[skunk]

Very punny sir. Does your wife know this? ;)She thinks she knows.

[IJ Reilly]

Amend the Constitution for something this trivial? Surely only important things like Gay Marriage warrant such drastic measures?

Comparing two Constitutional amendments that neither should nor will occur?

The U.S. already hold a national election every two years. Presidents only serve for four years. That's more than enough politics for any country, but thank you very much for thinking of us.

[aristobrat]

Now that's a hell of a stretch. Maybe try comparing it to Lewinsky next time. At least that scandal had the familiar patina of illicit sex on it.
Sorry about that.

The whole "Contracts may not be awarded on the basis of personal or political favoritism" part sounded somewhat similar to what I've read happened during the Travelgate thing (where people in the travel office were allegedly fired by Hillary for not giving a Clinton friend any business for the charter company he partially owned. Then a Clinton relative was put in charge of the office, and the White House stonewalled the Republican-nominated committee that was formed to investigate it).

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry about that.

The whole "Contracts may not be awarded on the basis of personal or political favoritism" part sounded somewhat similar to what I've read happened during the Travelgate thing (where people in the travel office were allegedly fired by Hillary for not giving a Clinton friend any business for the charter company he partially owned. Then a Clinton relative was put in charge of the office, and the White House stonewalled the Republican-nominated committee that was formed to investigate it).

The White House Travel Office employees serve at the pleasure of the president. Even congressional Republicans, who worked diligently to raise a political firestorm over the incident, focussed on the supposed "coverup" over why the staff was fired/reassigned, and the supposed involvement of Hillary Clinton, not over any illegality. At worst, this was an example of garden-variety cronyism, of the kind which is apparently a daily occurrence in the Bush administration.

The accusations against Jackson, if they turn out to be true, are far more serious.

[Thomas Veil]

Perhaps you should amend your Constitution to allow it.The subject has been debated, even among the liberals here, without any real consensus on whether it's a good idea.

Plus, our Constitution is designed to make it very difficult to amend. Constitutional amendments have to be brought forth either by Congress itself or by a national convention convened via the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the states. If the amendment gets that far, then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of either the states or of the aforementioned national convention, in order to become law.

Get 2/3 or 3/4 of the US to get together on a major Constitutional change, in this polarized atmosphere? Not a chance.

[Queso]

Comparing two Constitutional amendments that neither should nor will occur?

The U.S. already hold a national election every two years. Presidents only serve for four years. That's more than enough politics for any country, but thank you very much for thinking of us.

The trouble with US elections is the campaining goes on for nearly an entire year beforehand. Over here the parties get four weeks max prior to polling day.

Under the US system, it's amazing anyone holds their interest long enough to vote at all.

[IJ Reilly]

The trouble with US elections is the campaining goes on for nearly an entire year beforehand. Over here the parties get four weeks max prior to polling day.

Under the US system, it's amazing anyone holds their interest long enough to vote at all.

Often more than a year beforehand, but it depends on how you define campaigning. The political maneuvering for 2008 is already well underway. How can this be prevented? In short, it can't. Even in the UK, political speech is protected, is it not?

[Queso]

Often more than a year beforehand, but it depends on how you define campaigning. The political maneuvering for 2008 is already well underway. How can this be prevented? In short, it can't. Even in the UK, political speech is protected, is it not?

Here it's pretty much confined to the news and politics programmes for most of the time, so you can avoid it easily. Our political parties are quite restricted to what they can get away with on TV, as the advertising watchdog keeps direct advertising out of commercial breaks and official Party Political Broadcasts are strictly limited as to when they can air.

Any campaigning outside of the runup to elections happens in the newspapers. However, since anyone who buys a paper tends to go with one that has similar politics to their own it's less obtrusive, and as there are newspapers backing all major parties there's always a choice.

[aristobrat]

The accusations against Jackson, if they turn out to be true, are far more serious.
Agreed.

I just thought it was funny that we've gone from Clinton using cronyism to drum up business for a family friend that wasn't getting any from the White House travel office to Bush, who has a secretary who doesn't giving business to anyone who doesn't support the president.

[IJ Reilly]

Here it's pretty much confined to the news and politics programmes for most of the time, so you can avoid it easily. Our political parties are quite restricted to what they can get away with on TV, as the advertising watchdog keeps direct advertising out of commercial breaks and official Party Political Broadcasts are strictly limited as to when they can air.

Any campaigning outside of the runup to elections happens in the newspapers. However, since anyone who buys a paper tends to go with one that has similar politics to their own it's less obtrusive, and as there are newspapers backing all major parties there's always a choice.

I think you might have some wrong ideas about how this works in the US. The difference is less than you might imagine, the lack of restrictions on political advertising being the main point of departure. Theses restrictions would be found unconstitutional here for the most part. Still even with the next national election only six months off, we're not seeing much political advertising for it, unless it's for a primary, which is an intra-party contest. Many other events are clearly political in nature and campaign-related, but can't really be classified as campaigning.

[solvs]

I can't believe it myself. On one level, it delights me. But as an American, it horrifies me.
I feel the same way. I don't even feel schadenfreude anymore. I'm just sad it's come to this. I hate that I can't stand those in power. I mean, we all joke about politicians, but it's not even funny anymore. Neocons seem to think we like ragging on Bush and his cronies, but I for one would be much happier if they gave me something to like about them instead of all they have done to make me hate them.

Perhaps you should amend your Constitution to allow it.
And who would be the ones to change those laws? As has been alluded to, no one wants to legislate themselves right out of a job. Least of all those most likely to actually be a "victim" of said law.