Deferred Discussion
Last night I posted about the story that Alphonso Jackson gave a speech in which he said he had not awarded a contract based on a contractors comment that he disliked President Bush. My take on it was that if the story was, in fact, accurate that both Jackson and the contractor were equally dumb. I also mentioned that if the story was made up out of the whole cloth, it was a different discussion.
Time for that other discussion now.
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."
Which sounds about right since nobody has come forward and said they were the contractor that didn't like Bush. Which I would think somebody would absolutely love to do. So now, it would appear that Jackson made a ham-handed attempt to present a cautionary tale. Was it smart? Probably not. Will he lose his job? He very well might. Which is actually not a good thing for minority business:
In 2005, 16% of HUD contracts, or about $167 million worth of work, went to black-owned businesses. Hispanic-owned businesses received 7%, or $71 million. That combined 23% is up from 6% in 2000, the year before Jackson was named deputy secretary of the agency.
Despite getting just 8% and 11% of the African-American vote nationally in his two presidential wins, Jackson said President Bush is committed to creating prosperity for minority business owners.
Sometimes partisan politics has a way of hurting the very people the partisans say they want to help. Real shocker there.
By Tano, May 10, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
Huh?
First off, whether the incident that Jackson recounted actually happened or not is somewhat besides the point. If it did happen, then maybe he is looking at jail time. But if it didnt happen, he still needs to be fired, because to leave him in place will leave the message that he delivered unrefuted – i.e. the message will stand that loyalty to Bush is a valid criterion for awarding federal contracts.
It is outrageous that his office has released a statement that basically claims that Jackson was not being serious about an actual incident, but was merely relating a parable about “how business is done in Washington DC”. Well, there you have it. A high ranking member of the administration sending out the message that partisan corruption is the modus operandi of the Bush administration. I might give him points for honesty there, but the Bush administration had damn well understand that the only way they can deny this characterization is demand his resignation immediatly. Even an abject apology, if he then remains in place, will be interpreted broadly as simply a punishment for a communications snafu, not a repudiation of the policy.
And what is this nonsense about his resignation hurting the minority community? Are you claiming that Jackson was an independent agent pushing greater black participation? Is this, or is this not a goal of the administration? Why do you assume that his successor will not continue to pursue this goal?
By Gaius, May 10, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Tano,
Being a realist is not the same as being a partisan. If you honestly think it’s a real good idea to criticize someone you’re asking for money from, you live in a nice idealistic world which bears no resemblence to how the real world operates. It operates that way regardless of who is in power. Please do not try and pretend the Dems would never do such a thing. I can recall incidents from Clinton’s years just for starters.
Jackson may have been – probably was – trying to get that across. But his delivery sucked. Frankly, I’m surprised he hasn’t already resigned. My point is he’s done a lot of good for a lot of people while in the position.
By Bradley J. Fikes, May 10, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
“Anecdotal.” Is that a polite way to say he was making it up?
By Gaius, May 10, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Yup.
By Bradley J. Fikes, May 10, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
Sounds like the kind of hard-working, dedicated public servant we need more of.
By Gaius, May 10, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
He’s actually done quite a lot of good. Too bad this has happened.