Posted on 05/09/2006 10:44:34 AM PDT by Rebelbase
Alphonso Jackson says deal was scuttled after contractor admits not liking Bush.
Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.
That's the message U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas.
Jackson, a former president and CEO of the Dallas Housing Authority, was among the featured speakers at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, a national minority real estate consortium.
After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.
"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."
Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said canceling a government contract due to political views "is not a door you want to open."
"Whether or not it's legal, it certainly draws your judgment and the judgment of your office into question," Jillson said. "It's just not the tone you want to set."
Told of Jackson's comments, Mary Scott Nabers, a government-contracting consultant in Austin, had a briefer initial reaction. "Oh, my goodness gracious," she said.
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."
Said by one of Bush's cabinet it's cronyism to the nth degree and despicable.
How about loosing the contract by the unnecessary and unprofessional comments as stated above. Not only was a comment like this unnecessary in the context, but it is an interesting reflection of the person if he feels the need to say this in the context.
Would you hire someone who comes to an interview and they choose to make the topic an unrelated rant about the President? I don't care if it were Clinton or Bush, I wouldn't hire someone with that little judgment.
I don't think so.
At last, someone in the Bush administration uses his head for something other than a hatrack, and you find it "despicable?"
Do you perhaps think the Clinton admin was any different???
Or do you think that we should reward our enemies and slap down our friends?
It should be investigated because he said it. But it happens, always has, and always will.
Yet what's most amusing about this piece is the context of the revelation. Government contracts should be awarded on merit alone, but where was this "revelation" made? At a speech sponsored by a national minority real estate consortium.
To publicly state one didn't get a contract because they don't support the President is heinous.
Bush is President of ALL Americans, not just those who voted for him.
Although the article isn't all the clear, I don't think there was ever a contract to lose. Selecting the contractor is only the first step in process. There is no contract until the the written agreement is actually signed by both parties. In fact, almost every Federal contract that I have ever reviewed contains a clause that says something like "this contract shall not be binding upon either party until signed by the contracting officer for the governing agency."
I guess the moral of the story is that if you deal in stolen goods you're going to end up acting like a thief.
L
Ask yourself...was Bill Clinton a two-bit grifter and do we expect better from President Bush and his administration?
I admit that the person wanting the contract was an idiot for even bringing it up, but if he was the best and cheapest for the job his political opinion shouldn't have caused his contract to be canceled.
TOO BAD SO SAD.
More to this story Bump.
Good if it really happened. It wasn't meant to be an open OP/ED bitch session. For someones jockeying for contracts you don't knock anyone because you never know the real connections, just sell based on cost, how good you are and the services you provide.
Bingo, keep politics out of it.
Why would you even say such a thing??????
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a source cited for the quote. Was it caught on tape? Did someone jot it down? Is there corroboration to the original claim that these words were actually spoken?
Facts. We need facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.