Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican SOP

The standard operating procedure (SOP) of all parties may be represented by the slogan: To the victors belong the spoils. We expect that when a new person is elected to office, he or she will dole out goodies to friends and colleagues. But we also expect a limit to these awards. Not so with Republicans. The idea that you do everything for friends and do nothing but blast political opponents is so well ingrained in Republican officials that they blurt it out loud for all to hear.

Take, for example, what Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of U.S. Housing and Urban Development, did. He was a speaker at the Real Estate Executive Council in Dallas, Texas. Toward the end of his speech, he described a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor:

“He [the prospective contractor] had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years. 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. 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 accepted the proposal and then denied the contractor the contract, merely for finding fault with the president. Nasty stuff. Illegal stuff. Getting a contract should not depend on your political views.

Sure, all politicians do it. But not so openly. They give reasons: the proposal is not good, the proposer is unreliable, someone else is better...... They assure the public that each submission is evaluated on its merits. Jackson thinks what he did is so natural that he did not even try to hide anything.

Not that I am for phony excuses. They are terrible. But Jackson had the chutzpah to do it all in the open as though this is normal SOP in a democracy.

In this respect, he is not a very good Republican. Or maybe he is. He actually believes Republican propaganda that no Democrats could be trusted and that all contracts should be given to Republicans only. He believes it so much that he repeats it in a public speech!

Alphonso Jackson's actions are a sordid expression of the Republican "culture of corruption."

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 10, 2006 7:27 PM
Comments
Comment #147051

Do you really believe the Dems don’t do that?

Posted by: traveller at May 10, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #147054

Do you have a link to this? Federal contracting is a very complicated procedure. If it happened exactly as you say, it would probably be illegal. I wonder if there is more to it.

If it is as you say, I suggest this guy take it to court. We have a right to employ whomever we want when using our own money, but the taxpayers have different standards.

Posted by: Jack at May 10, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #147066

Quite frankly, I’d rather have the guy be open about his corruption than hiding it. Mainly because it’s not the open people I worry about.

Posted by: Zeek at May 10, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #147080

>>Quite frankly, I’d rather have the guy be open about his corruption than hiding it. Mainly because it’s not the open people I worry about.

Posted by: Zeek at May 10, 2006 09:25 PM

Then, you must have a serious hate relationship with Cheney/Bush…he hides EVERYTHING…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 10, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #147086

zeek-
I worry about the guy who says it outright. You get enough people who have no shame about this, and soon enough the standards will only be paid lip service.

Really, we should take care of all of the above. I’m just sick of the rationalization for all this corruption going on. True conservatives and true liberals should have no tolerance for this kind of B.S.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #147091

traveller:

Can you provide a link where Dems actually bragged about denying legitimate contracts to people due to their personal feelings for a Dem Politician?

If you cannot, then you’re earlier claim is a falsehood.

Posted by: Aldous at May 10, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #147094

Aldous

I am still waiting for the link to this one. If it is as Paul says it is not unethical; it is illegal and should be investigated. I suspect there is more to it, although I would not go so far as to say it is a falsehood, just an unsubstantiated claim.

The same would go for Traveller’s statement. Right now we just have two unsubstanitated claims.

Posted by: Jack at May 10, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #147095

Aldous,

Hold on…

We first need to see a legitimate link from Paul before you can even claim any truth at all. Until that happens, this whole post and your post is a a bogus falsehood.

Posted by: Cliff at May 10, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #147110

link text

I’ve never tried inserting a link before, so forgive me if it does not work, but this may be what ya’ll are looking for…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 10, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #147111

Jack,

Here you go: [Dallas Business Journal]

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #147112

I’d like to see a link, too. If it’s true, then Jackson should be prosecuted. No one — Rep or Dem (or whatever) — should be able to brazenly get away with that.

And judging by how shameless guys like Cunningham, Abramoff, DeLay, and even President Bush with his illegal domestic spying, were about their little scams, it wouldn’t surprise me if the incident actually took place.

When you control all three branches of government, it’s easy to become arrogant and believe the rules don’t apply to you and your Party.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #147132

Geez! He made it part of the speech he gave. How stupid is that? I guess not at all because he won’t be held accountable for it, nor will an investigation take place is my bet.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 11, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #147135


Really people, this is old news. It has been all over the cable news chanels today. Jackson doesn’t deny what he said, but he claims it was just a hypothetical that he made up on the spot.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #147138


jlw: there are two n’s in channels.

Talking points memo has a link to the HUD secretaries spokes person.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #147140

Well, of course he claims it was hypothetical, after he got caught saying it. It’s all about deniability.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 11, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #147147

Why would he say it…even hypothetically?

He has to believe it to be the best (most moral) way to go, or he would not even make up the scenerio. Typical Republican ‘high moral ground’…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 11, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #147149

If Alphonso Jackson really said this to someone and cancelled their contract, he would have been run out of town on the democrat and republican railroad. This is typical “buzzard” material…

Posted by: Cliff at May 11, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #147157
Really people, this is old news. It has been all over the cable news chanels today.

So because it’s been talked about for the last 24 hours it’s old news that doesn’t need to be discussed? Weird.

Jackson doesn’t deny what he said, but he claims it was just a hypothetical that he made up on the spot.

First, he told the story in a speech. Then, his spokesperson elaborated on the story as though it were real. Then, when it started turning into a scandal, they changed stories. Now, the original spokesperson is on leave.

Whether the story was true or not, the “message” was clear. If you are critical of President Bush you won’t be receiving contracts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Trying to intimidate people with this kind of rhetoric is deeply unethical. Jackson is being entrusted with public funds. He has an obligation that those funds are spent for the public’s maximum benefit, not to reward those who have the same political beliefs. (from Think Progress)

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #147158

If Alphonso Jackson really said this to someone and cancelled their contract, he would have been run out of town on the democrat and republican railroad. This is typical “buzzard” material.

So, your only defense of Jackson rests not on the law or on the reported details, but on the supposition that a scandal’s not really a scandal if it isn’t resolved within a week.

Really, really weak.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #147163

Boy,

Please read what I said…

If he did cancel that contract, don’t you think the contractor would be screaming bloody murder? AND yes, it would be a scandal…BUT, we have not proven that it actually happened…
You assume that it is truth, because you want to believe it, and it supports your political paradigm.

Now…
Was it stupid to say, yes…
Was it highly inappropriate, yes…
Was it a pompous, bigotted statement, yes…

I will now add another “if” statement.
(please read carefully)

If he really did this, he should be fired.

Posted by: Cliff at May 11, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #147168


Lawnboy: Point taken.

I wasn’t trying to make light of the issue. It doesn’t suprise me that a Bush appointee would make a statement like this,laugh about it and then claim it was just a joke. Jackson, in typical Bushite fashion has gotten himself an investigation for his little joke. And, it won’t suprise me if investigators find a smoking gun when they start looking.

The American people have caught on to how the administration and many republican politicians have been conducting business thru their good old boy network to the detriment of the people.

The people are also catching on to the fact that while there is corruption in both parties, the republicans have turned corruption into a art form.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #147170

And while we’re on the subject of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, does anyone know if his marriage to his first wife, Bernadine, has been investigated? During the early & mid 80s she was an administrator and instructor at St. Louis University. I worked in the same division with her and there was discussion and indications of some serious stuff going on during that period. He quickly remarried following his divorce from Bernadine. Considering Dubya’s penchant for appointing unsavory characters, I’m serious wondering now what all was going on.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 11, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #147171

Boy,

Think Progress states it is a “nonpartisan organization”.

Look at who is on staff and who they have worked for.

Editor - “Judd” was a research assistant for former White House chief of staff John Podesta

Staff workers have worked for the following:

Senator Bob Graham
Gov. Howard Dean
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I respect him BTW)
Senator Tom Daschle
Senator Evan Bayh (this guy is the scariest one)

This is a wonderful nonpartisan organization.

This is not a credible resource…

Posted by: Cliff at May 11, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #147178
If he did cancel that contract, don’t you think the contractor would be screaming bloody murder? AND yes, it would be a scandal. BUT, we have not proven that it actually happened. You assume that it is truth, because you want to believe it, and it supports your political paradigm.

No, I’m not assuming it happened in order based on bias. People asked for real reporting on it, and I provided a link to a legitimate site. I think the contractor is trying to get this publicized (if not screaming bloody murder), and I think it is a scandal. Investigation is still necessary to determine what really happened.

I was commenting on your claim (perhaps an inaccurate inference on my part) that it wasn’t true, was “buzzard” material, because he hadn’t been fired yet. That claim makes no sense.

If he really did this, he should be fired.

Yep.

Think Progress states it is a “nonpartisan organization”. This is not a credible resource

I never claimed that Think Progress was a non-biased source - they’re very strongly liberal. That’s why I provided a link to the Dallas Business Journal instead. However, I thought their statement about the ethics of the situation was useful analysis, and I cited them to avoid plaigarism.

Please don’t fall into the trap of using an ad hominem attack against the messenger when the news is being reported by real news organizations.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #147181


Cliff: This is coming from the Dallas Business Journal. I hardly think it is some kind of left wing tabloid.

First he says he did it, then he says it was just a joke.

Now comes the investigation.

The republicans will say he is inocent until proven guilty.

If he is indicted, they will say that he did nothing wrong and that he is the victim in all of this.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #147184

The Dems and Reps do the same things when in power. The apparent liberal belief that the Reps are some evil cabal that wants to destroy the planet and enslave mankind and that Dems are enlightened avatars filled with purity and light is silly and childish. Many conservatives regard liberals as little more than retarded children. This too is silly.
The conflict is in two different worldviews about the best way for society to be structured. Both sides are motivated by the desire for society to be just and free. Both sides can claim moral superiority.
Dems and Reps both conduct politics the same way. All politicians have their hands out. Graft is a way of life for them.
I am an officer in a labor union. I’ve seen Democrat politics from the inside. I’ve seen politicians and political appointees do this very thing many times. It isn’t unusual.
In my experience Democrats are morally bankrupt and utterly corrupt. Republicans are no better.
The Bush administration is no more corrupt than the Clinton administration.

Aldous,
I don’t need any links to braggarts. I’ve been in the room when they were plotting it.

Posted by: traveller at May 11, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #147194

As I understand Federal procurement, if indeed he did what he is reported to have said he did, and there are not other circumstances involved, it is illegal.

And yes, I do believe in the rule of law so I do believe in an investigation and I am not sure he is guilty or innocent until I see that facts laid out. All we have seen, even in the additional links, is what proports to be part of a speech. We don’t know the context or anything else.

I am criticized on this blog for insisting on the rule of law. Dems prefer to claim guilt first. Unfortunately, subsequent investigations usually do not back them up.

Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #147198
Unfortunately, subsequent investigations usually do not back them up.

Really? Which investigations do you have in mind?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #147206

jlw,

You said,

The republicans will say he is inocent until proven guilty.

I cannot believe that democrats would have the nerve to actually believe this…but you said it…

I know…
Republicans are all guilty, because… because… because they just are…


Posted by: Cliff at May 11, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #147208

Boy,

The “buzzard” reference is aimed at the “flying” Seigel.

Posted by: Cliff at May 11, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #147271

Innocet or not Jack, the very fact that he said it is gross misconduct. We Republican’s need to demand more from Cabinet officials. I’m with you when the source of what is said is third or fourth hand, but he didn’t dispute that he said it. He needs to be the next to go in the spring cleaning going on.

Posted by: Rob at May 11, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #147274


Cliff: You are right and I should not have said that. What I should have said is that the republicans have every right to say that he is innocent until proven guilty. And, we should wait to see what the investigation does or does not turn up.

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #147282

I read about Alphonso Jackson in the L.A. Times. I’m happy to see that most of you think what he did was illegal.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #147287

“Senator Joseph Lieberman (I respect him BTW)”

Of course you do. He’s a republican.

Posted by: norby at May 11, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #147298


Norby: It might be Mcain Liberman in 08.

But, I think the ralling call of the true believers will be we want Jeb! we want Jeb! we want Jeb!

Posted by: jlw at May 11, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #147346

Lawnboy

Merry Fitzmas. Scotter was not what eveyone said and even he is still not in the bag. All that crap about Ohio. In fact, all you need do is look at this blog and see how many things were talked about alot but manifest nowhere.

Rob

People say lots of things. I don’t object to you all making fun of him. I had a good time when Harry Reid took credit for killing the Patriot Act or when John Kerry voted against the 87 billion before he voted for it (or the reverse). But saying stupid things is not the same as doing something illegal.

Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #147350

I wasn’t thinking about Ohio. Yeah, that didn’t really go anywhere.

And while Scooter hasn’t been the bombshell we anticipated, the investigation isn’t over.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #147355

This gets so boring.

Every time a Republican proves publicly that he’s corrupt, or bigoted, or pedophiliac, or drug-addicted, or a sex maniac, the typical Republican response is:
“democrats are just as bad”
or:
“he’s innocent until proven guilty”
or the ever-favorite duo of:
“wait for the results of the investigation”
combined with:
“there isn’t enough evidence to merit an investigation”

It just gets so tiring to hear about Ted Kennedy and read all the butchered misspellings of Chappaquiddick every time some Republican solicits sex with a minor or proves he’s a corrupt scumbag.

Honestly, it’s not like you’re all in a brotherhood, right? A three-musketeers-like “all for one and one for all” kind of thing? Why are you so afraid of policing your own party.

Clean your own backyard so I don’t have anything to complain about, then we’ll talk. Fact is, the behavior this guy described is very very bad for all citizens. He admitted that he said it (by way of claiming it was a joke) and no one should defend him. He should be put out.

Posted by: Govt Skeptic at May 11, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #147378

The problem is, Democrats ARE just as bad, if not worse.
Both of these guys (the contractor and Jackson) are dumbasses who obviously don’t know how politics is played. Neither one knew to keep his big mouth shut.
If I seem cavalier about lawbreaking by a political appointee it’s probably because I’ve seen too much of it to get excited.

Posted by: traveller at May 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #147437

Lawnboy

Yeah

Ohio didn’t go anywhere. A lot of smoke, very little fire. Nothing beyond the ordinary variation in any large human system.

Fitzmas was probably too confusing in general. I hear that Plame is writing a book. I wonder what she can write about. Since she was so super secret, you would guess that all she could write is no comment.

Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #147465

>>I hear that Plame is writing a book. I wonder what she can write about. Since she was so super secret, you would guess that all she could write is no comment.

Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2006 11:06 PM

Didn’t anyone tell you? The cat’s out of the bag on Plame. Cheney/Bush blew her cover, and turned out her sources and covers. What secrets are there left for her to worry about? Didn’t Cheney/Bush say that all he had to do was open his mouth and whatever he talked about was no longer classified?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 12, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #147802

Marys

Try to think of this w/o Bush hatred.

Stipulate that the cat is out of the bag. All the bad guys now know she was a spy.

Does that mean all the bad guys know all the details of what she did? Is it easy for them to chart her career? Would it not be helpful for her to tell them, so they can confirm that the American woman they talked to was her?

It is absurd to hold that it was a major breach of security to “out” her while simultanously thinking her writing a book about her life would not be at least as bad.

Of course we all know that you all know that this was not as big a deal as you say.

If I was an undercover patriot and someone broke my cover, I certainly would not compound that by giving the bad guys a manual to follow my career.

Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #147849

>>If I was an undercover patriot and someone broke my cover, I certainly would not compound that by giving the bad guys a manual to follow my career.

Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2006 10:43 PM

Try to look at this, not as a Cheney/Bush lover, but as a pragmatist…once the cat is exposed the details are already out there. Next, how do you know that’s what the book is about? Perhaps it is a work of fiction…what do you say about condemning BEFORE the fact? Make up your mind. If I’m not supposed to accept that Cheney/Bush is a lying, sneaking, unpatriotic jerk, until all the testimony is in, you should allow the evidence to unravel before commenting about Plame’s book.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 13, 2006 6:09 AM
Comment #148064

Cliff

The problem is, Democrats ARE just as bad, if not worse.
No, the problem is that the Republicans are the party who hypocritically claims to be morally superior. Hypocricy is NOT moral.

Jack,
Could you please enlighten me as to how you know what the contents of Plame’s book will be before she’s published it?

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 14, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #148102

Elliot

If she includes details of where she was and when, it will give a very good help to anyone trying to figure out her contacts (if she was really that secret, few people currently knows those things). If she includes no details about her life in the CIA, why do you think anyone wants to read it. Since her adult travels and experience are ALL connected to the CIA, what are we left with?

I figure if a publishing firm is willing to pay, they expect to get more than the her musing on the meaning of life.

Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #148129

Jack can assume the worst about things, but he doesn’t think the rest of us should do so.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 14, 2006 5:49 PM
Post a comment