The political process at HUD

It's not surprising that a Bush political appointee would be stupid, a political hack, and possibly engaging in the illegal dispensing of contracts as political payback. What is surprising is that the Bush administration has a HUD secretary at all.

Published reports quote Alphonso R. Jackson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as telling a real estate forum in Dallas on April 28 about how he withdrew an advertising contract that was about to go to a deserving minority publisher.

Mr. Jackson and his aides have tried to portray his remarks as anecdotal, meant to illustrate how Washington works rather than recount an actual incident. But a senator and two House members, all Democrats, have demanded a fuller accounting.

An account of Mr. Jackson's speech in the May 5-11 issue of The Dallas Business Journal has him describing someone who had been trying for a decade to land a contract with the housing department.

"He made a heck of a proposal and was on the G.S.A. list, so we selected him," the secretary said, alluding to the Government Services Administration.

Mr. Jackson then recalled how the publisher came to see him in Washington to thank him and how the man then volunteered, "I don't like President Bush."

"He didn't get the contract," Mr. Jackson told the real estate forum, according to the Dallas publication. "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."

Refreshing candor? Um, not so much. More like a plea for help.

But in a statement this afternoon, Mr. Jackson said, "I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks," adding that during his tenure "no contract has ever been rewarded, rejected or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient." He said his agency was committed to awarding contracts "on a stringent, merit-based process."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Jackson told the business journal on Tuesday that his story was just meant to illustrate how some people in Washington "will unfairly characterize the president and then turn around and ask you for money." The spokeswoman, Dustee Tucker, said the secretary "did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract."

She added that Mr. Jackson was not involved in awarding contracts, a process overseen by a senior procurement officer, and that "politics does not play a part in who we advertise with or who we award contracts to."

Odd. A hypothetical conversation for which, previously, Ms. Tucker shared a wealth of detail.

Mendacity and incompetence. Par for the miniature golf course that is the Bush administration.

Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.

"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.

The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks.

The e-mail provided language "being used by Secretary [Michael O.] Johanns and deputy secretary [Charles F.] Conner in all of their remarks and is being sent to you for inclusion in your speeches."

Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House."

This scoreboard, of course, will ensure you give it your best shot.

The article goes on to site several illuminating examples of how to weave Iraq War happy talk into seemingly unrelated speeches.

But I realize, here I'm just being shrill, and will try to adhere to Republicans' (and Slate political editor's) thoughtful and considerate suggestions that we shouldn't be overly critical of our beloved preznit. Talk of investigations, subpeonas, censure, only frightens the voters away!