Both jurisprudence and legislative history determine beyond reasonable doubt that  preferential treatement in this context does not include affirmative action.

Yes, I know. I’ve merely pointed out the hypocracy that “preferential treatment for none” that keeps getting quoted really doesn’t mean “preferential treatment for none”. It really means “preferential treatment for none of the wrong reasons”.

Specifically, whose contract was rescinded ? Who was it granted by, for how much, and when did Sec. Jackson rescind this contract ?

Specifically, whose contract was rescinded ? Who was it granted by, for how much, and when did Sec. Jackson rescind this contract ?

Very eloquent. Much more so than I could have offered!

JK

Both jurisprudence and legislative history determine beyond reasonable doubt that “preferential treatement” in this context does not include affirmative action. This does not mean that affirmative action is not in some sense “preferential treatment”. What it does mean is that this type of “preferential treatemnt” is not what the lawmakers were trying to guard against when they drafted the legisltation. Therefore, affirmative action has absolutely nothing to do with the misuse of his powers that Jackson claims (perhaps mendaciously) to have exercised.

JWG should be informed that the two instances are so different, that no meaningful comparision can, or should be drawn.

In the lead story, here, we have an appointed officer of HUD rescinding a contract based on nothing more than expression of person’s political preference. Like I said to Jay, at best it’s unethical, and worst, it’s illegal and he needs to be fired. To tell you the truth, the guy who felt the need to criticize the President, essentially biting hand that feeds him, should be pistol whipped. However, he does have that right, under the 1st Ammendment, in my view. In other words, he should not suffer adverse effect by the U.S. Government, simply by stating a political preference.

In the second instance, we have a government mandate (law) that a certain percentage of minority groups be alloted federal contracts. That does not mean that the selection of said contract aren’t merit based. Like Affirmative Action, it’s a flawed, artificial solution to the hugely complex issue of race and gender discrimination.

The two scenarios aren’t even close.

JK

The spokesperson isn t saying Jackson s behavior wasn t illegal, she s saying he was lying:
Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson s comments at his April 28 speech were purely  anecdotal.

Either way, pretty much sums up the mission statement of the Bush administration. It’s one or the other. I’m amazed that there are still people out there who don’t smell a rat.

 preferential treatment … doesn t include limited affirmateve action

Of course not…why would “preferential treatment” actually mean what it’s supposed to mean? That would make too much sense. It would also require that people be consistent…they are against “preferential treatment” except when they are for it.

Sheesh. {chuckle} What kind of moron brings reality into a political discussion. Gosh.

Plenty of people said that certain charges against Cllinton were bogus (they turned out to be right), many also said that what he was manifestly guilty of did not rise to the level of impeachment, but *nobody* ever said that perjury, or insider trading, or murder was not illegal. That would be the parallel to what jay is absurdly claiming here.

JWG: there’s plenty of jurisprudence interpreting such statues: “preferential treatment” includes rewarding your friends, relatives and political allies and denying rewards to those who don’t fall into those categories. It doesn’t include limited affirmateve action. It’s easy to see why: the former is an abuse of power for personal benefit, the latter is an attempt (right or wrong) to improve a problem in society. So perhaps you can stop trying to change the subject now.

“No, but that doesn t mean he broke the law and until somebody actually charges, indicts, and convicts the guy, he hasn t broken the law and any lawyer worth his salt can take these statutes and twist them around in a hundred different ways.”

So you agree that Ted and Patrick Kennedy aren’t lawbreakers? Neither is Bill Clinton, right?

in the mythical make-believe you ve created that minority businesses are on an even keel with well-monied mostly white businesses

Once again, you’ve been caught misrepresenting someone’s position without any evidence to back it up. Where did I make ANY claim about equality in the business world? I haven’t because there is no equality.
I only *responded* to the repeated claims by Democrats that business should be awarded contracts “based on merit” “with preferential treatment for none”. This is NOT the liberal position and in fact is NOT the policy of HUD. If you’re going to call yourselves the “reality-based community” then you should practice making comments based on reality.

you don t have to link it twenty times.

I see…I link to the actual policy and get criticized, but others repeatedly quote “with preferential treatment for none” and everyone’s OK with that. What a joke. Reality-based community my a**. If the liberal commenters really believe in preferential treatment, which is the policy of HUD, then they should quit quoting “preferential treatment for none”. You can’t have it both ways. (That doesn’t mean I support HUD aministrators discriminating based on ideology…I’ve already posted against it.)

That’s a long climb down in such a short time and an interesting theory of justice to boot.

Well, Frank, in the first post in this thread, Jay C. brought up the amount of minority contracting done by HUD under Jackson, as if that somehow excused the political loyalty test that Jackson claimed to have applied.

Then, in the second post (and many times thereafter), JWG attempted to deflect blame from Jackson by drawing a bogus equivalence Jackson’s Bushgroupie litmus test and affirmative action contracting.

That is how race got into it. Don’t like it? me neither. So why don’t you tell your fellow wingnuts to get a clue? They won’t listen to me.

Yo, Jay: nobody here is suggesting that we march the idiot off to prison without trial, but if someone tells you he has committed a crime, it’s okay to say “that’s illegal”.

To say that the man deserrves a fair hearing before he’s condemned is one thing, but to state baldly, as you have done here, that “What Jackson did was not illegal” is the essence of tooldom.