Another criminal steps to the front.

Yesterday I was unable to write, and what a great story presented itself: HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson bragged to a Dallas area minority real estate group about how he quashed a HUD contract because the applicant had told him that he didn't like Bush. Now he claims the story is false, that he just made it up.

It's rare in this day and age that you get someone so utterly stupid that he or she admits to illegal activity, but the Bush administration is replete with individuals for whom the idea of "justice," "equality before the law," "ethics," and "decency" are all foreign terms. It's well known that in the 19th century, patronage was the way you got your political appointments and the way you got your government contracts -- or at least the way you got the government to get out of your way. Of course, some of that continues today, but the practitioners are usually not so brazen as to proudly announce their actions. However, here's Secretary Jackson doing just that when he explains why an applicant lost a contract with HUD:

"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."

In other words, the federal coffers are open only to Bush loyalists. Well, "logic" may say they don't get the contract, but legality says otherwise. The Post notes that Jackson may have violated Constitutional protection of speech as well as federal procurement law.

Next of course is Jackson's bizarre logic that being awarded a HUD contract to do advertising for HUD somehow equated with the applicant turning around to "use funds to try to campaign against the president." I'm still trying to figure that one out. What exactly was HUD advertising? And is it common practice for HUD to award contracts with no oversight so that someone could conceivably accept a HUD advertising contract and then use those funds for something else, like a luxury yacht or a week in Las Vegas or to campaign against the President?

But this speculation is all moot, since as Secretary Jackson says, he made it all up. Uh huh. Just sort of made of some crazy story that had no basis in truth but just so happened to impact your job directly and describe illegal activity? I call bullshit.