Comments on: Corruption Watch: HUD Secretary Resigns

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:28:43 +0000

Presidents are usually held responsible for actions taken by their Cabinet members. Clinton was held responsible for the corrupt actions of Mike Espy, by many on the right, so I don’t think Bush should be any different. Its a matter of judgement.

Even candidates are held responsible for less than stellar appointments- as Rudy lost support because of his relationship with Bernie Kerik, and Obama has been taken to task for giving Rev Wright a position with his campaign.

Bush could have fired Jackson months ago, when the allegations surfaced, as I’m sure he could have predicted that they would cause a big distraction in dealing with the housing crisis.

By: Lyn

Lyn — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:08:49 +0000

This is not President Bush’s fault. This is due to the personal failings of Secretary Jackson.

The Secretary of HUD position has long been a place for the President - any President - to park a minority in his cabinet.

HUD has never been productive. It deals in spending/wasting lots of federal tax money on housing and "development" in black neighborhoods. Why are people so surprised that this leads to corruption?

Want to end corruption at HUD? Stop housing subisidies, stop Section 8, stop "community development block grants," and GET RID OF HUD.

By: Tully

Tully — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:44:42 +0000

Somehow the articles referenced seem to omit the fact that the IG investigations cleared Jackson of the criminal allegations.

One should always take with a grain of salt innuendos coming from opposition committee members who start investigations that force someone out of office, even when the investigations uncover no actual prosecutable wrongdoing. Guess what? Turn enough crap-rain on anyone and they’ll leave, whether they’re guilty of anything or not.

Allegations and innuendo from the opposition fail to impress–only indictments and convictions really impress. Wanna compare Clinton-era indictments and convictions against Bush-era indictments and convictions? That could be fun. We could start with the Smaltz investigation! Or is that giving the Clinton admin too big a lead right there?

By: kritter

kritter — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:24:12 +0000

BTW, quality family time is highly underrated.

By: kritter

kritter — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:23:14 +0000

Someone want to remind me again how the Bush administration came in and cleaned up Washington after the sordid Clinton years???