Think Progress is reporting that the Inspector General of HUD has opened an investigation into Jackson's comments that he rescinded a contract offer after the offeree indicated that he dislikes Bush politically. Jackson has now shifted the prior defense that he was just making it up, and now claims that he was speaking merely anecdotally:
"I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process. During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient."
This latest defense however makes no sense.
First, that he would think that such an anecdotal remark is somehow permissible given his position is outrageously dumb. Even if he was simply trying to illustrate how business in Washington gets done there was no need for him to tell a story in the first person. Second, that he claims the story was simply an anecdote is non-sensical. An anecdote by definition is a kind of story. What does it mean to portray something as fact and then say, I didn't mean it, it was only an anecdote. Third, how could something be an anecodte and simultaenously represent a practice that never occurs. The utter contempt they have for the American people is matched only by the contempt we have for their behavior.
Think Progress is also reporting that the HUD spokesperson who has given the three inconsistent explanations over the past three days is now on "scheduled leave" until next week.
UPDATE: Several people have suggested in the comments that Jackson meant to say apocryphal instead of anecdotal. I disagree. I don't think he was simply confused. While it's possible he meant to admit that he lied, I think he was trying to obfuscate the issue and create confusion via double talk, hoping the MSM wouldn't explain it and that most people wouldn't realize what nonsense he was spewing. I think his reponse is simply contrived double talk.
Jackson's Statement is available online now. In addition to the earlier excerpt he now states:
"Since I have been at HUD, African American-owned businesses have received 16 percent or $795 million of the Department's contract dollars. Hispanic-owned businesses have received four percent of HUD's contract dollars, or $220 million. Coupled with Native American and Asian Americans, 28 percent or nearly $1.4 billion of HUD contract dollars have been awarded to firms owned by minorities.
Since 2001, HUD has undertaken an aggressive campaign to improve access to qualified small businesses. This nationwide outreach effort included increasing small business staff and instituting a strict monitoring and reporting system.
Under my leadership, HUD's procurement doors have been opened to provide equal access to small businesses. HUD's small and minority business procurement success rate has helped move the Department from last place to first among all other federal agencies."
These additional paragraphs speak to the earlier revelations that it was a minority who had the offer rescinded. This emphasis suggests to me that the contractor may surface.