erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25...work-dem-donor/ "I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House." Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates' debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government's online databases listing federal contracts. "If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it," he said to audience laughter, "and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too." I wonder if anyone will ask Gibbs about this. I look forward to the super spin.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 The White House has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet Obama was completely unaware of this until this report. I'm also willing to bet that in this case Fox is grossly distorting the facts, particularly since the company in question was awarded this contract in 2003.
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 I wonder if anyone will ask Gibbs about this. I look forward to the super spin. He'll be asked about it, and he'll give his usual "I'm not familiar with this, but I'll have to look into it," so the follow up will be important. I heard a lot of debate this weekened as we get ready to fire up year two of the administration, and everyone has a different reason for Obama's falling popularity; unemployment, health care, etc, but they all centered around one simple truth: the person who campaigned is different than the person who is governing. The person who kept insisting he'd get health care done, putting it on CSPAN, no lobbyists, cutting spending, closing Gitmo, balancing the budget, no earmarks, and no pork...has ignored too many of the issues he campaigned on. This is just another log on the fire. This is no different than any other person running for president. He just seems to suck at it more than most because of the people running the show for him. My larger issue is the disdain that came from the USAID director: Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too "busy" to comment on it. "I'll tell it to the people in Haiti," Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further. In other words; how dare you question us about $25M in taxpayer funds when we have a crisis on our hands.
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 The White House has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet Obama was completely unaware of this until this report. I'm also willing to bet that in this case Fox is grossly distorting the facts, particularly since the company in question was awarded this contract in 2003. The reports states the contract was awarded on Jan. 4. Where did you get 2003?
erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 The White House has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet Obama was completely unaware of this until this report. I'm also willing to bet that in this case Fox is grossly distorting the facts, particularly since the company in question was awarded this contract in 2003. 2003? Really? http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/...-big-dem-donor/
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 The reports states the contract was awarded on Jan. 4. Where did you get 2003? From USAID, that says Checchi & Co have been leading this project since 2003, under a contract that probably ended its period of performance in 2009. This newest award is a re-award of some kind (exercising an optional extension, for example), and it's not unheard of for ongoing projects to not be recompeted, but simply reawarded to the current contractor (happened on my previous project twice - it was a conscious, negotiated decision by the client and prime to eventually put the contract up for an open bid recompete). So really...much ado about nothing. About less than nothing, really...since Checchi & Co got the contract under the Bush Administration, which kind-of belies the whole charge of Democratic cronyism.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 2003? Really? http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/...-big-dem-donor/ Yeah, I can get on fedbizops, too...but apparently, I understand it better than whoever grabbed that screen shot.
erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 Yeah, I can get on fedbizops, too...but apparently, I understand it better than whoever grabbed that screen shot. So no Hypocrisy then. Sorry my bad.
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 This newest award is a re-award of some kind (exercising an optional extension, for example), and it's not unheard of for ongoing projects to not be recompeted, but simply reawarded to the current contractor (happened on my previous project twice - it was a conscious, negotiated decision by the client and prime to eventually put the contract up for an open bid recompete). This I know to be true. The red flag is probably that this did go out to bid, and then got pulled back and awarded.
erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 This I know to be true. The red flag is probably that this did go out to bid, and then got pulled back and awarded. Thats what I was thinking. As its states in the article this happens alot. Through the Clinton years and the Bush years. But obamas above that. Right.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 This I know to be true. The red flag is probably that this did go out to bid, and then got pulled back and awarded. Not unheard of. It usually pisses off people who were going to bid; there's also usually some pretty good rationale behind it. Thats what I was thinking. As its states in the article this happens alot. Through the Clinton years and the Bush years. But obamas above that. Right. It's completely irrational to think that Obama had anything to do with this contract award. It's also completely irrational to think that Obama was going to change award practices throughout the federal government - ever, never mind within a year. But then, Obama did say that he'd end the practice...so I'm okay saying he made a completely irrational statement there.
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 But then, Obama did say that he'd end the practice...so I'm okay saying he made a completely irrational statement there. Which goes back to my original post; most dolts like myself just figure that when you say you're going to end that practice, it sounds easy to end; if not, more closely monitored. In the end, this is obviously a case of "piling on," but when you repeatedly make a promise like this on the campaign trail, you'd think at the very least, someone would keep their eyes open. This administration is getting hammered right now for promises not kept and having mixed messages on a number of fronts. While it may truly just be a case of "Look, this is the way things go," he got voted into office by repeatedly telling people "the way things have gone is not the way they're going to go from day one with me."
erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 Not unheard of. It usually pisses off people who were going to bid; there's also usually some pretty good rationale behind it. It's completely irrational to think that Obama had anything to do with this contract award. It's also completely irrational to think that Obama was going to change award practices throughout the federal government - ever, never mind within a year. But then, Obama did say that he'd end the practice...so I'm okay saying he made a completely irrational statement there. Oh I see. So it's completely irrational to believe a politician would want to reward/give anything to their large political donors... ie contracts, jobs, what have you. AND, that they would not know anything about it. Got it, thanks for clearing that up for me.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Oh I see. So it's completely irrational to believe a politician would want to reward/give anything to their large political donors... ie contracts, jobs, what have you. AND, that they would not know anything about it. Got it, thanks for clearing that up for me. It's completely irrational to think that anything info concerning a $25M federal contract award makes it to the Oval Office. Remember back when Halliburton got no-bid DoD contracts and people said Cheney awarded them, and that was total bull ****? This makes even less sense than that did.
erynthered Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 Which goes back to my original post; most dolts like myself just figure that when you say you're going to end that practice, it sounds easy to end; if not, more closely monitored. In the end, this is obviously a case of "piling on," but when you repeatedly make a promise like this on the campaign trail, you'd think at the very least, someone would keep their eyes open. This administration is getting hammered right now for promises not kept and having mixed messages on a number of fronts. While it may truly just be a case of "Look, this is the way things go," he got voted into office by repeatedly telling people "the way things have gone is not the way they're going to go from day one with me." And thats really the point of my thread. He needs to be hammered on this stuff because of the way he campagined, and what he said. I understand these things happen in DC, but to say it wont then it does? I really hope Gibbs gets a chance to dance with Peggy on thsi one.
GG Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Most of these types of federal contracts are awarded on a 12-month basis, with high renewal rates because it's too much of a pita to bring in a new supplier. Everyone would be better off if the gov't could enter into longer term contracts that are common in the private sector, but gov't busy bodies think that 12-month contracts are the best way to prevent cronyism. Even though they cost more and there's 95%+ rate of renewal.
Magox Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Talking about campaign promises, remember this plea of unity and bipartisanship? Hmm http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-year-president Americans are more polarized in their views of President Barack Obama than they've been on any other first-year president, according to a new Gallup poll. There is a 65 percent gap between Democrats' and Republicans' average approval ratings for Obama this year. That compares to 52 percent for Bill Clinton, and 45 percent for George W. Bush. Bush saw a huge approval bump among both Democrats and Republicans after 9/11, a boost which steadily declined over the rest of his tenure. Obama's polarization is likely due to his strong backing of controversial legislation like the stimulus package and healthcare reform, but it nevertheless contradicts his campaign argument that he would help unify the country. How's that working out?
keepthefaith Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Talking about campaign promises, remember this plea of unity and bipartisanship? Hmm http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-year-president How's that working out? What you must say to win a party nomination, the general election and then re-election are all very different things. Right now we're in the phase between election and re-election which is a phase where you can break promises and do the unexpopular because there will be a new set of promises and objectives assembled for the re-election campaign.
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 The White House has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet Obama was completely unaware of this until this report. I'm also willing to bet that in this case Fox is grossly distorting the facts, particularly since the company in question was awarded this contract in 2003. It's not any different than the typical "distorting of the facts" that brought us "Halliburton". At the end of the day the government procurement/contracting system is an abject disaster and there's pretty much no way to fix it without tearing down the infrastructure of this country. I compare it to the GM/Chrysler "bailout". Anything that's done has enormous downstream repercussions to the little guy and neither party has the stomach for short term pain/long term gain.
Nanker Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 The White House has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to bet Obama was completely unaware of this until this report. I'm also willing to bet that in this case Fox is grossly distorting the facts, particularly since the company in question was awarded this contract in 2003. So to paraphrase Marion Barry, "The Bush set him up!" Damn, he's an even greater idiot genius than any have yet suspected. By not awarding the contract to Halliburton and stealth-awarding it to Checchi & Co - he let the left continue hammering his administration on cronyism - which was falling on deaf ears anyway - but in actuality he was setting up BO to take a PR hit when the contract was rolled over. Brilliant!
Recommended Posts