That the company also worked under the Bush administration doesn't matter because, as I'm sure you know, the new administration can hire the companies they please. This happens all the time and was one of the left's chief complaints about Haliburton and Blackwater (both of which, by the way, now work for the Obama administration). One can still make the case, absent any other evidence, that those companies were hired for partisan reasons even though they now work for an administration of a different party without arguing that they were retained for partisan reasons.

I simply applied Occam's Razor to the situation, along with the rather plain tendency of the current administration toward rank partisanship.

The job description was changed because it was incomplete and I believe that they thanked Friere for pointing that out.

Just as you have your point about "foot dragging" (which may not be valid)…let me re-state my point. You stated:

"It’s like they and their partners in partisan politics, the owners of Phacil, were hiring people based on their ability to slam filing cabinets shut on our fingers."

If you want to make a case that FOIA should be handled differently…it is your right…no argument from me.

But it is illogical to assert that an organization is acting with partisan intent when it started the job under the opposite party. This isn't an excuse…its just a fact that flies in the face of the partisan argument. Unless what you're saying is that the Bush administration was hiring Democrat partisans to execute a "standing order" to hide things.

If that's what you are saying…then OK.

It doesn't make sense that Bush would do that…but if that's what you believe…there's nothing else to say.

Again, not an excuse…because none is needed…people were just doing their jobs. It's the accusations without merit or basis in fact that I'm concerned with.

Notwithstanding, the job description didn't change until after Friere's article, which means that since the memo, this was the standing order from Treasury. As well, Bush is not the issue here. He's no longer President and the old, lame "but the other guy was bad" excuse doesn't fly here.

It's is more of an observation that undermines the Freire article's contention of democrat partisanship. The work began under the Bush Administration (btw you can confirm this if you truly wish to be fair) and the job description was the earlier ambiguous one. So go figure!

I guess my issue is with the partisan (and false) conclusion ….that the people at the company in question…who work on FOIA projects are doing their jobs to support Obama or the Democrat Party. The job description in question was for a contract that was awarded during the Bush Administration. (Again I invite you to check the facts) If you can explain how you guys come to the conclusion that you did about Democrat Party favoritism I salute you.

Your fourth "fact", I note, is not actually a fact. It is obvious the company changed the job description. It is not at all obvious that they did so for the motives you suggest. Indeed, the job description changed after Friere brought its obvious FOIA-defeating intent to light. I'd say your suggestion is not at all the simplest answer.

So much for being partisan.

2. Contract was awarded during the Bush Administration (that wasn't mentioned)

So much for being partisan.

3. Currently not the prime contractor for FOIA at Treasury.

4. Job posting changed to make it clearer that the job entails implementing the FOIA law.

But go ahead and select facts that create a partisan picture when people are just doing their job…protecting the privacy of individuals and companies that submit information to the Government.