Van Jones Resigns, Citing “Vicious Smear Campaign”

The writing was, to use a tired cliche, on the wall last Friday, when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to say that President Obama still had confidence in one his advisers to the Council on Environmental Quality, a longtime activist named Van Jones. Republicans in Congress, seeing an opportunity, had begun promising investigations into Jones past, and on Fox News and over the conservative talk radio airwaves, Jones had become a symbol of nefarious leftist plots within the Obama Administration. The issue was not what Jones had actually been doing in office, which involved such bland works as reaching out to the progressive community in discussions on the House energy bill. The issue was what Jones had uttered in his past: he called himself a “communist” at one point, made impolitic remarks about pollution in minority communities, and once signed a petition raising questions about the Bush Administration’s involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Late Saturday night, Jones resigned his post, nodding to the grim political reality  and saying he did not want to be a distraction for the White House.  “On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” he wrote, in a resignation letter. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”

I have been inundated with calls — from across the political spectrum — urging me to ‘stay and fight.’ But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Twice in recent weeks Jones had apologized publicly for his past statements, and he had said that he had never subscribed to the belief that the Bush Administration was involved in 9/11, despite his signature on a petition raising that question.

Jones resignation also adds another wrinkle in the ongoing battle between Glenn Beck, a talk radio and Fox News host, and various progressive groups that have organizing a boycott against his show. The boycott was organized by Color of Change, a group that Jones co-founded, in response to Beck’s comments, on a Fox News broadcast, calling President Obama “a racist” who has a “deep seated hatred of white people.”

After a number of corporate sponsors left his show, Beck devoted increasing amounts of time to attacking Jones on air, focusing initially on Jones admission, in a 2005 article, that he had once identified as “a communist.” With Jones resignation, it would appear that Beck has won a round in this sideshow spat. His ratings on Fox are up, though his show is now sponsored not by major brand name products, like Geico and Proctor and Gamble’s offerings, but by ads for gold investments and companies like the “The Scooter Store,” a company that offers motorized scooters, which are sold, ironically, with the help of subsidies from Medicare, the type of government-sponsored program that Beck identifies with a coming tide of socialism.

Related Topics: van jones, Barack Obama, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Severe

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Seth Wenig / AP

    Birth Control Debate: Why Catholic Bishops Have Lost Their Grip on U.S. Politics—and Their Flock

    The clash with the White House over birth control is a reminder of just how much influence the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost in the 10 years since the child sex abuse crisis erupted in America.

  • Paul-no not that one

    You are impressively knowledgeable about all matters Beck.

  • kryptik1

    I still am not sure what this is more indicative of.

    Republican ability to make **** stick no matter the outlandishness, and get their way time and time again…

    Or the utter spinelessness of Democrats where, faced with angry Republican BS, they never fight back but rather cave toward the path of least resistance, regardless of how much it screws them over both in the short term and long term.

  • freeinpa

    “Twice in recent weeks Jones had apologized publicly for his past statements”

    So he apologized for the statements he now says were used to smear him?

    I started a pool to see how many posts will be logged here before someone tosses out the race card as to why Americans raised a ruckus over this czar.

    Once again when caught in the light of day, liberal ideas go down in flames

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I’m sure Swampland will spend as much time focusing on those on the Right, and in the center, who have been accusing Obama of being a “Nazi”, or a “Communist,” as they have on this issue, sometime in the near future.

    Now the MSM can claim Beck, as well as Drudge, as their inspiration.

  • stuartzechman

    What incredible weakness.
    .
    Either these really are lies smearing a good man’s character told by amoral, dangerous, professional snakes –in which case the Obama Administration must live up to its duty to righteously defend the innocent– or they’re not, in which case he should resign like Eliot Spitzer.
    .
    This route is why Democrats sometimes have trouble conveying possession of a spine to the general public.
    .
    Glenn Beck has now forced an Obama administration official to resign (weakness).
    .
    A good man has been thrown under the bus (weakness) because Obama’s agenda is in too much peril (weakness).
    .
    Or…the Obama administration let an inveterate radical bully his way into their offices, and kept him there because they didn’t know what to do (weakness).
    .
    Every single one of these stories is about weakness.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Think about it. Van Jones was destroyed by Glen Beck and World Net Daily, who are the biggest, most outspoken promoters of the birthers, the death panels, the FEMA concentration camps, and on and on.

    And then Bush hired convicted felons John Poindexter and Eliot Abrams and any number of rightwing whackadoos to Ambassador positions on upward in his administrations.

    Gawker has a much better piece on Jones here: Who Is Van Jones? – Politics – Gawker

    How many others is Obama going to throw over the side? They say Beck says that Valerie Jarrett is next. We’ll see how that goes — Jarrett I think is a closer friend. And I imagine that Rahm isn’t that sorry to see such a liberal be banished.

    It isn’t that I support Jones that much, but Obama’s weakness is disheartening.

  • trifecta55

    MS loves this story I bet. Wingnut talk show host getting a staffer fired for being a commie. Now this is a DC press story that they can believe in, my friends.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Resigned??? I am caught between applauding him for throwing in the towel to protect his boss (The President) and wondering what outcome this will have on the Glenn Beck attack machine. Why on earth did it get to this point?

    As I have always written here and elsewhere, CRIMINALS AND VICIOUS THUGS like “Eve Sharon Moore” aka Shay Riley of the website “BlackFemaleInterracialmarriage” blog and “BlackWomenblowthetrumpet” blog (among so many others she owns and operates–this vile prevaricator, Predator and probable pedophile) is left to roam the web and elsewhere brutally and viciously criminalizing law abiding citizens, wiretapping their phones, reading their email while malevolently and violently assaulting then day after day— and Van Jones, a politician is carried on the news and gutted with absolute precision in the media.

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/

  • stuartzechman

    Speaking of pissy-pants, weaselly weakness, did anybody have the misfortune of catching David Axelrod on Meet The Press?

  • kryptik1

    I did not, but from reports, I’m glad I didn’t.
    .
    Further proof that no one on our side outside of perhaps the Progressive Caucus in the House has a damn spine between them.

  • freeinpa

    For a site that has an overwhelming number of liberals condemning lies for the media and everyone else, you see to do a lot of your own.

    Eliot Abrams may have been appointed by Reagan but was far from a conservative. He was founder of Young People’s Socialist League and worked for Scoop Jackson and Patrick Moynihan/ Maybe that should be a warning about putting people with those beliefs in a public office. Abrams was never indicted and plea bargained to 2 misdemeanors. Hmm what resent President had a similar judgement.

    Poindexter was convicted on multiple felony counts on April 7, 1990 for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair. The convictions were reversed in 1991 on the technical grounds that the prosecution’s evidence may have been tainted by exposure to Poindexter’s testimony before the joint House-Senate committee investigating the matter, in which Poindexter’s testimony was compelled by a grant of ‘use immunity’. The prosecution was not able to re-try the case.

    So you are wrong on both accounts or dare I say you lied. And nowhere in your tirade do you address any of the issues that was brought up by Beck which was given a pass by the MSM as to the truth. You may not like Beck and that is your right but it would seem from the result he is in touch with more of the American sentiment than liberals when dealing with the agendas of appointed czars.

  • freeinpa

    Don’t confuse courage with the stupidity of not understanding your actions

  • kryptik1

    I fully agree, freep.
    .
    I’m sick of our leaders thinking it brave to stand up to Progressives for the sake of vaunted ‘bipartisanship’ despite the stupidity of chasing after a compromise, despite nearly every single republican vowing to vote against any reform bill regardless.

  • stuartzechman

    It takes a real coward to fold up like an accordion when facing down warriors the likes of Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.
    .
    What’s so interesting is the White House’s framing of conservative and centrist Democratic Senators’ obstruction as “political reality”, which implies the assumption that the House Progressive Bloc will ultimately scurry away from any confrontation with the “reality” warriors.
    .
    The White House really does believe that liberals are incapable of standing up for themselves in a fight –any fight.

  • sjenner

    Van Jones’ history is not up for debate. He identified himself as a “communist” and never disavowed that philosophy, even when given the opportunity to do so. Instead, Jones’ nomenclature merely shifted to other euphemisms, such as “left,” “environmental activist[],” and “progressive.” http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true. As Michael Scherer points out, Jones also signed a “9/11 truther” petition. Collectively, these actions decisively put Jones to the extreme left of Main Street, and on the fringes of the shady world of conspiracy theorists and UFO abductees.

    The real question, however, is not whether Van Jones was an extremist, but why the Obama Administration chose someone so thoroughly left of center to represent it? Scherer ignores this more piquant issue, and instead tries to paint Jones’ fall as a “victory” for Glenn Beck “in this sideshow spat.” Jones, to his credit, made no bones about his true beliefs. But that makes the Administration’s decision to appoint him all the more inexplicable. The “how” and “why” are important, especially given the prominent role the Administration gave Jones. Scherer has ignored these questions and their larger implications.

    Glenn Beck is a talk show host. Van Jones was an official appointed by the President of the United States. Surely the actions of the President matter more than the rantings of a talk show host. And on that question, Mr. Scherer is surprisingly, and disappointingly, silent.

  • ogrg

    I agree! The other problem is the media in order to sell and create good rating. You can not get good sales and rating if you are covering hunger, crime in the street, educational system in each state. Only dirty… People only care about the $, not God, Jesus Christ, or even their own relatives. Just the green…!

  • stuartzechman

    Commenters:
    .
    The real question, however, is not whether Van Jones was an extremist, but why the Obama Administration chose someone so thoroughly left of center to represent it?
    .
    Notice how smoothly sjenner sleight-of-hands the question from “Why did the Obama Administration appoint a radical conspiracy theorist?” to “Why did the Obama Administration appoint anybody with left of center politics?”
    .
    Neat trick, huh?
    .
    In a world in which Democrats didn’t run and hide from accusations of liberalism, the non-question of someone who was “thoroughly left of center” being appointed to a job anywhere in this administration would be laughable. It would be like asking “How could the Bush Administration choose someone so thoroughly right of center to represent it?” when John Bolton’s name came up for confirmation.
    .
    But if the Obama Administration implicitly accepts these premises, i.e. that “thoroughly left of center” equals “radical, black-nationalist, ex-communist America-hater”, by refusing to fight them, then who’s really to blame for these frames becoming the de facto standard for acceptability going forward…like when the next SCOTUS nomination comes up?

    Either one of two things is true:
    .
    1) the preceding is an example of the “Vicious Smear Campaign” of lies
    .
    2) it is not
    .
    If the Obama Administration won’t say which it is, then who can be expected to do so?

  • mjwilstein

    Here’s the video of Robert Gibbs’ statement on Van Jones’ resignation:
    http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/09/robert-gibbs-on-van-jones-resignation.html

  • pf4818

    I’ve never watched Beck and don’t watch FOX News either. But I’m certain that the RNC could never have dreamt up a better whipping boy than Van Jones.

    And calling presidential appointees Czars is also very stupid if you are Barack Obama. I realize he’s not the first to do this but Obama’s biggest problem is that he is considered far left by many Americans. America is debatably a center-right country. Why appoint 30 people and call them Czars ???

    I question Obamas’s political acumen more than anything.

  • James, Los Angeles

    @stuart,

    that was quite a brilliant and compelling insight. You are right, Jones seemed no more “left of center” than John Bolton was “right of center” and Bolton was far more destructive. Extreme right of center is A-OK in the Beltway, though.

  • sjenner

    My issue was as stated: “The real question [...] is not whether Van Jones was an extremist, but why the Obama Administration chose someone so thoroughly left of center to represent it?” It’s not a slight of hand, but the definition of the issue I believe begged by Scherer’s article. Certainly, I never stated anything about someone merely with “left of center politics” being barred from public office. That would be a major overstatement of the issue and is little more than a strawman argument.

    The truth remains that Jones is extreme left of center. It is impossible to be more left than “communist.” Certainly, the Bush Administration never appointed anyone self-described as a “fascist,” the extreme right equivalent.

    I am certainly no fan of the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act, or any of the other, severe intrusions on our civil liberties or the over-aggrandizement of Executive authority that occurred under Bush. But I am also not a fan of the same occurring under Obama. Obama made a very bad choice in Jones. This result should have been both anticipated and expected.

  • freeinpa

    stuartzechman

    The vicious lies and smears keep coming form the left. The neat trick of sjenner is your inability to read what he said!

    “Collectively, these actions decisively put Jones to the extreme left of Main Street, and on the fringes of the shady world of conspiracy theorists and UFO abductees.

    doe snot equal

    “Why did the Obama Administration appoint a radical conspiracy theorist?”

    I really am getting the feeling that the well repeated belief by liberals that liberals are of superior intellect is just another liberal lie.

    That along with the lie that liberals admit to being liberal. It’s either moderate, centrist or now Progressive. When the truth of their thoughts come to light, the go down in flames.

  • freeinpa

    Brilliant and compelling? Hardly. Only the left could equate Bolton who was vetted by Congress for several jobs before being filibustered by Dumos for the UN job with someone who has to be swept in under the cover of darkness.

    Van Jones by his own statements went to Yale Law because they didn’t give grades and he could rabble rouse without them daring to throw him out. Why would he come to belief that?

    More of America is right of center than left of center to start so it is natural that they would react more strongly to the extreme left Which is also why the true left agenda, like Van Jones, must be kept hidden as much as possible.

  • bobcn1

    Arguing that a Democrats-only plan would be a disaster, Thomas Friedman brilliantly solved the politics of the health care debate on MTP this morning:
    ‘Give President Obama 25 centrist Republicans in the House really ready to work this problem, give him 10 centrist Republicans in the Senate really ready to work this problem, I think you’ll see an outcome that assures the American people very, very quickly.’
    .
    OK. Quick — name the 10 centrist republicans in the Senate really ready to work with Obama on this problem.
    .
    1. Olympia Snowe
    2. Susan Collins
    .
    Ummm….. I only need eight more. Thinking…
    .
    3. Max Baucus
    4. Evan Bayh
    5. Mary Landrieu
    6. Blanche Lincoln
    7. Bill Nelson
    8. Ben Nelson
    9. Mark Pryor
    10. Tom Carper

    See. That wasn’t so hard.

  • square1

    More of America is right of center than left of center

    What is this Lake Wobegon? I knew wingnuts couldn’t spell, but I guess basic geometry eludes them as well.

  • square1

    Congratulations to the Obama Administration. Now they’ve got their Lani Guinier. On top of the failed heath care reform, and the coming mid-term blowout, Obama is emulating the Bill Clinton administration nicely. If he hires Dick Morris and persuades Perot to come out of retirement, he has a decent shot to get re-elected.

    Good Times.

  • freeinpa

    America remains a center-right nation—a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656

    Maybe you should read something besides crap from other liberals on this blog. Forget geometry that is out of your pay grade

    Once again Liberal intelligence is proven to be an oxymoron

  • Paul-no not that one

    Speaking of weakling Democrats

    Appearing on State of the Union, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said she would prefer to not use reconciliation to enact health care reform. “I would like to see us at 60. I would like to see some bipartisan support for this bill,” said Klobuchar. She later added: “The problem with going down to 50 is we just have more limited tools in terms of getting the kind of work that needs to get done to help people.”

    I listened to the Senior Senator from Minnesota speaking this week and she is so mamby-pamby it is embarrassing.

    She insisted she wasn’t for a “Public Option” she was for a “Competitive Option” as if she were a deep thinker.

  • square1

    “I would like to see us at 60. I would like to see some bipartisan support for this bill,” said Klobuchar.

    Why? Please, God, for once let these people try to explain this logic.

    Why does Amy Klobuchar want bipartisan support for this bill? Why? The GOP was down and out in 2008. If the Dems came in and passed legislation that Americans liked it would probably take the GOP another 20 years to rebound. But no, Klobuchar wants the GOP to share in the credit for health care reform.

    Brilliant strategy these Dems have worked out. Accept all the blame and share all the credit. You know, if they hate winning elections so much, they could save us all the trouble and just not run in the first place.

  • pf4818

    HillaryCare didn’t even come up for a vote in 1992. The Donkeys had huge majorities then as well.

    Maybe this time they will actually get to vote. If they use reconciliation to pass it this time, they’ll have the same results in 2012 as they had in 1994.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “HillaryCare didn’t even come up for a vote in 1992″
    .
    Who do you believe the president was in 1992?

  • pulleco

    He called Republicans a**holes. He called white environmentalists racists. He called American’s terrorists for going after those who were responsible for 9/11. And “he” is the victim of a smear campaign? Van Jones is the master black belt of smear campaigns. Orchestrating smear campaigns has been his entire life’s work.

  • osaycanuthink

    how is it smearing to report tapes of what one said

  • Art Pepper

    Collectively, these actions decisively put Jones to the extreme left of Main Wall Street

  • pf4818

    You’re right, it was 1993. And his name was Slick Willie – Hillary’s co – President ….

  • freeinpa

    Perspective is everything. Believing that Van Jones actions are only left of Wall Street and not Main Street provides the explanation as to why liberals can never pass legislation like HC reform. They simple cannot understand how people on Main Street actually think and that the left believes that they alone are righteous and knwo what is best. It is more a sad commentary on the left than on any belief they have of the rest of America.

  • stuartzechman

    sjenner:

    My issue was as stated: “The real question [...] is not whether Van Jones was an extremist, but why the Obama Administration chose someone so thoroughly left of center to represent it?” It’s not a slight of hand, but the definition of the issue I believe begged by Scherer’s article.

    The definition of the issue isn’t the completely predictable filling of positions in a centrist administration elected to power with overwhelming support from the left.
    .
    That moderate rightist and Republican Ray LaHood got a job in this administration is no more or less remarkable than anyone thoroughly left of center obtaining some position or another.
    .
    And given the ideological hostility shown by rightists to admitting –let alone fixing– problems associated with a range of issues, it’s even less surprising that avowed and committed leftists would be assigned to prominent positions in offices ostensibly tasked with solutions. Is anyone except for the professionally outraged entertainment-right shocked that “thoroughly left of center” perspectives would be represented at agencies responsible for dealing with climate change, or “green” anything, really?
    .
    The issue is whether Van Jones unfit for the job. He either is so thoroughly out of touch with reality, so committed to wild, irresponsible social and conspiracy theories, so currently anti-American in his values that he should never have been given that or any post in this administration, or he is a victim of the usual rightist smears –the latest personification of the “Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster” perpetual campaign.
    .
    If the issue were merely that someone was “thoroughly left of center” –or even “a leftist”– then it’s a non-issue, because there’s nothing surprising or wrong whatsoever about the Obama Administration choosing “someone so thoroughly left of center to represent it“, except, perhaps, in the minds of rightist jihadis, terrified centrists and controversy-addicted media personalities.
    .
    Who knows, though. Maybe the Obama Administration really does view the inclusion of “thoroughly left of center” individuals in the governing of this country as inappropriate. They certainly haven’t made it clear whether or not they agree with that idea as of yet –although that, too, is starting to be tiresomely predictable.

    I am certainly no fan of the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act, or any of the other, severe intrusions on our civil liberties or the over-aggrandizement of Executive authority that occurred under Bush. But I am also not a fan of the same occurring under Obama.

    If that’s the case, then you and I are thoroughly agreed on that point.
    .
    Also, if it is, in fact, true that any member of this Administration is the left’s version of absolutists and statists inimical to individual liberty and systemic freedom, then, as a liberal, I –and many others on the left– will fight like hell to get those kinds of individuals out of our government.
    .
    Thanks for reading and considering this, sjenner

  • pf4818

    Dear Tom Friedman -

    Why do the Donkeys need 10 Republicans in the Senate and 25 in the House ? You guys already have a filibuster proof Senate and a HUGE majority in the House.

    Why don’t you just vote ? Oh yea, you guys had almost that big a majority in Clinton’s first term yet couldn’t even muster a vote …

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa

    So he apologized for the statements he now says were used to smear him?

    If the statements apologized for are the same as those exploited by the supposed smears, then that’s a hell of a good point.

  • davescottsierra

    As an environmentalist I am well aware of Van Jones’ dedication to protecting the Earth and creating good, meaningful green jobs for low-income people. I’m sorry to see the federal government lose a talented and committed leader, and hope he can find a new and fulfilling role.

  • tommyredondo

    Smear campaign… unbelievable… I guess after being a racist, communist ‘acorn like’ community organizer… being a bald faced liar probably comes real easy for him…

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Welcome t’ Mcarthy Era Redux, mateys!
    .
    Goes ri’ nice wi’ another age o’ corporate robber barons suckin’ th’ GDP into’ th’ coffers o’ their CEOs an’ boardrooms!
    .
    Serious’ – th’ time fer puberty be passin’ quick. If th’ Democrats don’t coax their wee testicles down into place an’ get ‘em functionin’ soon, it’s goin’ t’ be too late!
    .
    We’ll end up wi’ a decade or two o’ wild-eyed droolin’ lyin’ bilge-brained screamin’ banshee cretins nursin’ irrational red scares runnin’ a’ ri’-wing fascist perversion o’ democracy, cowerin’ a’ th’ feet o’ their ‘free market” masters.
    .
    I don’t be holdin’ out much hope we’ll be recoverin’ fr’m tha’ sort o’ disaster in wha’ever time I be havin’ left t’ sail th’ boundin’ main!
    .

  • Paul-no not that one

    Very good.
    .
    Now you understand that 1994 was what is known as an off year election and 2012 will be a presidential election year, right?
    .
    Other than those errors you really made a great comment.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Funny how everyone defines “Main street” as the place where everybody’s just like me, even though everybody’s different and Main Street itself reflects the diversity that is America.
    .
    In other news, there’s no doubt in my mind that the reason Jones had to resign has nothing to do with how “left” he was and everything to do with the indefensible nature of some of his “YouTube” moments.
    .
    If it were only his politics, he wouldn’t have been cut loose.

  • qqi239

    It is indicative of how radical are modern Democrats and nothing else.

  • square1

    Re: the ” indefensible nature of some of his “YouTube” moments.”
    .
    In a vacuum, it is understandable how an administration could cut Jones loose. However, Obama has been noticeably lacking in pushing back against, frankly, outrageous comments from the Right. And noticeably lacking in pushing back against the wingnut media. So, Grassley isn’t beyond the pale. Beck isn’t beyond the pale. Limbaugh isn’t beyond the pale. Or Palin. Or Dobbs. Or Bachmann, Or the GOP Congressmen investigating the conspiracy theories of Obama’s birth certificate.
    .
    Nobody on the Right is beyond the pale. But Jones is.
    .
    Can you say “weakness?”

  • kryptik1

    Exactly, square1. It’s all about two things.
    .
    1) IOKIYAR
    2) The general inability of Democrats to stand up for anything, especially anyone remotely left of LIeberman.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    One of the big issues liberals deal with, it seems to me, is the issue of whether they want to resort to the same “irrational” tactics, as the majority of conservatives. After all, it doesn’t take an act of genius to insult someone. Nor do you need to be literate, to falsely compare someone to something they are not in order to smear their character. It isn’t much harder than falling off a skateboard.

    Some conservatives have taken to calling Obama a “Nazi.”. Others compare him to Stalin. How bright do you have to be to argue Nazism is exactly the same thing as socialism? You just have to be able to mouth words, and put together sentences. You don’t need to have a firm grip on reality.

    The problem for liberals is do they want to resort to the same slimy tactics, such as questioning conservative patriotism, to buffer the effect of the fact that the Republican party has been taken over by the Limbaugh’s and Becks of the world. Can they avoid the label of wimp, if they choose to remain faithful to reason and logic, and not lower themselves to respond in kind.

    Obama painted himself into a corner when he went down the “I want to work with everyone” path, and now he seems weak as they slime him 24 by 7. He is reduced to pretending that 1 Republican vote is an example of bipartisan cooperation.

  • freeinpa

    Paul

    I would agree that the YouTube moments were indefensible but I am unclear how they differ from his politics? I think that is a difference without distinction.

  • freeinpa

    Are you kidding? Resort to the “irrational tactics that the conservatives have used”? Does the name Robert Bork, John Towers, John Bolton or Clarence Thomas ring a bell.

    Equating Obama with Hitler? That was nearly a daily occurence for the 8 years of Bush.

    You have either been in a coma for the past 30 years or in one now.

  • kryptik1

    Derek – The problem wasn’t so much the ‘I want to work with everyone’ path. It’s a good sentiment…in theory.
    .
    The problem comes from when the other side doesn’t want to work with you, and rather than get the hint, you abandon your allies to keep trying after the other side despite their repeated assurances that they will never find anything you offer them acceptable.
    .
    As far as tactics…there shouldn’t be need to resort to the slimy tactics Republicans use. Using facts isn’t enough though. You need to be vocal about the facts as well as upfront and vociferous in beating back the slime and the lies. In theory, ignoring baseless crap from the fringes is a good idea. Kind of like not enabling internet trolls. But when the mainstream goes out of their way to enable it, ignoring it fails to become a viable practice, because it’s already been given a sheen of credibility where none was deserved. At that point, you need to fight, and keep fighting. Ceding ground as a first resort and hoping the other side will resent is nothing more than weakness.

  • painesright

    How in the world does using someone’s OWN WORDS against them translate into a vicious smear campaign?? This guy has incredible nerve!

    The bigger issue is that Obama knew exactly who Van Jones is BEFORE he hired him… in fact, that’s WHY he hired him… for his radical beliefs!! He knew he was a Communist, Black Nationalist, ex-con, anti-Israel, anti-police, anti-military, America bashing radical.

    In this video Valerie Jarrett (one of Obama’s closest friends and advisers) says they have been watching Jones since his days in Oakland and “We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House.”

    THIS is Van Jones:

    How can anyone defend Barack Obama’s decision to bring him into our White House!?!

  • freeinpa

    It is easy liberals lie to themselves most of all.

  • nflfoghorn

    Kinda reminds you of Andrew Young’s tumultuous UN ambassadorship back in the Carter administration, doesn’t it?

  • phillydave

    I’m a liberal and a very big fan of Obama’s very slightly liberal and mostly just very pragmatic agenda. (Like, let’s actually deal with some of the huge problems facing us, like a collapsing health care system and global warming, instead of continuing to bury our heads in the sand.)

    That said, Van Jones is right. I’d much rather argue about that extremely important program than defend Jones and his stupid statements and associations.

    Obama was right to fire Jones, and I think that makes him look smart, not weak.

  • stuartzechman

    I’d much rather argue about that extremely important program than defend Jones and his stupid statements and associations.
    .
    I take it that it hasn’t occurred to you that Obama will be defending (and then maybe firing) someone else next week, and that the rightist attack machine isn’t quite finished yet?

  • homerhk

    Oh, for Pete’s sake everyone, stop peeing your pants.

    First, Obama didn’t fire anyone – he resigned and rightly so, if only for the reason that the constant carping about him would have had a serious effect on healthcare reform.

    Yes, in an ideal world, Obama would have stood up to the cameras and said, this man is excellent at what he does and you know when I said during the campaign that I want to work with everyone in areas where we can find agreement – that’s precisely what I am doing. I was elected President and part of that is choosing people who work for me. I have a number of republicans who advise me and I don’t agree with all their ideas either.

    However, we live in the real world and if he were to give that speech – great as it would be – the MSM and cable chatter would be only about that and not about healthcare and the reform movement would be set back another two weeks or so (or even longer). Look, these are not ideal or great choices and yes it’s hugely unfair, but that is the choice that Obama and Van Jones were faced with. In my view, for anyone who cares about the agenda – as opposed to winning moral victories against the wingnuts – can’t really object to the decision.

    Second, it’s not as if Van Jones was or is critical to the administration.

  • jcapan

    Though I have far less optimism about the “agenda,” I’d say Homer’s position sounds pretty reasonable. I mean if my team is blowing 3-0 ALCS lead, am I going to get worked up if they let the batboy go for mooning the crowd?

    That said, this David Sirota piece is worth a read. He focuses on two things: a) symbolism–the fact that Jones was one of the only movement progressives in a policymaking position in Obama’s WH and b) the hypocrisy:

    “Obviously, he made a mistake – and he admitted that. But even if you don’t accept that apology or admission of fault, the idea that him signing that petition means he’s worthy of removal is just a pathetic argument that highlights the most damning hypocrisies of all. For instance, are we really expected to believe that Jones signing one random petition is a bigger problem than, say, Geithner accepting free room and board for the industry he is supposed to be regulating? I could make a huge list of such contrasts, including the tellingly different media/political Establishment treatments of “birthers” (cheered on) and “truthers” (totally ostracized) – but you get the point: the entire brouhaha about Jones supposedly awful transgressions is manufactured, considering the genuinely problematic transgressions of so many other White House officials are treated as no problem at all.”

    Sirota’s supposed to be on CNN this morning (8:30am ET) to discuss his article.

  • homerhk

    JC, I have to say I thought Sirota’s piece was absolute garbage insofar as it sought to lay the blame on “Obama’s whitehouse” despite the fact that Van Jones resigned etc. BTW, there are many progressive voices in the administration, Harold Koh, Susan Rice, Melody Barnes to name a few.

    Sirota strikes me as the worst kind of progressive – frankly I can’t stand to read most of what he writes because he is just so mean spirited and cynical – that may sound naive but it’s not that – I just don’t think that that is in any way constructive.

    Obama is doing exactly what he promised – in that he is trying to DO something; which, as it turns out is much much harder than urinating over the tent from a safe distance away.

  • homerhk

    I forgot to add the most prominent progressive – Barack Obama himself. Now you may laugh but consider these things:

    – the only reason that the public option is even on the table right now is because Obama has been pushing it. I know you guys and the Kosites like to think that it’s progressives pushing him a la FDR (was it him? pretty sure it was) “I agree, now make me do it” line. But, actually, this is not some policy that the progressives are foisting on Obama – it came from his own plan! He has been arguing for it for the past six months (I realise that some of you may have issue with the WAY he has argued for it, but it can’t be denied that he has actually done so and consistently).

    - Before Obama indicated in the campaign that he was open to negotiation with Iran et al, this was a radical position for a serious politician to hold; now it is in mainstream

    - Obama pushed through a huge, never before done n terms of magnitude, stimulus bill within a couple of months of coming into office – the fact that the main principled criticism was that it was too small is a demonstration of how much he managed to make a – basically liberal government intervention – a mainstream centrist idea

    Lastly, I will point out that “progressives” are presumably named because they want to achieve, you know, PROGRESS! I would submit that progress is not going down in flames for high minded ideals and achieving nothing. That’s just my view, but there you go.

  • rustyreturns

    homerhk says:
    .
    “Obama would have stood up to the cameras and said, this man is excellent at what he does and you know when I said during the campaign that I want to work with everyone in areas where we can find agreement – that’s precisely what I am doing.”
    .
    One point, Obama is not going to risk his neck political for someone with Van Jone’s background. That I can assure you.
    .
    Second point: Please point me to where on the internet that I can go to read about “what Van Jones has done”? The only thing that I have been able to find on the internet about Jones is that he IS one of the most radical, far left individuals, who has ever risen to this level in our government to date.
    .
    Again, show me his activities, his companies, companies he has worked for, anything that backs up the claim that “Van Jones is an excellent environmentalist”? All I can find are speeches and outrageous claims from him, but nothing substantive to back up his words.

  • stuartzechman

    You know, for someone whose complaint seems to be that too many others are peeing their pants, you seem awful worked up yourself, homerhk.

  • homerhk

    What a clever observation Stuart. I am not afraid to admit I am worked up – if you want to leave me a substantive response, I’ll do my best to reply; without leaving a stain in my jeans….

  • stuartzechman

    homerhk:
    .
    Before I get into things like your equation of centrism with “mainstream”, leftism with “radical” and your (somewhat humorous, given current events) laments regarding the awful, mean-spirited cynicism of everyone besides the wholesome angels who occupy the Obama White House, I’d just like to get something cleared up.
    .
    When you point in aggravation to “the fact that Van Jones resigned” –”Obama didn’t fire anyone – he resigned“, are you contending that, had Van Jones wished to stick around and issue statements like

    Perhaps Glenn Beck ought not to be casting stones, given his remarks this July in which he said that he believed that the President is ” ‘a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. Glenn Beck needs to better explain his current stated belief that the President of the United States is a racist before he questions what others may have said in the past.

    , the Obama White House would have supported him, and not asked him to step down?

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    kryptik1 a big part of the problem is Liberals don’t have anything close to Fox News through which they could resort to the same slimy tactics, or even express their ideas logically. The so-called mainstream media is itself caught in a logical fallacy, trying to find the non-existent middle ground. It really isn’t surprising that Obama shows no backbone when it comes to defending liberal ideas. I suppose he is willing to face our wrath, through the limited means we have to express it, rather than face the wrath of Fox news and CNN.

  • homerhk

    Stuart, where is that quote from? Did Mr Jones say that? If so, good for him. I’m not sure of the point of what you are asking me? Do I contend the WH would have supported him or not? Why is that relevant?

    And before you write me a detailed piece semantically dissecting my posts re “mainstream” and “centrist”, “radical” etc, can I just ask you to let it go this one time? Don’t get so defensive about the word “radical”, you know? I love radical; I’d marry it if I could (and wasn’t already married)

    Clearly my point was that things that would previously have been considered “radical” or “liberal” or “leftwing” are now more accepted views now. That is not a judgment on whether those ideas are good or not or an approval of only centrist ideas – just pointing out that Obama has moved the “centre” leftward.

    Just think, when did you last see serious politicians stand up for the public option? Was it in Dean’s plan in 2004? No; was it part of Clinton’s proposal? No.

    Just saying…

  • stuartzechman

    homerhk:
    .
    Stuart, where is that quote from?
    .
    Sorry, that was made up out of whole cloth as an example of what Jones could have said –if he had been allowed to stick around to fight in the way he is accustomed. I should have made that more clear.
    .
    Did Mr Jones say that? If so, good for him.
    .
    No, he didn’t say that, but Glenn Beck did, in fact, say those things about Obama, as demonstrated by this video:
    .
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html
    .
    I’m not sure of the point of what you are asking me? Do I contend the WH would have supported him or not?
    .
    I don’t know if it’s particularly relevant or not, but that’s because you seem to be countering arguments against Obama having thrown one of his people under the bus with observations like “the fact that Van Jones resigned” –”Obama didn’t fire anyone – he resigned”. So are you saying that Obama didn’t toss a member of his administration overboard, that Van Jones just “resigned”?
    .
    can I just ask you to let it go this one time?
    .
    Sure thing, homerhk.
    .
    But when you say “things that would previously have been considered “radical” or “liberal” or “leftwing” are now more accepted views now“, because “Obama has moved the “centre” leftward“, I think that you’re mistaken –profoundly.
    .
    Actually, public opinion in this country has been much farther ahead of the Beltway establishment of which Obama has been an enthusiastic adherent. Obama was elected primarily because the public had been so against the ongoing occupation of Iraq for so long before anyone in established politics said anything about it with any credibility. Obama hasn’t moved the public leftward, his constituents –especially demonstrated by the demands of the Democratic primary process– moved Obama more in line with them, and away from the insular world of Washington conventional wisdom.
    .
    None of us would ludicrously claim that the US is a bedrock of internationalist socialism, but we’ve been ready for real Labour-style (minus the Bush sycophancy of Blair) party in this country for quite some time. It’s not that we’re all so far to the right, it’s that some locations, i.e. the Confederate South and rural far Midwest are so far to the right in terms of their general populations’ culture, that the mass-marketing of political views crashes against their reactionary rocks, so to speak. One hundred million of us are much, much further to the right than two hundred million of the rest of us.
    .
    For this reason, the anti-democratic Senate –in which each state is given an equal voice, regardless of its population– swings infamously to the right of popular will generally. Since the Senate is also the longest term election –six years, which is longer even than the Presidency– it means that this disproportionate rightism makes up an even more disproportionally rightist permanent political class in the capitol.
    .
    As such, we see phenomena like the American people being two-thirds for a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq three years before it can be seriously considered in the Beltway, or two-thirds of Americans being for a government-run health care alternative, even as it is being jettisoned from the debate as “leftist purity” by out-of-touch Beltway insiders (and Obama apologists).
    .
    Thanks so much for reading and considering this, homerhk.

  • homerhk

    Stuart, before responding fully, I want to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful posts both generally and in response to my posts.

    I do not disagree with what you say – in terms of policy I suspect there is little more than a cigarette paper between us.

    What you lament, I think, is an inherent problem in US politics itself, not necessarily in particular characters. Although I am English, I have been following US politics obsessively since Bush I v Dukakis and what you say is absolutely correct. So, when I say that Obama has moved the centre leftwards I am, of course, making the point in the context of politics and politicians, not the general public at large. I would like to believe what you say about the US public being ready for a real labour-style party but I just don’t think that’s the case. Believe me, I would be glad to be proved wrong.

    The bigger problem, as I see it, is that even if, say, 51% of the population are ready for it, at least 30% are vehemently against it and the rest just don’t think about it very much at all (and I think 51% is way too high, btw). To make such a substantial change you need a lot more people behind you.

    I will just add a comment to this statement: “even as it is being jettisoned from the debate as “leftist purity” by out-of-touch Beltway insiders (and Obama apologists).”

    I do not propose the jettisoning of the public option as being “leftist purity”. I think it seems like a decent idea, although in all honesty if it is entirely subsidised by the premiums and not government subsidy I don’t think you’ll get many people signing onto it. My objection is to those who would junk the entire reform, throwing absolutely necessary things like better regulations on insurance companies and the exchange idea, which I think is a pretty good idea if the public option is not included in the final bill. That just seems to be wanting failure rather than compromise and while I can understand the sentiment, I think the moral victory will last a couple of months and then the same problems will still exist.

    If, on the other hand, the reform goes through without the public option, there will be a structure in place and a couple of years (or 5, or whenever) there will be more appetite for Congress saying let’s tweak the system by adding a public option or something similar. So, if there is a choice between nothing and something without the public option I would chose something without the public option since in 5 years time the debate will not then be about reforming healthcare (again, with the same issues as there are now but perhaps with President Palin and a Republican Congress), but will be about how to improve the healthcare exchange etc. You will be starting from a different point.

    This does not mean that I am against the public option or indeed that I think it won’t be achieved by this bill – there is still a chance. Where, I guess I differ from you is that I don’t think that the only thing that Obama has done to get the public option is the stuff you see in public. I believe that he has tried hard to get it in the bills – it’s in the House bills and a version of it is in the one Senate bill that has made it through committee – and that if it doesn’t appear in the final bill it’s because a view has been taken that it just won’t pass.

    I will also repeat something I said before and something I’ve been thinking about recently – if Obama’s real intention all along was to jettison the public option and go for health insurance reforms only, this could have been done months ago; I am having trouble seeing why it’s taken so long to get any agreement if it’s not down to the issue of the public option or co-op. I don’t know whether that’s right or not but it does strike me as feasible.

blog comments powered by Disqus