In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.
-- First Sentence of NYT article
This pisses me off. Who is this guy? The link provided in the article gives a taste:
Van is the recipient of many awards and honors, including: the Reebok International Human Rights Award; the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader designation; the prestigious, international Ashoka Fellowship; and many more. Van was included in the Ebony Magazine "Power 150" list of most influential African Americans for 2009. In 2008, Essence magazine named him one of the 25 most inspiring/influential African Americans. TIME Magazine named him an environmental hero in 2008. In 2009, TIME named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
Well, he doesn't belong in the administration, for sure. A good discussion about this victory for the forces of crud has more:
Respectable enough for Meg Whitman, as in former eBay CEO and wealthy Republican California gubernatorial candidate and John McCain advisor Meg Whitman, to proclaim herself "a huge fan of Van Jones."
Others point out the nature of the man and opposition. Why must this respected voice and activist go? From the NYT article:
derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists. The group, according to a post-mortem written by some of its founders, was an anti-capitalist, antiwar organization committed to achieving “solidarity among all oppressed peoples” with “direct militant action.”
It is downright amusing that Republicans are going after him as some sort of conspiracy theorist, putting aside the fact his view on 9/11 has what to do about his current position? Of course, when we actually look into the matter, the 9/11 matter is a bit more complicated. The letter, signed by loads of people (including members of the families of those killed and Ralph Nader), raises many questions. I find it distasteful when credence is given to the idea that 9/11 was some inside job, but signing a letter that raises such questions -- even if some are off base -- is not some horrible thing.
It is simple McCarthyism to pressure (and you know he was pressured ... this "voluntary" resignation is such only to the naive) people who do things like that to quit their jobs as an environmental jobs czar. Ditto, this is also too funny, fears he is a commie. Now, remember, his critics think public option health care/insurance reform is "socialism," and that Obama following in the footsteps of Bush41 and talking to schoolchildren is comparable to what North Korea does. So, let's put some perspective to the labels. Still ... he was supportive of "oppressed people" and "anti-war." Oh no! And, "direct militant action." The horror! You mean, like teabag sort direct militant action? Yeah, that is a bit lame, huh?
Turns out he was an activist in the 1990s, including in some radical sounding organizations. He did not find such labels as horrible as some did -- recall (but why would you, if we just shunt this sort of person to the curb?) pushing for an eight hour work week or Social Security was once deemed "commie" activity. But, Van Jones later became more "respectable," so people running for office with support of Sen. McCain support his efforts. ["Jones, however, left radical politics and made the decision to work within the system, rather than try to overthrow it."] Do we know this from the reporting? Uh no. This is more like going after the girlfriend in American President, who is now a top environmental lobbyist (given the upcoming Supreme Court orals, recall we were rooting for her), because there's a picture out there of her taking part in the burning of an American flag when she was in college. Childish b.s.
Wait though. Turns out, before being czar, there were -- sit down for this please -- "derogatory statements about Republicans." Now, if reports are to be believed, Obama's top adviser had some derogatory statements for progressives. But, their feelings are not the concern ... just look at the health care debate. Likewise, if top Republican activists don't include a derogatory statement in their remarks about Obama and Democrats in general, it is notable. But, It's Okay If You're A Republican. When you are a Democrat, you have to cry for forgiveness when you say something like this (again, a blog, not a news article, provides essential details):
"Well, the answer to that is, they're a**holes," Jones said. "And Barack Obama is not an a**hole. Now, I will say this: I can be an a**hole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama, are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity [to get things done]."
Speaking the truth, however, is in bad form. A perusal of various accounts also made some reference of him saying Bush used crack (crackhead?). Republican office holders never do crude things like that! It's true, of course, fwiw. Did he do this while being a green czar? Don't see any evidence of that. He also noted:
The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color's communities because they don't have a racial justice frame.
Huffington Post there for some freakening reason didn't give a link to when he said that. It appears, this from negative source, he said it in January 2008! And, if you read the comments and actually listen to what he (calmly, professionally) has to say, it is on point. The comment on inequitable environmental results, putting aside that it might reflect who he was talking to, is true. Again, we are not supposed to do this. We have to just say "oh how horrible!" As if the remaining people are perfectly fine. As if this is not a selective appeasement.
[See also here, where he talks about white violence -- Columbine -- and is denounced for it. Van Jones speaks of the need for a universal, evenhanded concern for violence. Actually listening to what he says, well we can't do that ... let's just note he resigned for controversial statements. Sorta reminds me of Dean campaign for President, where the substance of his ideas were shunted aside when they were too "controversial." Again, this sometimes leads in a direction where the person says something stupid or wrong. But, if you don't limit yourself to pablum, that is what happens.]
This is b.s. It is not as if Obama is on the whole not screwing those who want and respect such voices, so such "sacrifices" are necessary evils in promotion of a generally successful movement. Get Dawn Johnsen in the OLC, then maybe I will start buying that line. Just an example. No, this is just a way to give Glen Beck and his ilk a scalp, telling people too loud and critical of the powers that be that they better watch out, they need to be nice (just like the other side is!) when fighting the forces that are screwing this country. After all, just doing that is inherently suspicious radical commie behavior. If not, even if people running for office that John McCain supports likes you, you cannot be an adviser that does not require Senate confirmation.
This is a loser mentality. [Per the following post, perhaps I miss the point here ... this is an establishment mentality, a centrist not willing to give those on the left even a fair voice without this shit mentality. Loser mentality too, don't get me wrong.] If this relatively minor position is put to such an unmeetable test (if decided evenhandedly), loads of good people will be at risk. Gawker has it exactly right:
And for both his activism and his charm he was rewarded with a White House job with the Council on Environmental Quality. He was tasked with making sure stimulus money for green jobs actually went to green jobs. And he's a great person to have in this administration—he is a genuine environmentalist and the only special interest he's beholden to is poor people. He is the sort of person we were all praying Obama would bring with him to DC, instead of Larry Summers.
Good thing he's gone, right?