Van Jones smeared or questionable?

[Corbu]

With Van Jones' resignation over the weekend at midnight on 9/5/09, just curious on the opinions of others.

Was Van Jones resignation due to smear tactics of the press?

Did Van Jones actions and words cause him to lose credibility, ultimately resulting in his resignation?

[hubcap]

Van Jones is a radical nutcase who should never have been allowed in that position in the first place. Unfortunately our current president seems to surround himself with people of that kind.

Reporting what Van Jones actually said could hardly be considered a "smear job".

[Valiyn]

My problem with this is all the smear against him is for minor and unimportant things. I don't care if he calls people names, signs a petition, and was a member of a socialist group who's leader was arrested for murder. None of that hints he would be bad at his job of environmental quality. If he was a tree burning psychopath who started a wildfire before, sure, I can see that - but none of the smears brought against him has anything to do with his job or job performance.

[RBM]

Van Jones is a radical nutcase who should never have been allowed in that position in the first place. Unfortunately our current president seems to surround himself with people of that kind.


What, in your mind, makes him 'radical' ?

What exactly is 'that kind' ?

Disclosure: I'm a independent who votes on issues, not party.

[hubcap]

My problem with this is all the smear against him is for minor and unimportant things. I don't care if he calls people names, signs a petition, and was a member of a socialist group who's leader was arrested for murder. None of that hints he would be bad at his job of environmental quality. If he was a tree burning psychopath who started a wildfire before, sure, I can see that - but none of the smears brought against him has anything to do with his job or job performance.
The things he was quoted as saying indicate that he at worst has lost touch with reality and at best is a radical nutcase. In either case he has no business working on behalf of the people of the United States.

I am happy to see him gone.





hubcap added to this post, 5 minutes and 46 seconds later...

What, in your mind, makes him 'radical' ?

What exactly is 'that kind' ?

Disclosure: I'm a independent who votes on issues, not party.

This should answer both your questions:


Was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. In Nov 2005 stated: "I met all these young radical people of color, I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." By August, I was a communist.

[Valiyn]

I've never heard of him until now, but my understanding is alot of this looks unfeasible.

Was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. In Nov 2005 stated: "I met all these young radical people of color, I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." By August, I was a communist.

For one, no anarchists and communist I know get along when it comes to politics. l They want two very different things and because of that, I'm more inclined to see this as scaremongering. Two fears of the people who identify themselves as republicans (and general public of must of the us citizenry) are the Red communist and the Anarchists - and here we see them working together to destroy the common good when they have completely opposing views?! Not to mention this started after a protest against the WTO, of which to my knowledge, communist groups had no interest in (anarchist and environmentalist (concerning alot of WHAT HIS JOB ENTAILS) did however). Still innocent until proven guilty and so far the evidence is rather weak from what I've seen of it so far.

[hubcap]

Has Mr. Jones denied that he made the statement?

[Valiyn]

Has Mr. Jones denied that he made the statement? Not that I know of, but in the US one is innocent until proven guilty so until I see evidence he did say that, the burden of proof lies with the accusation.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. 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." Was part of his resignation letter. [sources: 1 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 2 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 3 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 4 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) -all from a quick google search. Seeing as some are from people who want him to resign, I think it's accurate to say those are indeed his words.] This indicates he will not waste time defending his position, and therefore, would not bother taking the time to disprove the accusations. Not fighting a battle over something so minor as what looks to be almost like a witch hunt do not make him guilty of the smear charges and that quote.

[hubcap]

That quote is one of many.

I guess you thought O.J. didn't murder Nicole either?

[Valiyn]

Uh, Who?

I really don't follow alot of the current gossip on people's personal lives. I like my news to be about generally more important things then who's sleeping with who. One nation goes to war with another is news....not if something was shown at a half time show.

List the "many quotes" and their sources and I'll look at them. So far, all I have to go on is searches to check facts so you are going to have to state your sources so I can get a good idea what is going on.

[Valiyn]

Please provide the list of quotes Van Jones is reported to have said that incriminates him, or some other form of evidence proving the smudge against him I can look at to make an informed decision. As you seem to side very strongly on this, I would hope you have some well founded sources you can share.

[hubcap]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[meanlittlechimp]

It wasn't a total smear, because it was true. He at least temporarily held a wacky notion that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. Which is absurd.

But I've seen dozens of elected politicians infer or claim Saddam was responsible. Both stances are stupid. But one isn't career threatening. David Duke was in the Senate and the House as publicly known KKK member. To some that's not as crazy as the Bush - 9/11 conspiracy.

If we had to fire people for believing in one or two stupid notions, how do you explain Reagan hiring astrologers or Bush Jr on any given day?

I have no opinion on how good he actually for the job; because I didn't pay any attention to him until this scandal occurred.

[firebee]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I know that I for one take it very seriously when a blog by the name of "Atlas Shrugs" takes against a given public figure.

So, leaving aside all the yapping by Glenn Beck, basically what the OMG EVIDENCY is, is that this fellow has accused Republicans of being "assholes" (the shock! the horror! the em0 m00se!), has made some thoroughly trendy "Look! A pretty pony!" statements about green technology, and is potentially an evilcommie. Noes.

What exactly is the practical problem with these things?

And what in the world, aside from the word-that-rhymes-with-"Tigger", does this have to do with OJ Simpson?

[TheLastMohican]

It wasn't a total smear, because it was true. He at least temporarily held a wacky notion that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11. Which is absurd.

But I've seen dozens of elected politicians infer or claim Saddam was responsible. Both stances are stupid. But one isn't career threatening.

I don't think it comes down the 9/11 Truther movement being stupid. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the conspiracy theorists are actually right about the Bush administration being aware of and funding the attacks. Jones would have been fired anyway. Hey, he probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place. The real problem with his involvement was that it was hostile to the government in which he now wants to take part. In that respect, it is similar to being a former member of the KKK (the violent aspect aside): the opinions clash with the system too strongly for a link to seem appropriate.

Considering that his job really had nothing to do with any of that, and that he presumably is no longer a proponent of those theories, I think it's no big deal. But Obama was probably right to fire him anyway, because in the grander scheme of things, he cannot afford to have many such widely ridiculed characters in his administration, especially not for PR-oriented positions.

[hubcap]

I know that I for one take it very seriously when a blog by the name of "Atlas Shrugs" takes against a given public figure.
The link was simply the first google I came up with. You can do your own research and use CNN if you'd like.


What exactly is the practical problem with these things?
No problem, unless you want delusional people in positions of high influence.


And what in the world, aside from the word-that-rhymes-with-"Tigger", does this have to do with OJ Simpson?
Perhaps you should go back and read the post that preceded the original comment about O.J.

[Monte314]

There are three big problems with the whole "Czar" idea:

1.) Czars are chosen by the President... alone. No vetting by Congress, no public process, no disclosure of any kind (hence a "Van Jones").

2.) There is no constitutional basis for this position. In essence, the group of "Czars" is a shadow cabinet accountable to the President... alone.

3.) There is no accountability to anyone but the President... alone. Therefore, there are no specified duties, description of powers & limitations, or mechanisms for redress.

You see where this is all going, right? Mr. Obama is essentially fashioning a second U.S. government before our very eyes; one that answers to him...alone. It is being erected alongside the one specified by the framers of the Constitution, and is being funded with "bailout" money (Van Jones had some 10 Billion dollars of "bailout" money on his plate alone....) One is being brought forward, while the other is quietly being pushed into the background. Which is which, do you think?

[hubcap]

There are three big problems with the whole "Czar" idea:

1.) Czars are chosen by the President... alone. No vetting by Congress, no public process, no disclosure of any kind (hence a "Van Jones").

2.) There is no constitutional basis for this position. In essence, the group of "Czars" is a shadow cabinet accountable to the President... alone.

3.) There is no accountability to anyone but the President... alone. Therefore, there are no specified duties, description of powers & limitations, or mechanisms for redress.

You see where this is all going, right? Mr. Obama is essentially fashioning a second U.S. government before our very eyes; one that answers to him...alone. It is being erected alongside the one specified by the framers of the Constitution, and is being funded with "bailout" money (Van Jones had some 10 Billion dollars of "bailout" money on his plate alone....) One is being brought forward, while the other is quietly being pushed into the background. Which is which, do you think?

You are absolutely correct. So why is noone making a big deal of this?

[Night Runner]

3.) There is no accountability to anyone but the President... alone. Therefore, there are no specified duties, description of powers & limitations, or mechanisms for redress.

You are absolutely correct. So why is noone making a big deal of this?

Because it has been done for decades. Bush Jr. did it, as did Clinton, and Bush Sr., and even Reagan himself. If you claim not to have known about this, you're either naive or a very bad actor. In case it's the former, congratulations - you've learned something today. :smart:

[phej]

Because it has been done for decades. Bush Jr. did it, as did Clinton, and Bush Sr., and even Reagan himself. If you claim not to have known about this, you're either naive or a very bad actor. In case it's the former, congratulations - you've learned something today. :smart:

Yes, this has been done for decades. The flaw that the later administrations have done is to actually give them a title like "czar." These guys are all political appointees and live and die by their politics. There's nothing wrong with it... who else will be members of the Chief of Staff's office?

[Undead Bonzi]

There are three big problems with the whole "Czar" idea:

1.) Czars are chosen by the President... alone. No vetting by Congress, no public process, no disclosure of any kind (hence a "Van Jones").

2.) There is no constitutional basis for this position. In essence, the group of "Czars" is a shadow cabinet accountable to the President... alone.

3.) There is no accountability to anyone but the President... alone. Therefore, there are no specified duties, description of powers & limitations, or mechanisms for redress.

You see where this is all going, right? Mr. Obama is essentially fashioning a second U.S. government before our very eyes; one that answers to him...alone. It is being erected alongside the one specified by the framers of the Constitution, and is being funded with "bailout" money (Van Jones had some 10 Billion dollars of "bailout" money on his plate alone....) One is being brought forward, while the other is quietly being pushed into the background. Which is which, do you think?

These are all reasonable concerns about the position of czar itself, not the quallifications or lack thereof in the individual occupying the position. As I understand it this thread is about the person in the position.

No problem, unless you want delusional people in positions of high influence.

Yeah, I'm glad that we keep out all the guys who believe in invisible friends who tell them what to do and all that jazz....oh wait...well nevermind, those are the people we put in positions of power rather than influence.



Having said that the whole situation strikes me as typical 'squalling brat' syndrome of politics. Whoever loses spends the next four/eight years pissing in the pool about nonissues, because lets face it...nobody wants to pay the political capital it would take to actually address real problems. In place of real governemt we get: OMG we have an anarchist in government....wait....how does that work? OMG the commies are taking control of our governemt to enact facist-nazi death camps....wait....how does that work? Both sides do it and the common denominator is panic/emotional appeal and a requirement that you don't think too hard about what you are being told to fear.

[Lucid]

To call republicans assholes and to have believed for a time that the Bush Jr. administration was responsible for 9/11 are really pretty minor things. Save the false outrage for someone who will be swayed by it.

Communism? None of you ever did a stint as a vegetarian or a christian or experimented with Buddhism or eugenics or cold fusion or tarot cards? Communism is no different. Everyone is entitled to change their minds. Also, communism isn't the big scary boogey man some of you like to make it out to be. If you're scared of communism, are you also scared of existentialism? Objectivism? Pantheism? Capitalism? Post modernism? Abstract art?

And the truther movement is no more or less silly than the birthers or the deathers. Sarah Palin makes up a bunch of crap about death panels, but you're pissed off at this guy for believing something silly about the Bush administration? Please. This is just more 'us good, them bad' rhetoric.

[Mike]

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Says White Polluters Steered Poison Into Minority Communities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I'd say that disqualifies him.

[pip]

Mountain: Molehill

[meanlittlechimp]

You see where this is all going, right? Mr. Obama is essentially fashioning a second U.S. government before our very eyes; one that answers to him...alone.

Do you honestly believe he is going to abuse presidential power more than the previous administration? or any Republican administration post Eisenhower?

What kind of crack do you smoke? No matter how bad of a flake he was I guarantee Van Jones would have abused federal power far less than every Drug Czar that ever existed (created by Reagan).

The difference between these "czars" is Obama is trying to create forward thinking jobs in an area we need to improve - energy. The right's czars are created with the purpose of locking up all the scary mud people for smoking a joint. His shadow government is trying invest in resources in a forward thinking way. The right's shadow government is jailing you for non violent drug offenses.

Because it has been done for decades. Bush Jr. did it, as did Clinton, and Bush Sr., and even Reagan himself. If you claim not to have known about this, you're either naive or a very bad actor. In case it's the former, congratulations - you've learned something today. :smart:

True, but the right, abused their power much more severely. It's not comparable.

There is far more rectitude, arrogance, deceit and viciousness that is simply more of the hallmark of right wing administrations - not to mention, they lie to justify bombing people, with your tax dollars. What is the left diabolically lying about? School programs? Health Care? Infrastructure? Education? Blowjobs? or.... killing people that you are mistakenly frightened of?

They have always abused their power, far more than the left. No sane person can argue otherwise - I personally think it's due to the TJ style that comprise most of their leadership.

[timetraveler]

With Van Jones' resignation over the weekend at midnight on 9/5/09, just curious on the opinions of others.

Was Van Jones resignation due to smear tactics of the press?

Did Van Jones actions and words cause him to lose credibility, ultimately resulting in his resignation?

Van Jones resigned because of Glenn Beck. His group picked a fight with Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck won. Glenn Beck is still on the air and Van Jones resigned.

[Ool]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What’s the problem with that asshole quote anyway?

After all, after the long eight years of the last administration we all know the Republicans are assholes. Worse than assholes, even—they’re homicidal scum, invading whole countries under false pretenses and killing hundreds of thousands of their inhabitants for no reason other than to score political points at home and making their moronic figurehead a “war president.” They tortured innocents on the mere suspicion that they might be terrorists and shrug it off when you bring it up today.

So from what I can make out calling them assholes shouldn’t be all that controversial—or only in the sense that it’s not nearly a bad enough name for them. “Murderers” and “sociopaths” would fit them much better…


And the Democrats fired Jones for that…?! You have a party of bullies turned murderers and a party of pussies. You are so screwed…!





Ool added to this post, 15 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Van Jones resigned because of Glenn Beck. His group picked a fight with Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck won. Glenn Beck is still on the air and Van Jones resigned.

Scary, isn’t it? I once predicted in the waning years of the Bush administration, when he had lost all respect of anyone even remotely moderate yet, that he was done for, no matter what. But the kind of person that used to identify with that born screw-up—the average Bush-voter—was still around to be a bad judge of character once again. And given the chance they would probably vote for someone even scarier and someone worse.

Well, they don’t have the chance of voting yet, but we know whose show they watch today…

Observing the social dynamics among the crazies in the US is like watching a speeding bus approaching a concrete wall in slow motion. You wince for the driver and the passengers, you don’t see what you can do about it, and you wonder whether you’re standing far away enough for the debris not to hit you, too. The Iraqis sure weren’t the last time around, and they were halfway across the world…

[timetraveler]

What’s the problem with that asshole quote anyway?

After all, after the long eight years of the last administration we all know the Republicans are assholes. Worse than assholes, even—they’re homicidal scum, invading whole countries under false pretenses and killing hundreds of thousands of their inhabitants for no reason other than to score political points at home and making their moronic figurehead a “war president.” They tortured innocents on the mere suspicion that they might be terrorists and shrug it off when you bring it up today.

So from what I can make out calling them assholes shouldn’t be all that controversial—or only in the sense that it’s not nearly a bad enough name for them. “Murderers” and “sociopaths” would fit them much better…


And the Democrats fired Jones for that…?! You have a party of bullies turned murderers and a party of pussies. You are so screwed…!





Ool added to this post, 15 minutes and 9 seconds later...



Scary, isn’t it? I once predicted in the waning years of the Bush administration, when he had lost all respect of anyone even remotely moderate yet, that he was done for, no matter what. But the kind of person that used to identify with that born screw-up—the average Bush-voter—was still around to be a bad judge of character once again. And given the chance they would probably vote for someone even scarier and someone worse.

Well, they don’t have the chance of voting yet, but we know whose show they watch today…

Observing the social dynamics among the crazies in the US is like watching a speeding bus approaching a concrete wall in slow motion. You wince for the driver and the passengers, you don’t see what you can do about it, and you wonder whether you’re standing far away enough for the debris not to hit you, too. The Iraqis sure weren’t the last time around, and they were halfway across the world…

You make a mistake by calling them crazy. They are no more crazy than people who buy the Democrat platform and Obama's hope/change speeches. The problem is that people listen to speeches rather than follow their own personal self interest. What have politicians done to help them get or keep a job? or to improve the economy? None of this other stuff matters if we don't have jobs.

[Coralaisly]

DEFINATELY QUESTIONABLE!!!

I mean come on! do you really want that filthy-mouthed communist advising your president??!

and yes, I do greatly take offense to his use of curse words. I believe that when one speaks like that in public it speaks volumes for their integrity. A man as educated as he is should be able to broaden his vocabulary enough to not have to employ those words. It speaks poorly of him and for someone who claims to want to help black people/people of color/anyone except white people, I think it's counterproductive, since I, as not only a citizen of America, but a black person am insulted by the way he presents himself in public and don't want him representing me(as a black person), or advising my president (even though he's really just moved to another organization and is most likely doing roughly if not exactly the same thing somewhere else) in any way shape or form, because I see none of myself in him, nor do I agree with what he stands for.

This is DEFINATELY not change I can believe in. I don't know about anyone else.

[eagleseven]

The OP does not find it disconcerting that a man who believes the US Government murdered its own citizens en masse was hired by that very same Government?

Nor is it a problem that said man developed his views while in prison?


Is it a crime? Of course not! But putting him into a position of great power? Ludicrous!