There’s been a lot of chatter about the reasons why Van Jones had to leave his position as the green-jobs czar for the White House. One theory has it that Fox’s Glen Beck is to blame for his constant hammering about Van Jones’ past controversial statements. The line advanced here was that Beck was seeking revenge for being made the target of a boycott by the group, Color For Change (co-founded by Jones). Color For Change lobbied a number of advertisers to stop sponsoring Beck’s show.
Others say that once it become widely known that Jones had co-signed a petition questioning the U.S. Government’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, he simply had to go. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, “He’s gone for one reason only. You can’t sign a petition demanding not one but four investigations of the charge that the Bush Administration deliberately allowed 9/11, ie, collaborated in the worst massacre ever perpetrated on American soil…”
Then there’s former Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, who wrote the following in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle:
“The only question I have about Van Jones’ resignation as the White House green czar is why didn’t they call me before they hired him. You would think that as part of the vetting process, they would have called the mayor of the city where he was from.”
“I would have said, ‘Yeah, I know a lot about him. He’s really a pain in the ass. When he ran Bay Area Police Watch, he slanted every case to make the cops look as bad as possible. And while he might be talented enough, he’s totally and completely unreliable.’”
(source: SF Chronicle, 9/13/09)
Wow! if Willie Brown thinks Van Jones was a pain in the ass, then Jones really had to go. This was much bigger than Glen Beck. Good riddance!
Well this is our new administration, lets just see what other shoes begin to drop… we wanted change, are we getting it? And is this the change we wanted? Does this emperor really not have ANY clothes?
We’ve got a long way to go to match the depths of the previous 8 years. You remember, using false information to get us into a never-ending, unwinnable war, decimating the budget surplus, trampling the constitution, etc. You haven’t forgotten the wonderful wardrobe of the previous emperor have you?
Oh no I didn’t forget any of that, BUT I am not going to let THAT be used as an EXCUSE for even more BS. As for an “unwinnable war”, well we are going that direction in Afghanistan. I guess is that let’s not be distracted and lets keep the focus and remind the the government that THEY need to be accountable to US.
We should consult the Contitution to see what processes should be followed in the selection of a Green Jobs Czar.
I think Jefferson was pretty specific in pointing out that Green Jobs Czars should never publicly call Republicans a**holes. If Obama can just find somebody who can refrain from calling Republicans a**holes then that person may have the inside track on the job of our next Green Jobs Czar.
“Czar” is just a slang term for a person who has only a single area of management responsibility. It is a term that is used both inside and outside government. The Constitution does not supply guidance for vernacular usage.
Since the former vice president and other prominent Republicans have not refrained from the use of salty language in public, is your second point that such terms should be forbidden only to Democrats?
John, I think that I can refrain from calling republicans a**holes. Think I can have the job? <grin>
Van should have taken the defense of a San Jose Human Rights Commissioner and just claimed it was all funny to him, and what was the point. It worked before.