Van Jones Resigns. Now is it a story?

Bowing to pressure from South Dakota Politics, Van Jones resigned as Green Jobs Czar. Come to think of it, Green Jobs Czar would be a good title for a rock band. Naw, too much like Green Day.

Suddenly this is a story. The WaPo, which up until Friday hadn't printed a word about it, says that Jones was ousted for his "activism." In fact, he was ousted because he has been a left wing nut. Likewise the New York Times broke its silence this morning… ah, nine minutes ago according to the online screen.

So as Mickey Kaus points out, if you depended on the print edition of these two papers, or some smaller paper that recycles their stories on its Front Page, you would have had no idea this morning who Van Jones was or why he was in trouble. Nor would you have learned about this from the three major networks, all of whom ignored the story as well. If you depended on ABC Online, you would have to leave the "News" page and go to the Politics page and look very closely to see the network's first coverage of the story. Likewise NBC and CBS spiked the story until this morning.

Now here's my question: if this is big enough to result in the resignation of a "Czar," last night, wasn't it a big enough story to mention a couple of days ago? According to Byron York, neither newspaper nor the three networks had issued a word on this as late as Friday. The major news sources were trying to protect the President.

Of course you have known about the story all week if you get your news from the internet… or Fox!

Comments

[xinunus]

DON'T YOU JUST LOVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RUN MEDIA IS IGNORING THE FACT THAT VAN JONES IS A SELF ACCLAIMED COMMUNIST?

NOT ONE WORD IN ANY STORIES THAT I HAVE READ STATING THIS HUGE FACT!!!

HEY MEDIA!!!!!!!!

VAN JONES IS A COMMUNIST. HE SAID SO HIMSELF YOU PATHETICS FOOLs!!

[FascistSocialist]

It's a sad fucking day when we run people who have ideas we don't agree with out of public service because they have ideas we don't agree with.

[FascistSocialist]

Not vote them out, or fire them for something they've done in their position. But run them out of office because of a view point they have expressed.

[KB]

Yeah. Except that had it been George Bush and a birther Nazi, would you have run the same comments? I would say the same in either case. When the Republican Party disowned David Duke, they were right to do so.

[LocalGlobal]

Not to state the obvious or anything, but Van Jones was never voted in. So it wouldn't be possible to vote him out. That's part of the problem. The people never had a voice in his appointment to a position of power. Had he been running for a public office, his positions and past statements would have likely been publicly vetted and he probably wouldn't have had much chance of getting elected. Not even congress has been afforded the opportunity to vet all these czar appointees.

[FascistSocialist]

You're right LocalGlobal, we need to hold a federal election every time a cabinet position opens up or an appointment in a federal office needs to be filled. That's our problem.

[donCoyote]

What Obama is starting to experience is blowback from attempting to do an end run on the Constitution by making appointments on administrative positions that require no advice and consent of the Senate. So intent is Obama on subverting the Constitutional process that he has appointed over 30 "czars" of which very few require Senate approval while managing to only fill 43% of the 543 policymaking positions requiring Senate approval. This is all the more remarkable considering that he has more than enough votes in the Senate to force any nomination through the Senate including tax cheats like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. I'm afraid his incompetent vetting process is only a continuing indication of what an empty suit that Barack Obama really is. God help us all.

[KB]

donCoyote: Great pen name! I think the czar proliferation of this Administration is indeed a problem, but it's a policy problem and not a constitutional one. Policy czars might be a good idea when you need to coordinate a number of different agencies for the sake of some common legislative end. Obama has created a lot of them, I think, for no better reason than to reward his friends with cushy jobs. But they do not have any real power, and his failure to fill positions requiring Senate approval doesn't add up to an end run around the representative branches. It amounts to weakness.

[FascistSocialist]

http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2009/09/progressives-decry-resignation-of-van.html

[donCoyote]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then Professor. Even Senator Harry Byrd has expressed concerns about this expansion of executive power (gawd I can't believe I'm citing the Byrd Man as a source for my argument) in a letter to President Obama.

Byrd wrote that such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Byrd continues by writing “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

And while the "czars" may possess little power themselves to exert government power they obviously have the President's eyes and ears and are actively involved in shaping and molding government policy away from the scrutinizing eyes of Congress, essentially comprising a shadow cabinet.

[cbrtxus]

The guy was a very far to the left of most citizens. He was a self-admitted communist as recently as 1992. Check out Wikipedia's article for the details. Like many communists, he became an "environmentalist."
.
I suspect that many of his ilk believe that environmental activism was a more effective way to promote what he considered to be a "progressive" agenda. It would be "no sale" to most citizens when viewed on its own merits. By claiming to be "saving the planet," many folks won't immediately realize what they are buying in to. But people are beginning to see that now. The polls reflect that.