Racists, Idiots, and Lunatics
“Racists, idiots and lunatics.” These seem to be the preferred insults that those on the Left and its defenders in the mainstream media have been hurling at anyone who dares criticize the political agenda of President Obama. No one is safe from these ad hominen attacks; not Congressmen, Senators, pundits, reporters, academics and especially regular citizens who have come to the public square seeking answers to reasonable questions about the Obama Administration and what exactly it means by “hope” and “change.”
Whether on serious issues that are intentionally “transformative” of American society like Cap-and-Trade, Health Care Reform, and the Federal Stimulus Package, or on issues that may reveal some inconvenient truths about the present Administration, the Left and the mainstream media seem unable to make their case without totally dismissing the criticisms lodged by an increasing number of the American people.
And, when they do deem it necessary to stoop to answer the criticism, they do so by heaping harsh invective on the critics by attributing to them a caustic bigotry or a vast ignorance on the issues that have inspired people to speak out. This, even after they are scooped on the big stories by the very same people they ignore and deride.
The irony was on full display this past week as both the Left and most of the mainstream media missed the story of the resignation of Obama’s controversial “green jobs czar” Van Jones. After it was revealed first by the blogosphere and later picked up by Fox News host Glen Beck, that Jones had a very radical past, describing himself at various times both as a “Communist” and a “revolutionary,” and had signed a 9/11 Truth.org petition that sought to implicate members of the Bush Administration in the 9/11 attacks, Jones tendered his resignation late Saturday (9/5) with nary a peep from most news outlets.
The explanation offered by the mainstream media for missing this story until Jones actually resigned- if they admitted there was a story at all- was laughable and was accompanied by desperate attacks on those that first broke the story. On the NBC News program Meet the Press the day after Jones’ resignation, the assembled panel, which included New York Times Pulitzer-winning International Affairs columnist Tom Friedman, found the only lesson in the whole episode was that the internet could not be trusted as a source of information. He said, “the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information” adding to former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw’s previous comment that the Internet is filled with “false information” and “it’s something that we all have to address and it requires society and political and cultural leaders to stand up and say, ‘this is crazy.’ We just can’t function that way.”
Did both these important journalists believe at the time they made these comments that the information that forced the Van Jones resignation was false? Certainly, they did not follow up with any questions about the Obama Administration’s silence on Jones’ resignation, even as there was evidence, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, that Obama knew about his background before he became an important appointee in the Administration. Or, did they just want the whole incident to go away? It seems that Friedman’s employer, The New York Times did not view the fact that an important advisor to the President of the United States was both a self-described revolutionary and a 9/11 Truther as warranting much in the way of further discovery. Their response to the fact they completely missed the story was that they did not have enough reporters on duty that weekend to cover it. And, quite amazingly, there has been absolutely no follow-up inquiry on Jones’ resignation. Why has Obama remained silent on the incident? Why didn’t the White House defend Jones, who is an acknowledged expert on the emerging green economy and is a best-selling author on the issue? Yes, Van Jones is clearly someone who inhabits the far-left of the Democratic Party, his membership in Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) and the new-agey Noetic Institute, where he was resident Fellow, prove that. Yet he was still appointed to the White House on the merit of his work, according to Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarret. Obviously, they initially felt that there was nothing objectionable about his past.
Indeed, Jones was perhaps an important symbolic representation of the new green progressivism in the Administration and was quietly going about his business at that.
Allowing him to resign tends to lend credence to the right-wing narrative of concealed radicalism they are trying to foist upon the Administration. Why give them the fuel for their fire if these charges are as delusional, racist, ignorant and overheated as many claim? And why not follow up on the true story of his resignation if they don’t want the likes of Glenn Beck and the “sewer” of the (conservative) blogosphere to write the popular history of this event?