Van Jones out, but defiant

bob_2 · 09-07-09 2:58 am

Glenn Beck up, left down and Van Jones defiant <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813.html" target=_top>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813.ht ml</a> Excerpt: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The resignation early Sunday of “green jobs” adviser Van Jones says as much about the Obama White House as it does about Jones – marking the latest sacrifice to the political gods after a long summer of compromises and surrenders highlighted the limits of White House power. The departure – nominally the choice of a still-defiant Jones, who said he feared distracting from important business – confirmed Obama’s choice of pragmatism over confrontation and a belief that controversies sometimes are better solved by capitulation, a view that infuriates Obama’s allies on the left. It confirmed that the real opposition party to Obama right now is the conservative grassroots that draws its energy from Fox News, talk radio and the Drudge Report, and often leaves Republican elected officials scrambling to catch up. And it was a fresh reminder that the White House’s vetting process didn’t fall down only on high-profile nominees like Tom Daschle. It barely touched the lower reaches of the administration – a White House official conceded Sunday that Jones’ past statements weren’t as thoroughly scrubbed due to his relatively low rank. Jones’ selection also was propelled by powerful patrons, who included the first lady and the vice president. In his statement, Jones was defiant. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” he said. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs cast the move the same way. “What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,” Gibbs said, agreeing with the show’s host, George Stephanopoulos that Obama “doesn’t endorse” Jones’s remarks on race and politics, his apparent flirtation with the “9/11 Truth” movement, and his advocacy for the convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal. ...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Is this the sign of a "sea change" about to happen.

bob_2 · 09-07-09 3:09 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"If Jones left under pressure from the Obama administration then we are in for a very long and painful four years,” said Melissa Harris Lacewell, a political science professor at Princeton University. “I would hate to think that Glenn Beck can simply shout down any member of the administration he chooses to target.” They were referring to the Fox News host who has rocketed to a status as de facto leader of the opposition since joining the network from the relative obscurity of talk radio and CNN Headline News. Beck's attacks on Jones intensified after an advocacy group Jones helped found, Color of Change, lead a campaign to drive advertisers away from Beck’s show. But as soon as the ensuing controversy began to bleed over onto the websites of ABC News, POLITICO, and other quarters of the mainstream media, the administration appeared to stop defending Jones. After passing on a statement Thursday from Jones indicating that he would hold fast, Gibbs declined to indicate Friday that he had Obama’s confidence, and the resignation – apparently timed for maximum obscurity in the early hours of a holiday weekend Sunday – began to seem preordained. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813_Page2.html" target=_top>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813_Pa ge2.html</a> Glenn Beck, the stormin' Mormon. You go GUY!!!

bob_2 · 09-07-09 3:22 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:At a commencement address in the spring, first lady Michelle Obama held Jones up as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work. "And then there's Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of ‘green collar’ jobs –- jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers,” she said. ... There was little immediate talk of possible successors to Jones, largely due to the sense he would be difficult to replace in an advisory post designed specifically for him, due to his past work in promoting "green jobs." His departure will likely leave the sorest feelings among Obama’s supporters on the left. Jones has deep ties to the current liberal elite: He was a top aide to Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington’s 2003 campaign for governor of California, and Sunday won praise from, among others, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. “I think it’s a loss for the country,” Dean said.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813_Page3.html" target=_top>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813_Pa ge3.html</a> This sounds like a direct educated hit, than a shot at a small fry. (Message edited by Bob_2 on September 07, 2009)

renie · 09-07-09 6:51 pm

I fear Glen Beck more than Van Jones. Glen is a calamity howler of the first order. I listen to him on a regular basis. He, along with Sean Hannity, Laura Inghram and Rush Limbaugh all worry me. They, none of them, have ever had one positive thing to say about President Obama. Not one. They are out to destroy the president. I could see them whip up so much hatred in the country toward the president that someone might attempt to assinate him. Bill O'Reilly leans strongly to the right but will occasionally say something positive about Obama. So, when he shares his opinion, I am more likely to listen. I feel he tries to look at both sides of an issue. I'm always more apt to listen to and respect the person who tries to look at both sides of any situation with an open mind.

elaine · 09-07-09 7:39 pm

It is impossible for me to listen to these folks. They are determined to undermine the president no matter what he does. They spread lies, smears, distort the truth, and have spewed vitriol to the extent that there are too many who depend on them for their only news, with the result that they carry guns to a presidential speech (where are the Secret Service), and label him a "socialist" even "Communist" and are nothing but rabble rousers. I, too, am worried about the potential for inciting such psychopaths that an assassination attempt may not occur. Free speech is a constitutional right, but yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is criminal--and these folks are bordering on criminal and terrorist speech.

don · 09-07-09 7:44 pm

The Power of Words Once when Pierre Trudeau used the "F" word in parliament, he claimed he said "Fuddle-duddle". Why? Because leaders are not supposed to have "potty mouths". It is politically incorrect. When Jones used the "A - Hle" word, he was not a political figure, unlike Cheney who used the "F" word on a fellow senator. Nonetheless, our "potty mouths" come back to haunt us. Is "clean speech" a Christian value? References: Steve Benen, September 2, 2009. Washington Monthly. <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019741.php" target=_top>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu al/2009_09/019741.php</a> Wikipedia's "Fuddle duddle" entry. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuddle_duddle" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuddle_duddle</a> Further Reading: THE CHANGING VALUES of ENGLISH SPEECH (1909) By RALCY HUSTED BELL <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Our words of daily use deserve and demand the same hygienic cleanliness that our persons deserve and demand. Beauty demands that they shall not be mutilated; utility demands that they shall not be confused; decency demands that they shall not be degraded; justice assures them consideration. It is as important to conserve the integrity and morality of words, as of peoples; indeed, the morality in one case may largely depend upon that of the other. Clean speech is as wholesome as fine linen. Careful speech is a form of real etiquette. Beautiful words are better than royal purples. It is not meant by this that our daily speech should be splinted in plaster moulds, or in any other manner robbed of its wholesome spontaneity, or that the natural exuberance of feeling should be suppressed, or that the heart should smother its wails beneath the compressed lips of false dignity. That is not human. Rigidity is rather more consistent with death than with life. Extremes seldom promote lasting good. If one is master of his words heart to heart at ease with them his style need concern him little. Style then is merely a question of individual temperament, and is ever lifeless, cold and false unless based upon these: beauty, fact and force. page 79 <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/changingvaluesof00belluoft/changingvaluesof00belluoft_djvu.txt" target=_top>http://www.archive.org/stream/changingvaluesof00be lluoft/changingvaluesof00belluoft_djvu.txt</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> .

bob_2 · 09-07-09 11:46 pm

Sirje and Elaine, where were you both when W was being "endangered". Give me a break. Politics is Politics, and Elaine, would love to hear what lies you are speaking of about Obama or Van Jones. If the shoe fits.... Read into where Obama got his philosophy, you might start with "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. Google and read, then get back to us. Also, google about what Obama has said about Reparations and slavery. Google "Obama and reparations" then get back to us, I think he has already emptied the coffers.

bob_2 · 09-07-09 11:59 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Alinsky's Rules for Radicals RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.) RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.) RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.) RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.) RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.) RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm" target=_top>http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.h tm</a> See if any of these don't give you some background on the Obama campaign???

bob_2 · 09-08-09 12:07 am

<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/14/1816.png" alt=""> Maybe a little irreverent, but nearly the tactics being used, say it long enough, even if not true, it becomes hoped for and maybe even believed.

bob_2 · 09-09-09 1:53 am

Elaine, please, where are the lies??? Sorry Sirje, it was Renie speaking. Read this piece then chime in again. This guy is a racist, communist, and it appears Obama would have to be blind and deaf not to know from whence he came, just like Jeremiah Wright. Quite a string of interesting individuals that Obama has gathered about him. Fear, be very afraid, and not because some loud mouth Mormon Talk Show host says it is so, read for yourselves: SF Chronicle: Obama Knew About Van Jones' Radical Background in Advance <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/07/sf-chronicle-obama-knew-about-van-jones-radical-background-advance" target=_top>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/ 07/sf-chronicle-obama-knew-about-van-jones-radical -background-advance</a> And the source, a known liberal rag the SF Chronicle. Elaine should appreciate the irony.

elaine · 09-09-09 5:52 pm

Bob, FYI, I never commented on van Jones, nor do I know enough to do so--which evidently you seem to know. That there have been lies and distortions is unquestioned. Even the Republican from Florida, Greer (sp) changed his mind on the President's address to students yesterday, after first declaiming it as being a socialist indoctrination of students!! Both President Bush, 41 and other presidents have spoken and given the same message to students without ever such a kefluffle. There are no "death panels" in the Healthcare bill, despite Palin's and others' complaints. Nor is the government introducing "socialized medicine" unless, of course there is some other entity besides the government which at present is administering Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, state and federal employee's health insurance, etc. If they have been complaining of "socialized medicine" who are covered by these, we haven't heard from them. Go ahead, if you wish and let Limbaugh, Beck, and Faux News tell you what to think. They seem to have done a good job so far. BTW, if you haven't yet reached the age to benefit from Medicare, do you plan to reject it when the time comes...after all, it is "socialized medicine"!

bob_2 · 09-09-09 10:43 pm

Medicare already does a death panel, under utilization review, if you have plateaued you get taken off rehab services. It will only get worse with Obamacare. I noticed he was afraid to offend his Trial Lawyer lobby group in his speech but only talked of experiments with Doc's not practicing defensive medicine, nothing about limiting judgements like the one that made John Edwards rich off the Healthcare System.

george · 09-10-09 4:51 am

Bob, As to your reference to "Sirje and Elaine" Set.7 - 11:46 --- leave me out of this. I never said a word here. What this proves is that you have categorized each of us under some sort of heading in your mind. This also means you don't listen to what anyone actually says, lumping people together that you think are linked. The truth is I'm suspicious of anything that smacks of "socialism" since that automatically conjures up the word, "communism" for me. My dad disliked Democrats specifically because Roosevelt sold out to the Russians after WWII at the Yalta conference, making his homeland (Estonia) a Russian satellite. I've been a little more rational and even voted for a Democrat for president once but my dad's bias shows up in my attitudes. My dad was a hard working man who had to learn two foreign languages in his life time (Swedish and English) and had to take up two distinct occupations in order to make a living for us. I watched my dad put his head in his hands and cry when the enormity of it all hit him the second day in the US. He had a menial job of cleaning out someone's yard and knew no English. He started from nothing, to becoming a certified plumber and making a good living for us on Long Island, NY. It's, therefore, hard for me to sympathize with people who want something only because they want it but are unwilling to work for it. "Socialized" anything, be it health care or food stamps panders to people who can't be bothered to find a job. Having said that inflammatory remark, I realize there are people who really need help, but they should be few and far between in the richest country in world and where anybody can become president. When hordes of people pour into the country like they do, from Mexico, and then demand their kids be taught in Spanish and expect all manner of social services, my mind goes back to what my parents had to endure as they hoped to get to this country - years of waiting for visas etc. - all because they truly were "displaced persons" at the time. And my first day in school on Long Island consisted of a lot of pointing and struggle to memorize words to even get me around the school building, not knowing one word of English. But that was then and this is now. things have changed all over the world, and while communism was rejected in Eastern Europe, it now shows up as "social reform" in the very country in which my parents found refuge from the same thing. Ironic. So, Bob , don't lump us all together just because we may sound alike on some issues. I have purposely stayed out of political discussions because I know I'm biased. (Message edited by sirje on September 10, 2009)

bob_2 · 09-10-09 8:16 am

What it means Sirje, is that after an apology you still are paranoid!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

george · 09-10-09 8:23 am

What are you talking about???? I haven't said anything prior to this one post to explain to you that you used my name along with Elaine's on a matter about which I had said nothing at all. Grab another cup and wake up. Apology for what? Irene made a comment. I didn't. (Message edited by sirje on September 10, 2009)

elaine · 09-10-09 3:09 pm

Maybe one day Bob will either learn to read, or more carefully read others' posts and stop jumping at unwarranted conclusions. Until then...

bob_2 · 09-10-09 8:54 pm

Elaine, fight your own battles and let other fight theirs, you'll have happier golden years. There was an apology rendered, with your nose out of it, it could resolve itself. But you love a fight don't you?

bob_2 · 09-10-09 8:58 pm

Sirje and Elaine, here is the apology, but I don't think either one of you care. Stir it up, have some fun!!!! <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=14&post=6613#POST6613" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=14&post=6613#POST6613</a>

elaine · 09-10-09 9:09 pm

So Bob, you agree with Wilson who yelled on death panels to Obama "You lied." Please quote the Medicare documents stating: "Medicare already does a death panel, under utilization review, if you have plateaued you get taken off rehab services."

bob_2 · 09-11-09 12:35 am

As a nursing home administrator, my medicare utilization committee turns Medicare on an off based on government guidelines. Maybe not the exact words, but close enough.

bob_2 · 09-11-09 12:41 am

I do think Wilson was correct when he said, "You lie" when Obama said illegal immigrants will not get health care. Look, the first illegal gets bit by a rattle snake and heads to the nearest hospital, will not be allowed to die under the front awning. It just won't be allowed to happen by us honorable Americans. Obama lies on this point, no doubt in my mind. I suppose you think he will deport him and let him die in transit. We need to solve the illegal immigration situation for this very reason, it is costing us to much not to.

aklym · 09-11-09 1:01 am

Bob, you think Wilson is correct because you haven't bothered to look into it. You want him to be correct so you say he is. (It is the same way you approach theology.) factcheck.org wrote the following: President Obama’s prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout “you lie!” Did he? Here’s what we’ve found: * Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.

aklym · 09-11-09 1:07 am

Bob, Obama said specifically in his speech the following: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false . . . . Please show evidence from the bill that Obama lied and that Joe Wilson, lionized by the fringe right, though hopelessly crude and rude, was correct. Don't tell us what you think (read hope.) Let's see some facts.

john8verse32 · 09-11-09 12:55 pm

House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally but when the Dems authorize Acorn to "give " legal status" to all those illegals, in order to obtain more democratic voters? then the Mexican government will just use the USA as its medical program even worse than they do along the border today.

elaine · 09-11-09 1:16 pm

Claiming that illegals will be covered by health insurance is absolutely, false. There are specific rules in the bill prohibiting their coverage. OTOH, hospitals are prohibited from turning away any patients that come to the ER for treatment, and cannot refuse them on the basis of the citizenship or ability to pay. We, the taxpayers, must pay for the uninsured, and the ER is always the most costly method of treatment. Those two laws seem to conflict, but it is a fact that no automatic insurance will cover illegal aliens. Truth does matter!

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-07-09 2:58 am

Van Jones out, but defiant

#2 09-07-09 3:09 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#3 09-07-09 3:22 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#4 09-07-09 6:51 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#5 09-07-09 7:39 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#6 09-07-09 7:44 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#7 09-07-09 11:46 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#8 09-07-09 11:59 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#9 09-08-09 12:07 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#10 09-09-09 1:53 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#11 09-09-09 5:52 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#12 09-09-09 10:43 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#13 09-10-09 4:51 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#14 09-10-09 8:16 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#15 09-10-09 8:23 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#16 09-10-09 3:09 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#17 09-10-09 8:54 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#18 09-10-09 8:58 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#19 09-10-09 9:09 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#20 09-11-09 12:35 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#21 09-11-09 12:41 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#22 09-11-09 1:01 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#23 09-11-09 1:07 am

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#24 09-11-09 12:55 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

#25 09-11-09 1:16 pm

Re: Van Jones out, but defiant

Board footer