Comments on: What the Van Jones Story Is Really About

By: American Glob » Blog Archive » The Top 10 Reasons Robert Stacy McCain is Smarter Than Charles Johnson

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:05:16 +0000

[...] 6. Robert Stacy McCain blogs at Hot Air. [...]

By: mistersurefire

mistersurefire — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:42:32 +0000

I’ve always believed in judging people by their actions rather than their words. However, in Obama’s case both his words and actions betray his true agenda.

It would be too scary to assume that Obama had not authorized all the “czar” appointments. If that were the case then the USA is being lead not by a President but by an unelected group of people. I don’t want to go down that road.

The much more likely case is that, like all government bureaucracies, Obama has implemented a well defined process for making appointments with his approval the ultimate requirement. Unfortunately, in this case, the conclusion is also scary. Incompetence in the position of President of the USA can cause untold damage not only to USA citizens but also to the rest of the world.

In previous eras, both these possibilities would become probabilities only with MSM support. Especially with a Republican in the Whitehouse.

Today, those who communicate via the internet (e.g., Hot Air, Glenn Beck) make me believe that the USA is safe.

I would consider any attempt by Obama to restrict, control or otherwise impinge on the freedom of the internet would be a clear sign of his existing contract with the MSM and his true political ambitions.

By: tanarg

tanarg — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:42 +0000

Some of us are already posting on forums that Obama is a Communist, too. The evidence was abundant enough last summer, wasn’t it. Only a fool didn’t see it.

The question is whether we can hound him out of office or not. Biden is bad, but I don’t think he’s a Communist.

By: Van Jones, Glenn Beck, And The Moral/Intellectual Bankruptcy Of The Left « Nice Deb

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:28:13 +0000

[...] fact, according to Robert Stacy McCain: …this is the real story: The shameful failure of the MSM to do its job in reporting on the [...]

By: lead and gold

lead and gold — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:16:23 +0000

No one can hear you because I have my ears covered …

…

By: conservativegrandma

conservativegrandma — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:31:24 +0000

Today MSN has picture of Van Jones with heading “What did Jones Say that Caused controversy?” Those horrible Republicans, picking on him because he accidently signed a petition. They conveniently left out about 80% of the story.
Covering up for the One.
I agree, Mommypundit. Obama is both. The MSM are just imbeciles.

By: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » How Did the Van Jones Vetting Go Wrong?

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:46:58 +0000

[...] Also in the Green Room: What the Van Jones Story Is Really About [...]

By: larvcom

larvcom — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:01:58 +0000

I tend to believe he is both.

Mommypundit on September 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Agreed!

By: Czar Jones: How’s the View now? « The Lady Patriot

Czar Jones: How’s the View now? « The Lady Patriot — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:47:34 +0000

[...] (If you’re new to the topic of Van Jones, you can watch TV commentator Glenn Beck play Van Jones in his own words here, here and here or you can read about him here, here and here. Regular viewer of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN? Subscriber to the NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe? Then you probably haven’t heard about Van Jones. A story within the story is the lack of media coverage.) [...]

By: Van under the bus. Questions remain… — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

Van under the bus. Questions remain… — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:10:29 +0000

[...] This is the real story: The shameful failure of the MSM to do its job in reporting on the Obama administration [...]

By: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » What the Van Jones Story Is Really About « Forced to Pay Attention

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:05:53 +0000

[...] 6, 2009 via [...]

By: Mommypundit

Mommypundit — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:03:18 +0000

Extensive. I like it.

This is only the very tip of the czar-iceburg.

We all know he appointed these lunatics to these positions because they absolutely couldn’t stand up to proper vetting. Fine. But, I want to know when it will be acceptable in the MSM to start drawing conclusions about WHO OBAMA IS to have appointed these individuals and to have, somehow, not known they were who they were? Either he is a completely incompetent imbecile, or he is exactly who these people are.

I tend to believe he is both.

By: The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Van Jones: Victim of Right-Wing 'Terrorists'?

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:38:56 +0000

[...] I’ve taken a stab at explaining what the Van Jones story is really about. StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| [...]

By: Buckeye Babe

Buckeye Babe — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:27:05 +0000

As real reporting reaches critical mass in the new media there will be a tipping point where the economics of the MSM will no longer be viable (even with loans from Mexican Billionaires…). Informed citizens are rejecting the slant and incomplete evidence and the mistrust is comparable to the same mistrust of politicians. I see a strengthening of the partisan divide on both fronts. Not a good thing for the ongoing debate in the arenas of ideas IMO. No one is really listening to each other.The high numbers of people on twitter last night when the news broke, asking WHO is VAN JONES? was astounding, humorous and sad.

By: Jones Jones, never heard of him « DaTechguy’s Blog

Jones Jones, never heard of him « DaTechguy’s Blog — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:31:17 +0000

[...] resignation is a fait acompli the media can’t ignore it, but neither can they bother to report what Jones actually said without displaying their own complicity in silence and [...]

By: HowardPortnoy

HowardPortnoy — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:21:19 +0000

It is not too late for the MSM elite to take alarm, and to begin serious scrutiny of the Obama administration.

Sadly, I fear it is. The die was cast with the MSM’s decision not to vet candidate Obama. They are no longer reporters of the news but arbiters of what is news. And the news the choose to cover is sympathetic with the political left, who also happens to be their remaining audience/readership. To retreat from that position now and report the news honestly is tantamount to turning on their base.

By: jon1979

jon1979 — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:23:07 +0000

Back in the pre-Internet/pre-Talk Radio days, the big media outlets felt less threatened and would throw the right a bone occassionally, leaving the selective advocacy journalism stuff to papers like The Village Voice. And you can even go back to the late 30s with papers like New York’s PM to see that there’s always been a significant segment of the journalism community that truly believes papers like The New York Times are — if not conservative — at the very least not doing their job at exposing conservatives.

Up until about 20 years ago, the big media folks would let those criticism slide, but since the early 1990s, they’ve really taken the criticisms from the left to heart, and have gone full bore into both advocacy and selective journalism, where stories are written to fit a pre-selected narrative and stories that fail to meet that narrative just aren’t written, period. And at a time where the number of alternative sources of information is multiplying daily, the big media folks are doubling-down, thinking that if they only do more advocacy journalism attacking only the proper people, and do more selective editing of stories to cover — to the point that a White House staffer in charge of $30 billion can go through (at minimum) a week’s worth of scandal worthy of big media coverage, and never get a mention up until his moment of resignation.

It’s a very childish type of news coverage — where the reporters (or their assignment desk editors) see stories in Category X as the writing equivalent of a trip to the candy store, and stories in Category Y as a trip to the dentist, and think they can just live on nothing but the first category, with no consequences for not doing any stories in Category Y because they don’t enjoy reporting about stuff like that.