Posts Tagged ‘truthers’

Ok: Here is my suggestion for the best moves post Van Jones for both the sides of the aisle. These are the best political moves, I make no representations on them in any other context. This is just what I think would work.

Right/Beck defenders:

I would instantly be contacting the boycotting companies linking Van Jones to Color of Change and demand they explicitly denounce Jones’ and Color of change. These advertisers are sheep and once one backs down the rest will. If they refuse to denounce Jones then they can truthfully say that company X refused to denounce Jones who had to step down because of xxx, yyy, zzz.

Right/Beck opponents

I would take the mantle away from Glenn Beck by asking over and over why the various Czars did not have to fill out the questionnaire. I would keep asking if any other White House Czars etc have any of the Jones positions. I would call those positions a “Jones” and then Finally demand that the White House confirm that nobody other Czar else has a “Jones”. I would furthermore in every interview concerning this administration point out the media’s unwillingness to report on the story IE: “Remember this is the same New York Times that didn’t report on the Jones story.” I’d also do some background stuff to make sure no birthers or truthers are lurking in my shadows.

Left/Jones Opponents:

I would use the Jones situation to go after the birthers, I would “regret” the opinions of Jones while quietly make sure that anyone else in this administration doesn’t have a Jones problem. I would note any and all connection to the brither movement on the republican side and either immediately go after them or bank them for destruction later. I would start by highlighting LGF’s exposure of one of the Organizers of the Cincinnati tea parties links to trutherism. I would mention it in interviews without mentioning the general tea party movement, I’d let people make their own connections.

Left/Jones supporters

I would press every congressman on the Right to explicitly denounce Birtherism, and would use it as an offensive weapon, I would further note republican connections to tea parties and highlight Ron Paul supporters at each one and bank them. When the time comes I would link each activist/pol who shows up or supports them to the Ron Paul and some of his past associations. I would beat the right with this, but the trick is to hold off until these people are deeper in the trap.

I was looking at this post at Little Green Footballs and this statement of Charles:

When this “news” came out, I spent hours searching the web for any corroboration at all in Jones’ own words that he believes the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government. If I had found something, I was prepared to start yelling as loud as anyone about it, because I utterly despise Truthers.

So I took up the challenge and started searching, not only for Jones but for matching links between him and known truthers such as Carol Brouillet.

I found quite a few events where they were both associated with, and a lot of the usual suspects of the VERY far left indymedia crowd seem to show up but no direct link to the truthers.

I then took a closer look at Gateway Pundit’s stuff, he has uncovered plenty of stuff that indicate Jones is loathsome and for his OTHER positions he is worthy of exclusion but one thing caught my eye in this post:

Gateway correctly shows that Jones was involved in the War Times but I decided to take a closer look at his link. It’s loaded with drivel and nonsense that would make Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore proud but right at the top I found this:

Prospectus

WAR TIMES
A New, Biweekly Newspaper Opposing the “War on Terrorism”

The terrorist attacks of September 11 marked the beginning of a new and frightening period in our history. Thousands of people died that day, and their families along with the country as a whole are still struggling to
recover. But President Bush’s response of “permanent war against terrorism at home and abroad” has further endangered the lives and liberties of millions of people everywhere. emphasis mine

This is a direct statement made in 2002 before even the founding of the paper saying that Terrorists are responsible for 9/11 and attacking President Bush’s response, not declaring him responsible. To quote Gateway Pundit:

Van Jones was instrumental in the creation of this publication and sat on its board for at least the first year and a half of its existence.

That being true we must conclude that although Jones is connected to vile opinions and has no business being in the White House in any capacity. He can not honestly be declared a truther.

Could he have believed it and held back to gain wider support? Possible but generally true believers aren’t shy about being true. Does he have sympathy with them, it’s possible but it’s unfair to come to that conclusion.

Barring some other revelation: I must conclude; Charles you were right and I was wrong.

Unfortunately for the White House all the OTHER info about Jones is more than enough to bring weeks worth of bad press and bad attention. He is a crazy uncle and worthy of attack.

He’s just not a truther.

…If nobody ever hears about them.

11:30 AM EDT

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, “Huh?”

It’s unfashionable to quote oneself so quickly but it’s worth repeating this paragraph:

All are part of “subgroups” within their groups their opinion and their theories are accepted and unquestioned but when exposed to the general public they become problematic. 30 years ago one might have been able to hide these views, but in the age of the internet and YouTube that just isn’t as easy as it once was. This is why it was so vital to the media to ignore those associations for as long as possible.

I suggest that the well known non-vetting of then Candidate Obama wasn’t due to merely to adulation. I submit it is because the press knew that his positions could not survive vetting to the general public…

…and even worse to them Sarah Palin would be vice president today. What’s journalistic ethics compared to that?

Update: Nice Deb lists some nice questions.