So I’m reading a lot about the aftermath of the Van Jones kerfluffle.
- Andrew Breitbart thinks the MSM has to be “held to account” for not covering the story (yeah, how many times have we heard that?), and that the MSM may have done President Obama more harm than good by protecting him from his own mistakes.
- “Progressives Decry Resignation of Jones,” headlines the San Fransisco Chronicle, in a story that quotes a Code Pink co-founder (“‘He was swift-boated,’ said Medea Benjamin…”) and throws a lot of blame at conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, but somehow couldn’t find anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support Jones.
- Arianna Huffington thinks it’s just great, because Jones is way too talented to be stuck in that minor bureaucratic desk job, and now he can go do something else that’s worth…him.
Look at this, I’ve hijacked my own post. Started to write about “aftermath,” but I’m finding all these links that don’t really discuss that.
Well, anyway, lot of talk around the blogosphere about the MSM’s non-coverage; the Obama administration’s non-vetting; a lot of “why go after this guy,” and “vicious smear campaign,” and “they’ll go after anybody!” A lot of “why did Obama stop defending Jones?”
I’m sure if I look, I’ll find some Lefty predicting a backlash against conservatives for our mean-spirited racism.
Couple questions about all that:
- If the mainstream media wasn’t covering the Jones controversy, how can there be any real “aftermath?”
- Does the average American know who Van Jones is, what the “Green Czar” does, or that Jones was and is now no longer in that position?
- If the average American knows, does he or she care?
My bets are, in reverse order: no, no, no, no, and it’s all just a figment of the blogospere’s imagination.
UPDATE - Dan Riehl has a link, of sorts.