Hehe … Van Jones you are admitted Communist and Truther.
Nuff Said bro.
HondaV65 on July 25, 2010 at 9:08 AM
As of this writing, there are 35 comments on the HotAir headline thread referring to Van Jones’ NY Times Op-Ed on l’affaire Sherrod. The above is the first, and only one or two out of the remaining 34 seem to indicate that whichever commenter may even have read the Op-Ed. Re-echoing condemnations of Van Jones, alongside promises not even to “click on the link” – to refuse on principle (a peculiar construction of principle) to consider something written by a “Communist and Truther,” published in the Paper of Iniquity – are the uncontradicted entirety of the “discussion.”
The Op-Ed itself, for those who dare to read it, offers a congenial and thoughtful perspective on contemporary media-political culture:
We have to understand that no one can be defined by a single photograph, open-mike gaffe or sound bite. Not even our greatest leaders could have survived if they had to be taken to task for every poorly conceived utterance or youthful demonstration of immature political views. When it comes to politics in the age of Facebook, the killer app to stop the “gotcha” bullies won’t be a technological one — it will be a wiser, more forgiving culture.
As for that wiser, more forgiving culture, Jones won’t find it at HotAir or, as far as I can tell, anywhere on the these-days-much-enthused American far right, where the courage to engage with fellow citizens as they are or might be, at the risk of losing an enemy or even of expanding one’s own views, has all but disappeared, replaced by character assassination and demonstratively proud ignorance. For the reactionary right, the fact that Van Jones may once have been an avowed communist – whatever that meant to him – is cause to consign him forever to the ranks of the permanently un-hearable. If someone somewhere further claimed that he was a “9/11 Truther,” let Jones remain forever a non-person in the conservative utopia to come.
On the last point, Jones claims that his named appeared on an on-line “9/11 questions” petition without his permission, and that the petition sponsors have admitted as much. (He offered a somewhat more expansive explanation during an appearance on the Tavis Smiley show – viewable here.) Since Jones has never spoken like a Truther, appeared at 9/11 Truther events, contributed to 9/11 Truther groups, etc., and since he has repeatedly and unambiguously denied holding 9/11 Truther views, referring to him as a Truther – or, as some HA commenters prefer, “Troofer” – was never a responsible use of language. To the extent that doing so was even minimally informative, it was because doing it always immediately identified the speaker or writer as an ideologue, a crank, or a dupe. In light of Jones’ very public, on the record, unambiguous denials, it should now be more difficult for writers like Philip Klein at the American Spectator to call Jones a “9/11 Truther” without qualification. Should be…
Over the long term, a public and an electorate asked to choose between calls for wisdom and forgiveness and the politics of “’nuff said” will almost always take the former.
“We have to understand that no one can be defined by a single photograph, open-mike gaffe or sound bite.”