Staying Loyal or Cutting Losses?

All this news is discouraging. No time for repining. Pine boxing time.

With Van Jone's track record, he definitely should have been terminated. In fact had he been properly vetted, he should have never been hired unless he was vetted and hired BECAUSE of his radical past. It seems that BHO has surrounded with nothing but far left radicals and Chicago type political buddies.
Is any one really surprised about Obama? A "commuinity organizer" (rabble rowser), mentored by a radical, so called preacher, associated with an anarchist and part of the most corrupt political machine in the country. Van Jones fits right in!

do you dudes really think van jones leadership material...
I don't get your defending him except for maybe you guys were told to...
obama's administration has problems and when it is over, lets hope we can clean up the stench...

Political leaders who capitulate to extremist demagoguery are not leaders.

I can't believe you can even ask this with a straight face...a self-avowed Marxist, with all the other baggage, serving as a senior advisor to the President of the United States.

What's happened to this country?

This firing clearly demonstrates that Barack Obama is not a leader but rather a reactionary who will obediently do the bidding of any extreme right-wingers that brandish deadly force at peaceful public political assemblies.

If any other Americans were to show up at political meeting with deadly weapons the National Guard would be called out. But not for right-wingers. For them putting the life of the president at deadly risk is legitimate political expression. And this president listened to them didn't he?

A typical Obama appointee: Marxist; multiple arrest record; hate-filled; unable to speak grammatically correct English; purveyor of vile and crude language; arrogant and anti-American. When Jones bragged that no young blacks were involved in Columbine-type massacres, I said: "True. They are too busy fathering illigitimate and unsupported children, and filling U.S. prisons." The fact that you would even pose such a question tends to peg you, sirs!

The real question is why it took someone like Glenn Beck to expose Van Jones while the Washington Post ignored the story.

A typical Obama appointee: Marxist; multiple arrest record; hate-filled; unable to speak grammatically correct English; purveyor of vile and crude language; arrogant and anti-American. When Jones bragged that no young blacks were involved in Columbine-type massacres, I said: "True. They are too busy fathering illigitimate and unsupported children, and filling U.S. prisons." The fact that you would even pose such a question tends to peg you, sirs!

Once again, it is clear there is a vast difference between black and white opinions. Yesterday I heard Van Jones described as a "hero" by a pretty black TV guest, and as a "marxist" by the sneering white man beside her. My worry about Van Jones in his unvetted, unknown state was his control of "tens of billions" of stimulus money (NY Times). Whose political campaign is going to receive some money from a friendly Czar sugar-daddy? What are these unelected, formerly jailed folks doing in the White House anyway?

Among Van Jones quotes is one to the effect that you do not need to call someone the 'n' word if you can call them a felon.

I now quote forum participant DAVID-MCKENZIE:

"I said: 'True. They are too busy fathering illigitimate and unsupported children, and filling U.S. prisons.'"

I, as a white left-wing social justice advocate in America think Van Jones is correct in his assessment of race in America.

Van Jones should have been responsible enough to alert his vetters that he had made offensive remarks that could trigger backsplash.

The administration didn't cave, it eliminated a completely avoidable distraction.

Van Jones is the one with the stain, not the president. When you want to play in the big leagues, you gotta watch what you say. Moreover, in the big leagues, your self-discipline should extend to pretty much all areas of behavior. And you can say a lot if you say it in a deft and careful way. You can always think what you want.

When Americans are denied a voice in government by Reich-wing demagogues and extremists those Americans are left with the Second Amendment for protecting and expressing their First Amendment rights.

Drumming someone out of government because you don't like their First Amendment protected political speech and expression is un-American and un-constitutional. But then the Reich-wing at the Fanatical Obnoxious Xenophobes Network have no respect for the constitution.

Jones was forced to respond by something he said. Have we gotten to the point where free speech applies only to corporations and not to people? Anyone remember the McCarthy era?

Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and now Van Jones. With the help of the press Obama escaped accounting for the first two and they tried their best to help him with the third by not covering the story. That is why most of us value Fox- it covers stories liberals want to keep out of public view in the interest of truth.

When in the course of human events the First Amendment protects only Reich-wing political speech the constitution of the United States of America is effectively rendered null and void.

Doesn't anybody in the WH vett Conspiracy Theorists petition's signers. Rahmbo, shame on you!

Ugh, this kills me.

Van Jones wasn't derailed by hate speech, racists, fear-mongers, or whatever. He was derailed because he espoused some really hateful beliefs himself, and was caught on Youtube doing it.

He is a Marxist. You may think this is benign, but tell it to the millions who have suffered in Communist totalitarian systems. Too bad the same tired ideas are being repackaged as "green."

He supports Mumia Abu Jamal, a cop-killer and Black Panther.

He made a racially-tinged accusatory statement when he said that only white kids commit school slayings, despite the fact staring him in the face that the murder rate among blacks is much much higher than among whites. (Don't call me a racist for pointing that out please.)

He was one of the first signatories onto a 9/11 truther petition. You may think trutherism is fine, but it's NOT. It's accusing the US President, government, and military of DELIBERATELY KILLING OR ALLOWING THE MURDERS OF THOUSANDS OF US citizens. This is an unspeakable calumny.

The facts are responsible for Jones' dismissal, not the "reich wing" smear campaign. I agree that Glenn Beck is a melodramatic blowhard, but in this case he had the facts right.

Oh, and I forgot, he was a leading member of a goofy Bay Area group called STORM "Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement." That's right. He wanted to overthrow the US government by force. Or maybe he just wanted to wear a Che beret and hang out with hot hippie chicks.

Only Reich-wing opinions are permitted in the United States government. Dissent is forbidden.

Who needs a constitution when we have the Reich-wing dictating the political correctness of our very thought, opinion and persuasion?

There are strong and valid political and social justice reasons that Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Van Jones hold the political and social perspectives that they have held in the past and hold today. The United States government is forbidden, by its political minority Reich-wing, from hearing or associating with these perspectives.

Once someone becomes a lightning rod, his effectiveness on the Administration's behalf is limited and he becomes and embarrassment. Time to go.

It wasn't Jones's "radical" record that persuaded me he should go; it was that he signed that ridiculous petition suggesting that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand and allowed it to happen. That's just nuts, and it put him beyond rescue.

It is OK, in the United States of America, to drive someone out of our national government when you are intolerant of that American's political perspective, opinion and speech.

AAHPAT, do you really think the extreme marxist statements by Van Jones are free speech issues? I am suprised you would mention supporting the constitution in your weird "Reich-wing" conspiracy accusations. I guess you must be talking about the same "living, breathing" constitution that this administration believes we have- where the constitution really means we need to have this all-powerul government providing for every need known to man, and of course, protecting the "free speech" of government leaders who want to rewrite it. seriously?

right-wing senators and congressmen are allowed to fky that obnoxious rag of a banner, the confedrate flag without repercussions but VJ is out at the first sign of swiftboating from thses narrow minded teabaggers. Obama needs backbone. He should fight these bigots...HARD.

right-wing senators and congressmen are allowed to fky that obnoxious rag of a banner, the confedrate flag without repercussions but VJ is out at the first sign of swiftboating from thses narrow minded teabaggers. Obama needs backbone. He should fight these bigots...HARD.

So much for free speech in the USA. Van Jones
has a right to express his thoughts. Many people have said the same things, signed the same petition. Many feel republicans are a holes! Somebody needs to stand up to the bullies and Van Jones did that, and got no support from Obama. Leaders set policy and fight for that policy. Obama needs to step up maybe he will start tonight.

O'Bama has named many curiously compromised people to high positions and many of them are black.

For those who think he was just using his right to free speech - if was indeed part of a group that wanted to overthrow the government then he is not allowed (well not supposed to be allowed) to work for the government - that is major question that is required to be asked for many jobs in the government - plus appointed positions must swear to uphold the constitution

The more I read the comments the more I realize that we have done a very very poor job of educating our nation. Anyone who thinks Van is a normal citizen either has not seen the documents he signed & supported or any of his comments or statements. He certainly should not be in any position of authority.

I am Hispanic, watch the political debate with great interest and hope to participate someday with my vote. It amazes me how most people in this country play the race card both ways, maybe even unconsciously. Who was the one that said words to the effect that people should be looked upon not by the color of their skin but by their actions and character? This goes both ways! Why would I as a Hispanic ask that someone’s actions and flaws be absolved or overlooked, actions and flaws that may have an impact on our society, just because this someone belongs to my ethnic group or political party? Should we not call a thug, a thug, regardless of whether he/she is a Republican, Democrat, Black, White, Hispanic, etc., etc.?
Shame on us when we put partisanship above honor.

The only thing we need to know about Van Jones came from Obama's own lips. Obama told us WE WOULD KNOW HIM by the people with whom he surrounds himself. Witness Jones. Jones is a shrill, sniveling little communist and racist, who, confronted with his own reality, still refused accountability.

Wow, I can't believe anyone would make an excuse for this guy, Jones, no matter what their race, faith or upbringing. It is wrong to do such things and ONLY concede it was wrong when faced with attaining power or luxuries. Yes people do it and have gotten away with it, but of this nature so high as he gets near the President. No.

We are NOT talking about people who GOT IN and did what they did. We are talking about the vetting process by which the current Administration selects people. When we lean on emotional cultural ties, but not ones that help the whole nation, its easy to be exposed. If you claim the OTHER guys "did it" , then what pretense did you gain the White House?

I thought we were "changing" all of that.

Let's keep our eye on the prize, not prize our eyes.

It is telling that Van Jones would not even take accountability for his documented statements and actions. He's exposed, and it's a "smear campaign."

How about none of the above?

van jones is a communist. valerie jarret is a radical. git rid of these people. vote them out fire them, impeach them,whatever it takes.

van joes is a communist. valarie jarret is a radical. git rid of these people. fire them,vote them out,impeach them whatever it takes.

Oh yeah, let's let bygones be bygones. This from the paper that is trying to "macaca" Bob McDonnell for comments he made 20 years ago in a college thesis!

Apparently what riled Republicans was Mr. Jones' use of the word ending in -hole to refer to Republicans. Of course, anybody who doesn't wear wingtips and dress in a Brooks Brothers suit is a radical, a bomb-thrower, and probably a Communist. Mr. Jones may be the baby that got thrown out with bath water. But, what the hey! His absence is one less handle on the Administration for Republican whack jobs to pull on. They want their country back. It wasn't theirs to begin with.

This man believe our federal government knew about 9/11. He's accused white people of "dumping poison" in black coommunities. the fact is that no white person (especially a republican) would have EVER been in someone white house making these kinds of remarks.

This man had NO BUSINESS in the white house.

During the campaign the media did its best to avoid reporting on Obamas radical ties, now they are slowly being revealed.

Obama is the one who said judge him by the people around him... WELL WE ARE.

Van Jones, Wright, Ayers, whose next. This president did all he can (his media allies helped) to hide his ties.

Hey BlueTwo1, Van Jones isn't "probably a communist." He is an admitted communist! As well as a 9-11 "truther," and there is video of him saying that white polluters are targeting black people! Google it!

I haven't read most of the comments here, but I have read a few. My opinion is that he should have stayed and not resigned. If Gov. Sanford can hold onto a post without being "forced" out, this man should have held out. President Obama should not have accepted his "resignation" and told him to get back to work. I was in the military and I've seen a lot of people do a lot worse and hold onto their retirements and sometimes even their post. Our society is full of a bunch of hypocrites and yes Jones was correct in calling many of today's "so called Republicans" what he did. This is merely a game against Obama to them, nothing to do with being a true conservative.

In regard to Van Jones:

I have been a loyal reader of the Post for 35 years. I am disappointed with recent political coverage in general, and coverage of Mr Jones' political views in particular, because of the lack of factual reporting in the paper lately.

EVERYONE makes a stupid remark now and then, but Mr Jones' remarks are not the opinions that one would expect to be held or espoused by someone in charge of major policy decisions for our nation. The correct decision was made to get him out.

Unfortunately, the Post has not been reporting what Jones (and some others who surround Obama) have actually said in the past. The Post has not clearly stated the nature of some of these so-called progressive organizations, or what their goals and aims have been. Why not clearly state what is in the public record about organizations such as STORM in San Francisco so that the educated reader can make up his/her own mind?Instead, we get articles that describe Jones as a "prominent environmentalist who has been actively involved in progressive causes in the past." If one does not understand what ideas in this case the buzzword "progressive" actually stands for, one can not possibly understand what the fuss is about.

Here's an example of what I mean, although it admittedly is not directly related to Mr Jones. The Post recently has made quite a deal over the graduate thesis of the republican candidate for the governorship of Virginia. Fair enough. What about Michelle Obama's thesis from when she was a student at Princeton? This was somehow kept out of the public eye until after the November election last year. Both theses contain controversial ideas. I'd like to ask the Post, why not publish both theses, in their entirety and without editing, so that people can make up their own minds about the relative merits of the ideas presented by both individuals?

Yes Van Jones deserved more loyalty. The president should have insisted that Van Jones remain at his post. Nobody should go down because of a smear campaign led by a dishonest and disturbed host on Fox "News." This was a loss that must not be repeated. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Why no hints of "Jones's radical past?"

Why no details ? from NBC, CBS, CNN, or the Post or the New York Times ?

Why is Glenn Beck and FOX the ONLY media vetting the White House Czars ?

The New York Times in its ONE story on Jones failed to mention his Marxist background, his Black Panther ties, his being a "Truther" and a Mumian (supporter of a cop murderer).

Any of the above is suitable in a liberal Arts Professor, but not for a powerful White House Green Czar who has power over billions in stimulus funds.

How many more of these radicals surround our President ?

"It was 1926. The Era of Wonderful Nonsense was in full swing." Roughly Speaking

Obama should have stood by Van Jones.

One thing you had to give GWB. He wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree, but he stood by his decisions.

Obama should have given backing to Van Jones because he was compelled to join the 911 truth movement after serious discrepancies have been noted in the NIST reports and data supplied by the NTSB.

Personally I raise my hat to a brave man.

Bravo Mr Jones