From Reuters:
Van Jones, special adviser on green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, apologized on Thursday after videotape surfaced of him using a crude epithet to describe Republicans and amid revelations he had signed a petition suggesting U.S. government involvement in the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
Can there be a single Republican among those attacking Jones for his unforgivable, indescribably vile, nauseating, disgusting, appalling, sickening, loathsome, contemptible, debased and downright hateful epithet who has not himself called Democrats assholes?

Not only that, but compare and contrast those involved in the Clinton Chronicles, i.e. stains on dresses and the infamous but not true Vince Foster lies. And the Republicans promoted those within their ranks. Lindsay Graham getting a Senator's seat for having been one of the most vocal voices in the house against stains on blue dresses and jokes about cigars is one prime example.
Too bad our Democrats don't have the gumption to just go ahead and give the man the promotion that he deserves, although he did leave out the more improbable and quite unbelievable anthrax theories created by the FBI.
History is certainly on our side, although in a more truthful way, for example Chris Dodd's father's disdain for Nazi's during his time as a prosecutor at Nuremburg and the undertones of comparing those evil men to some of our own industrialists. Not named but I can think of a few myself, including a certainly family that had a profiteer who treachereously traded with the Nazi's here in America. That horrible family with a child with the first name of Prescott, not to mention the one's who got into power and aimed directly at fascism as his preferred method of governing.
Posted by: Buck on September 6, 2009 12:16 PMYes, Republicans are assholes, and Democrats are pussies, are they not?
Posted by: Mike Goldman on September 6, 2009 2:52 PMAnd Van Jones happens to be good people and a fantastic organizer. And Obama's White House let him spin in the wind because a long time ago, in a different political climate, he agreed to some statements that were being commonly (if not universally) made among San Francisco activists. This is all immensely like the HUAC obsession with petitions that people signed in the 1930s when it was the thing to do.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on September 6, 2009 2:53 PMNow...personally, I may be a bit of a dick...but I like pussies very much.
Posted by: Mike Goldman on September 6, 2009 2:54 PMThe 9/11 thing is still a third rail, at the moment. I didn't see him withstanding it no matter how correct his position was -- indeed, to the very degree his position might be correct the greater the need for him to be removed.
Posted by: Mike Goldman on September 6, 2009 2:57 PMMartha I think the HUAC/McCarthy era is not only appropriate and right on the money, but we don't have on Senator Joe anymore, this time we have the whole damn Republican party blacklisting anyone Obama names for the most insignificant of reasons. Although the sex scandals and the soon to come more scandalous torture revelations are a start at making the bastards pay.
Posted by: Buck on September 6, 2009 7:00 PMIt's a mistake to presume the previous administration can be discredited by publicizing its torture crimes. There's this disastrous liberal assumption that all people share liberals' respect for the rights of the individual. A fair number of Americans are now in favor of torture if they're assured it's in the national interest. They're even proud of leaders who, in their view, are resolute enough to be cruel in the name of a cause.
(And *that* is a Stalinist attitude, far more than any of Van Jones' positions. Seriously, you must have seen these comments by some nostalgic pro-totalitarian Russians, who say that, yes, Stalin did some unfair things, but it was his strong hand that made the nation great...)
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on September 6, 2009 10:03 PMHere, see what I mean?
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2009/08/torture-is-hilarious.html
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on September 7, 2009 3:35 PMMartha I understand the point but I'm not sure the Republican party is that monolithic as I believe there are many Republicans who are horrified that torture has been done in their name. What percentage of them of them is there is the big question. No doubt some percentage of them right now are horrified at the thought of torture because they thought Bush had the right to do it to liberals and thus Obama has the right to do it to them. Should that group ever come to power, we liberals shall then be in the most horrific big muddy of all. And that is truly something to worry about.
Posted by: Buck on September 8, 2009 9:08 AMBuck, you make me think of the Canadian border as the new Mason-Dixon Line. Stop scaring me!
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on September 9, 2009 1:17 AMBuck, you may be right that many if not all Republicans (and Democrats) disapprove of torture. I certainly hope so. But I still think it isn't wise to rely on shocked disgust as a political force. People are less and less shockable. I'm guessing well-directed laughter would work a lot better.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on September 9, 2009 6:59 PM