Van Jones Issue Shows a Flaw in Czar Appointments

The Van Jones resignation might not be the end of the discussion but the reemergence of why all the czar appointments might need to be evaluated carefully. I am not a supporter of having nearly 30 or more czars or as some call them super advisors. I understand that President’s in the past have had czars but not to the degree that they are being named by the Obama administration and the recent controversy and resignation of Van Jones just shows that there is a flaw in the czar appointments and how they are vetted. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile defended the czars, saying they're "people with special expertise". As one so-called White House czar resigned over the weekend, President Obama announced the appointment of another one Monday, much to the frustration of Republican critics.

By some accounts, Obama has nearly 30 czars, who are officially called special or super advisers. The czars cover issues from AIDS and health care to Middle East peace. Czars are nothing new. They date back to early presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt. Republicans also had czars: Richard Nixon had an energy czar, and George H.W. Bush appointed the first drug czar. But the positions are not subject to congressional oversight or Senate confirmation, which rankles critics of the administration. "What you see with President Obama is this reliance on czars," GOP strategist Kevin Madden said. "And I think there are probably even some corridors of power within the administration that probably didn't like the idea that you have czars that are encroaching on their policy portfolios." David Gergen, a CNN contributor and former aide to past presidents, said the czar controversy has given Republicans an opening to question the administration's decisions.

"Now with President Obama, we have a number of people who answer to the president but not to Congress," he said. "When the Congress looks at it and sees over 30 people with czar titles, it naturally begins to worry that a lot of authority has been taken away and stripped of the Cabinet." The main issue, Gergen said, is that there are "about 25 too many" czars in the current White House. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, said that number is an "affront to the Constitution." "We have about two dozen so-called czars -- the 'pay czar,' the 'car czar,' all these czars in the White House," said Alexander, who is the Senate Republican Conference chairman. But Alexander said the lack of oversight is adding "fuel to the fire by those who think Washington is taking over everything."

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said the number of czars is not the issue, because "this is something that happens in all administrations." Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and Democratic strategist, defended the Obama administration's use of the special or super advisers. "President Obama is assembling the best and the brightest to help transform our economy to ensure that we can adapt to the new conditions that face us each and every day," she said. "These are people with special expertise." Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Sunday that Obama should suspend any future czar position as Congress "carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions."

On Monday, Obama appointed Ron Bloom to be special adviser for manufacturing policy, or the "auto czar." "Ron has the knowledge and experience necessary to lead the way in creating the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future," Obama said in a statement Sunday. "We must do more to harness the power of American ingenuity and productivity so that we can put people back to work and unleash our full economic potential." Republicans have grumbled about the appointments since the beginning of his administration, but revelations about the past of Obama's green jobs czar, Van Jones, caused the grumbling to grow louder. Jones resigned early Saturday after an onslaught of criticism aimed at his past statements and affiliations.

In 2004, Jones signed a petition that called for an investigation of whether government officials allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In a statement last week, Jones said of the petition on the Web site 911truth.org: "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever." Jones had not carefully reviewed the language in the petition before signing, an administration source said last week. Watch more about the Jones controversy » As to whether the president ordered the resignation, White House adviser David Axelrod said "absolutely not. This was Van Jones' own decision." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama accepted Jones' resignation because "the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual." "The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months, and helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs that are going to lay the foundation for our future economic growth," he said. Jones, in a statement, said he did not want to distract from the administration's agenda. "I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past," he said.

However Harry R. Jackson, Jr., an African American columnist, sums the Van Jones incidents best in an article entitled Van Jones: Black, Red, and Green. Jackson says, “The Van Jones incident boiled to the surface and exploded very suddenly. When I first heard the sound bites and the pundits, I doubted their veracity. I thought to myself, there is no way that this man is a self-confessed communist. I hoped that the brilliant Yale Law School graduate did not really have a racial “chip” on his shoulder. Unfortunately, as I did just a little research on Van Jones’ life and times, I quickly discovered I was wrong.”

So now that Van Jones is gone, the average person may think that the controversy should be over. Not so. The ideological bias Van brought to his job - not simply Jones’ past problems - are a part of Jackson’s ongoing concerns. Van Jones official title was Special Adviser for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality. Jones’ unofficial, personal mission seemed to be to recast the “extreme green” movement as a “people’s revolution” instead of the elitist movement that it is. In Van Jones book, The Green Collar Economy, he admits that it is “not yet fashionable” to be concerned about social justice and equity in the radical green movement. Nonetheless, seeks to cast a vision that mixes Marxism with green consciousness according to Jackson. Jackson says, “As he preaches a new green gospel, he distorts his movement’s elitist roots by attempting to shroud his agenda in civil rights imagery.”

Here is a paragraph from Jones’ book:
“Living mainly in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, and Boston, many of the architects of the green economy have photographs of Mohandas Ghandi on their walls. They consider themselves tolerant and open-minded people. Almost all of them, if asked, would confess to a deep respect for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement.”

As Jackson read these pages, Jackson wanted to know who the architects of this movement were. So Jackson quickly realized that the book was designed to become the manifesto of Jones’ movement. Look at the list of the book’s endorsers: Al Gore, Gavin Newsome, Carl Pope, Thomas Friedman, Tavis Smiley, Senator Tom Daschle, Larry Brilliant, Arrianna Huffington, and Nancy Pelosi. To top it all off, the forward of the book was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This list of supporters is a veritable “who’s who” of powerful liberal activists according to Jackson. Once one discovers that the book has a major Marxist agenda, it becomes fascinating to discover who is the target of the book. The Green Collar Economy paints the “new green movement” as full of virtue, while actually attacking large, Bible-believing churches. Specifically Jones stated, “Mega-church pastors with mega-white teeth assured their far-flung flocks that, with the right amount of prayer and right mental attitude, great abundance, tons of wealth, and high profits were sure to be enjoyed by all ... So we ordinary people...ran after every solo solution we could find. We worked longer hours. We worked extra jobs. We hocked our homes. We bought lottery tickets. We sought shelter under a house of credit cards.”

Jackson goes on to say that he had no idea what churches Jones observed or how he decided that mega-churches contributed to the economic problems of the nation. One thing is sure according to Jackson and that is Van Jones’ work is socialistic in its leanings and seeks to rewrite history. The book ends with an interesting call to action. Jones asks the reader to lobby his/her mayor to sign a local government green job pledge. As Jackson started his article, Jackson asked the question, “Who helped this community organizer move from community activism to a New York Times Best Seller?” Although Jackson cannot specifically name Van Jones’ mentors and sponsors at the time he wrote Van Jones: Black, Red, and Green, it’s obvious that Jones was groomed to be a new green spokesperson. His job was to change his movement’s elitist image, while promoting its new manifesto.

Jackson goes on to say, “The truth is that radical environmental groups believe the country should produce less energy, driving prices up in order to force energy conservation. The movement will wind up constructing financial hurdles that will raise the cost of goods made in America. The Cap and Trade bill passed this summer in the House creates such a hurdle. Cap and Trade is, at root, a “massive” tax. In a manner of speaking it is a regressive tax, because the poor spend more proportionally on energy than others. Therefore the disposable income of the poor will decrease because of energy costs. Our poorest citizens spend up to 50 percent of their limited income on energy, while the average American spends only 5-10 percent of their income.”

“In comparison to their rich suburban counterparts, poor families are sometimes forced to make serious choices between food, medicine, or fuel. As a result of this dilemma, 8 percent of households with incomes between $33,500 and $55,000 will have had their electricity shut off this year due to non-payment. Increasing the cost of energy will decrease energy consumption, while multiplying energy costs for the poor. These numbers hardly represent a people’s revolution. They show a deep disregard to needs of the poor both domestically and abroad,” said Jackson.

So what do the working poor really need? There are a few clues available. A recent national poll, which included 80 percent self-identified Democrats, produced fascinating results 76 percent of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery instead of climate change its top priority. The same study says that 56 percent of the respondents believe that policy makers have failed to consider “economic and quality of life concerns of the black community.” Finally, over 70 percent of the respondents don’t want to pay more for gasoline or electricity. Therefore after Van Jones’ true colors were revealed, his resignation was necessary according to Jackson. Jackson finally wrapped up his article by saying, “Van Jone’s brand of green activism would have been detrimental to the nation, long term. Let’s insist, as voting citizens, that Jones’ replacement focuses more on problem solving than rhetoric. Let’s insist that he unifies the races and classes with a balanced green strategy.”

Still the Van Jones issue does show a major flaw in the czar or special advisor positions because one of the things that brought Van Jones down was the fact that some of his controversy took place this year, just a few weeks before he was appointed Green Jobs czar. Still a lot of this could have been avoided by the Obama administration if they had him fill out the exhaustive questionnaire White House officials required of every Cabinet-level secretary and deputy-secretary position. An administration official said special advisers to the president, or czars, are not required to fill out the questionnaire that runs 7 pages and contains 63 questions. The entire questionnaire, the official said, is reserved for appointees who must win Senate confirmation. Now imagine if the White House had its czars or super aides fill out the questionnaire and how the White House could have found out a lot of this beforehand.

Among the varied topics covered in the questionnaire: history as a lobbyist or other "legislative agent", tax liens, bankruptcies, spousal employment, potential conflicts of interest, domestic help, internet "handles" and Facebook pages, and traffic fines in excess of $50. Question 61 reads as follows: "Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used - even unfairly - to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?" That question might have raised a flag since Jones signed a 2004 petition calling for an investigation into potential government complicity in the 9/11 atrocities that left nearly 3,000 civilians dead in coordinated hijacked airplane attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The petition was collected by 911Truth.org. It can be read here:

Now before resigning, Jones issued a statement approved by the Council for Environmental Quality, which said he "did not agree" with the 9/11Truth.org statement and that it did not reflect his views "now or ever." However, Fox News correspondent James Rosen spoke with 911Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger on Friday and Berger said Jones knew what the petition said and agreed with its contents. "He did agree with that statement and he did sign on to it," Berger said in a phone interview with Rosen. Berger said the group's "original board members individually confirmed all signatories that had signed on to the statement." Asked by what means the confirmation was obtained, Berger said: "They did it through email or on the phone."

An administration official said Jones never hid his controversial associations or remarks from the White House. "It wouldn't be fair to characterize him as being dishonest or hiding his comments or his positions," the official said. "It's just fair to say that he didn't go through the most rigorous vetting process." Still many in the national media didn’t catch on to the Van Jones story until after he resigned. While the resignation of President Obama's green jobs "czar," Van Jones, might have come as a shock if you do not watch cable news. In fact, the "big three" evening news casts and two of the nation's most-prominent newspapers barely covered the story. There was no mention of Jones by CBS, NBC, ABC, The Washington Post or The New York Times on Wednesday — the night Jones' first issued an apology for past statements. The same was true on Thursday, although a Washington Post blog picked up the story. That night Jones again apologized for a slew of old remarks and the signing of that petition that alleged the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. ABC and NBC failed to cover the story on Friday, although CBS finally did. There was no mention from the "big three" evening newscasts or The Times print edition Saturday. But The New York Times blog finally addressed the story as did the print edition of the Post. And on Sunday — the morning after Jones' middle-of-the-night resignation — it was too late for the papers, but the three evening newscasts filed reports. The New York Times print edition finally ran its first mention of the story on Monday, on the lower-half of the front page.

Still thought, there are some people who think Van Jones resignation was yet another race issue rather than the statements and actions Van Jones had taken in the past. In a blog post by Patrick Appel entitled Van Jones And The Race Card, Patrick says a reader wrote:

Your "partisanship rises, ctd." letter was illustrative of a distressing tendency of Obama's defenders to play the race card. To describe the Jones incident as racist requires some stretching that I'm not prepared to engage in. What happened to Van Jones is hardly unprecedented in Washington. Bad associations and dumb remarks have been tripping up political appointees since there have been political appointees. The real blame here goes to the Obama Administration, who have today admitted hat they did not properly vet Jones -- a process that usually includes questions about potentially embarrassing associations. If Team Obama had given Jones the same scrutiny they might gave a guy delivering pizzas, they would have spared themselves -- and him -- unnecessary humiliation.

However in response to the reader, Patrick says, “I don't think that what ultimately sunk Van Jones, the trutherism connections, was racist in any conceivable way. On the other hand, the WND coverage of Jones played upon racial fears. Some criticisms of Jones were undoubtedly racist, but it was the 9/11 truther petition that did him in.”

Still the Van Jones issue no matter how you look it, shows that the Obama administration continues to struggle with its vetting process and I am going to say that if the same scrutiny was applied to the Bush administration and previous Presidential administration when it came to appointments than perhaps we would be a little bit better off in some places than we are as a nation. Nonetheless, what is happening now when it comes to Presidential appointments should give warning to future President’s of this great nation that they have to be careful on who they give key positions to because no matter how smart they are and how skilled & gifted they are for certain positions, our nation doesn’t need people in key positions that have seeds of hatred or strong disdain for certain types of people. I am not saying that perhaps some of those who attacked Van Jones wasn’t racists but at the same time, those who defend Van Jones have to ask themselves if Van Jones wasn’t black or a person of color but just any other white man would we play the race card in the resignation of Van Jones or would we be upset about it as we are if you looked at all of Van Jones comments and history as well as the fact he said he was a communist.

We have to get beyond race and even in Van Jones resignation; I do not see this as a step backgrounds for people of color in terms of getting involved in the Green Movement and getting Green jobs in the future. In fact I see this as an even greater opportunity for people of color like myself to make sure that we don’t give anyone any ammunition to deny us an opportunity to work to save our environment. I see this as an opportunity for people of color to work harder than before to pave the way for the future in terms of protecting our communities and creating more eco-friendly environments for people of color to live. This is what the Van Jones situation should show for future people of color who plan to join the Green Movement. Also the Van Jones situation should make all of us want a better vetting process to prevent things such as previous statements and actions by Presidential appointments to dominate the news cycle or to be thrown upon us by the news without the White House putting it out there to show transparency and honesty with us the American people. It is time for government to be proactive rather than reactive which it seems our government has been doing for far too long. These are the lessons that the Van Jones issue should teach us so that we as a nation can be better.