Spineless Democrats

March 10, 2009.

Van Jones, environmentalist, a man whom Republican gubernatorial candidate and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman supported, is nominated for the position of special adviser to the Council on Environmental Quality.

September 2009.

In office fewer than six months, Jones resigns.

Why did Jones resign so abruptly? Was it a sexual indiscretion, the secretary behind a windmill?

Nope.

In the last decade, these indiscretions have gone from the acts of a morally reprehensible president to campaigns by the liberal conspiracy to ruin Republican careers.

Did Mr. Jones forget to pay his tax bill?

Thankfully, no. It appears he did have that taken care of.

Well then, what does this leave us with, you might ask?

Because at a lecture he hosted, he called Republicans in Congress “assholes” (though he called himself an asshole as well), and his signature appeared on a petition questioning the official story of Sept. 11.

The first offense, the “a-bomb” offense, becomes trivial when you consider the language used by those on the other side of the political spectrum to describe liberals.

Michele Bachmann believes in reviving McCarthyism and “Patriotism Panels,” talk radio is filled with nothing but the paranoid rantings of conservative white men, and a former vice president can tell a U.S. congressman so eloquently to “go (expletive) himself.”

But to chastise a man for a singular comment such as the “a-bomb” comes off as thin-skinned and massively hypocritical.

The second “offense,” a signature on a 9/11 petition, is the result of questioning the government’s official story and motives.

In these days of “birthers” and town hall tea-baggers all calling a president of mixed ancestry a Nazi and a socialist (which, by the way, are two very different groups), and questioning every action set forth by this democratically elected president as part of a secret Nazi or commie agenda, where is the fault in requesting openness in a democratic government?

Free speech is one of our most cherished rights in the United States, a right reserved not solely for groups opposed to the current president, but for those who spoke out against the actions of the last administration as well.

Just as anyone invested in the aforementioned movements currently popular with some should not face job loss because of their views, neither should those who questioned the motives of the last administration.

To advocate this removal is to, in effect, attempt to censure this person for a disagreement over what is and isn’t allowed to be questioned.

But the blame here truly lies with our current president.

President Obama needs to stand up for his appointees if there is any hope of the changes he spoke of.

He must also learn that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not the heads of the government – he is – and ultimately it is his vision for the future the people supported in November, not theirs.