The Mo’Kelly Report

Dr. King and President Lyndon B. Johnson

For as much ballyhoo which surrounded the election of President Obama; the approaching one-year anniversary of the historic moment has provided tremendous perspective.  I would imagine only the extremely politically naïve thought that the realities of an Obama administration would live up to the previous expectations.  At the risk of using any cliché “honeymoon stage” references, this relationship is rightfully like any other romantic involvement.  It starts off hot, then cools when the initial infatuation ends.  The habits and idiosyncrasies largely ignored during the courtship are somehow more intolerable later on during the relationship.

With that extended relationship metaphor out of the way, let’s look at the recent resignation of White House advisor Van Jones.  His “controversial” past concerning 9/11 remarks, intertwined with the public Glenn Beck fiasco  turned Jones into a PR liability to the administration.  In 2009, PR liabilities are not to be confused with actual liabilities.  They are not one-in-the-same.

Although the public story is that Jones resigned, Obama administration “habits and idiosyncrasies” suggest the opposite.  This is the same campaign/administration which sprinted away from anything and anyone supposedly “controversial.” The next “controversial” person the administration stands behind will be the first.  One could argue that such behavior was an effective campaign strategy but a horrible approach to governance.

You’re the president…act like it.  Sometimes “executive privilege” means giving the finger to fringe detractors instead of caving in to them.

Van Jones was chosen to serve because he was a visionary champion of eco-capitalism.  The acceptance of Jones’

Van Jones

supposed resignation for reasons thoroughly unrelated to his present tenure reeks of weakness in the administration.

President Obama has now exposed his own pressure point, to which the GOP will exploit time and time again until 2012 and beyond.  The precedent had been set long ago during the campaign and the Obama administration is calling the same play over and over again in the huddle.

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

In the weeks after the election, the administration offered some 20 pages of a vetting questionnaire to weed out those potential cabinet members and associates whose past might present future problems.  It was extensive and arguably unrealistic in scope.  Jesus Christ himself couldn’t have served in this administration.  Turning water into wine probably would have been later characterized as running moonshine and curing the sick (and raising the dead) without a medical license would have used to prove Jesus was a “quack” and member of the occult.

Robert Gibbs

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

I can hear White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs right now, thanking Jesus Christ “for his service,” but not endorse any of his comments made years earlier criticizing Pontius Pilate.

Seriously, even Dr. King, who, save assassination could still have been alive today would not have met the Obama administration standard.  King criticized the government, openly opposed the Vietnam war and was by every GOP measure a “radical extremist.”  In fact, King was far more “radical” than Van Jones and also was branded a Marxist/communist.

This is NOT a comparison of Jones and King, but a comparison of the fear tactics used to discredit them both.  Notice the familiar McCarthyism wallpaper.

If the GOP has done anything well in recent years, it’s been redefining heretofore innocuous words.  “Liberal” was changed from a political ideological description to a scandalous accusation.  The word “radical” transformed from an objective description of activism into some insidious form of anti-American extremism.

Senator John McCain isn’t a “radical” by the way,…he’s a “maverick.”

OK, if you say so.  Yes, the hypocrisy lies is in the application of the labels.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

“I think Van Jones did the right thing. His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration.”

- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with Pence’s statement.  The truth is though, we don’t live in a vacuum.  We live in a world with television, history books and even youtube, elucidating the rampant Republican hypocrisy.

There is no public statement condemning the “extreme” views and rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, the same Limbaugh that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was forced to offer apologies.  The same Limbaugh who compared the Democrats and the Obama healthcare plan to Nazism.  To date there has been a public acquiescence of the Republican party to Rush Limbaugh and not one instance of condemnation or repudiation of his rhetoric.

Not by Pence or any other member of the Republic Party.

There was never any condemnation by Republican leadership of then Governor Sarah Palin’s remarks accusing then Senator Obama of “pal-ing around with terrorists.”

Rumsfeld and Hussein

For whatever reason, there is nothing similarly said about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, even though he’s shaking hands here with Saddam Hussein.

Extremist views and coarse rhetoric? Pal-ing around with terrorists?  Hypocrisy.

A South Carolina State senator directly compared President Obama and Osama Bin Laden on his official website.

To which there was no rebuke from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any Indiana congressman named Mike Pence.  The GOP can’t have it both ways.  If Rush Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican party, then never should the chairman of the RNC apologize for correctly categorizing Limbaugh as “just an entertainer.”  It then means that Limbaugh is NOT “just an entertainer” but an influential GOP operative from which the party takes its cues, even the extremist ones doused in coarse rhetoric.

Yes, there’s no place for “extremist views and coarse rhetoric” in the Obama administration, but it’s a-ok within the Republican Party, anywhere and everywhere.

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)

Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) also weighed in, saying “Can the American people trust a senior White House official that is so cavalier in his association with such radical and repugnant sentiments?”

There’s that word “radical” again.  Obviously Senator Bond’s short term memory is deficient and he has conveniently forgotten President George W. Bush and sideman Dick Cheney.  Ever heard of Karl Rove?

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

Karl Rove – June 23, 2005

I can’t seem to find any condemnation by Congressman Mike Pence or Senator Kit Bond then or now regarding these radical and repugnant sentiments on 9/11 and the opposition party.  Maybe it’s just a coincidence…just maybe.

In fact, I did find an AP story on the “Republican response.”  It read as follows…

WASHINGTON – The White House is defending presidential adviser Karl Rove against Democratic demands that he apologize or quit for implying that liberals are soft on the Sept. 11 attackers and other terrorists.

Congressional Republicans joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn’t apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.

Full story HERE.

Or what about Eliot Abrams?

During George W. Bush’s first term in office, Abrams was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior

Abrams testifies during Iran-Contra

Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. During Bush’s second term, Abrams was named Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. The appointments were  “controversial” due to Abrams’ conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress…during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.

I was unable to find any similar statements from Republicans decrying the appointment or asking for Abrams’ resignation.  It was another “coincidence,” to be sure.

Ultimately the blame must lie with the Obama administration for painting itself into the proverbial corner with its track record of fighting for absolutely no one deemed “controversial” by the political opposition.  Instead of doing the right thing and standing behind their “Green Jobs Czar” they did the “Obama” thing…

“Distance, disavow and disconnect. Student Body Left on 3…BREAK.”

Despite the characterization of President Obama as the fulfillment of Dr. King’s “dream,” Dr. King would have no place and would be unwelcome in this present administration.  By all contemporary Republican accounts, King was both “radical,” “extreme” and “controversial,” questioning the moral authority of American government.  That has no place in the Obama administration.  The acceptance of Jones’ resignation is the Democrats’ collective co-signature of such foolishness.  Time to audible and call a different play for once President Obama.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE