Two years after the worst marine oil spill in history, former White
House adviser Van Jones now admits that he and other progressives sat
quietly on the sidelines to avoid making President Obama look bad, as The Blaze notes:
You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil
spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been president, with that oil
spill, or George Bush had been president with that oil spill, I’d have
been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the
president was. Well, that’s a bad, uh, uh…that’s not good for the earth,
it’s not good for the cause, it’s probably not good for the president.
It’s certainly not the way we should conduct ourselves. And so, I’m very tough on progressive movements and leaders, including
myself, who did not stand on principle, based on who we looked across
and saw as president.
Conveniently, Jones's admission against interest comes years after the
fact at a time when the oil spill is fairly low on the nation's radar.
Though Jones's comments seem limited to the Deepwater Horizon spill, the
same could really be said of the anti-war movement. There were large
protests in many cities in 2007-2008 against the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Once Obama took office, all of that public opposition melted
away. This is despite the fact that Obama ordered a surge of troops in
Afghanistan, failed to close the prison facility at Gitmo and actually increased the number of
deadly drone strikes.
The mainstream media also deserves a lot of the blame here. It's
understandable why partisans like Van Jones would only speak up when
their speech can be used against the GOP. What's not clear is why the
supposedly neutral media also lost interest in the anti-war and
environmentalist movements the moment Obama took office. It seems the
MSM is just an echo chamber for progressive chatter, one that neither
tones down obviously partisan attacks or plays up their absence when a
Democrat takes office.