From last night’s Fox News All-Stars:
On Van Jones’s resignation:
It’s clear that what did him in was the Truther’s statement.
All the other stuff? You know, you can have a communist or two in the White House. You can have a guy who uses expletives about the opposition. But you can’t have somebody in government that believes there was a Bush conspiracy to allow — to deliberately allow — 9/11. That is beyond the pale. It is a rancid paranoid politics that is beyond radicalism.
If that hadn’t happened, I suspect he would still be in office. So that is what did him in.
And here he is protesting it was a smear campaign and lies. If they were all lies, why did he apologize twice?
And then secondly, you get him or his defenders saying that he didn’t carefully read the petition. The petition is quite easy to read and plain. It speaks about the government officials who may have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attack.
Now, this is a guy who has been touted as a graduate of Yale Law School. So where is the fine print here? Where is the ambiguity? And the difficulty? And the difficult syntax that he couldn’t decipher?
I assure you that any of the schoolchildren that Obama will be addressing tomorrow would read it and understand it. So his explanation is completely incredible. He obviously knew what he was signing. And that’s what did him in at 12:01 on a Sunday, usually the time for executions…
What you also learn about the White House is when [White House adviser Valerie] Jarrett said, as we saw on tape, “We’ve been watching him all these years,” well, that means you have been watching him and must know something about his history of quite radical politics and statements.
And that apparently was undisturbing to Jarrett and to Obama people. And that tells you it is a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around — and friends with — the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers.
Liberals scolded us last year [about] how irrelevant all of that is, how it is a smear campaign against Obama. But if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism, then a Van Jones will show up, you will watch him years and years, and you will think this guy is perfectly mainstream.
On Nancy Pelosi’s shifting statements on including a public option in health-care legislation:
It’s a perfect example of the incoherence on the Democrats on all of this. And she is reflecting the president’s incoherence.
On the one hand — here we are eight months into this administration, three months into a really active, vigorous debate on health care, and two days before the president’s great speech — nobody has any idea what’s in it, and even he probably doesn’t.
So, on the one hand he’s saying we’re in a crisis and we have to act and it has to be done by last August, and then he doesn’t even know as of today what it is, and he’s asking immediate action on something that he doesn’t even know about. That’s number one.
But secondly, underlying all this is unease about his intentions. Obama is a man who believes in the government-run [single-payer] system. He has said that several years ago. He has now disavowed it. But clearly people understand that the public option is a way to achieve, ultimately, a government-run system…a single-payer system. But he can’t admit it, because in America it is not going to happen. He himself has said that tactically you can’t be in favor of a single-payer system.
He also says he will never talk about rationing. But he has said it in public, and he has said it in interviews, and he says it in private [that he is] troubled about the hip replacement his grandmother had when she was very sick and ill and terminal. He clearly thinks about rationing. He thinks it’s important, but, again, he can’t say it.