Gregory Kane thinks it would have been better for conservative bloggers to have ignored the Van Jones story in the hope that he would stay in office until shortly before the 2012 election-- at which time his "exposure" could provide the much-needed ammo that the GOP will need to win:

...did Republicans and conservatives do themselves a favor by getting this whining weirdo cast out of the White House?

Before Jones resigned, Missouri Sen. Christopher Bond, according to a USA Today story, "said Congress should investigate Jones' fitness for the job." In the same news story, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence said "Jones' extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

A place in the Obama administration is PRECISELY where I wanted Jones. What's more important to Republicans and conservatives: Jones' departure from the White House in September of 2009 or Obama's departure from it in January of 2013?

Let me put it another way: What good does it do to celebrate and whoop up nailing Jones now if, on Jan. 21, 2013, Obama is taking the oath of office for his second term as president?

Here's how I would have preferred that Republicans and conservatives handled the Jones affair: Do nothing now, just keep a record of everything the guy did or said, both in the past and during his time working for the Obama administration.

Then, in 2012, around the time of say, oh, the Democratic National Convention or sometime during the post-convention presidential campaign, bring up the Jones matter. What he said about Republicans being bodily orifices and his signature on that 9-11 "Truther" statement. I'd have even thrown in Jones' support of Mumia Abu Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

Kane is right in the strategic sense, of course. The problem is, there's no magic switch to turn on and off the blogosphere, or talk radio. People can and will dig up information and blog about what they find. Gateway Pundit is credited with getting the Van Jones story out, and there's no way to censor blog posts or discussions, nor is there any way to prevent bigger media figures from picking up on them.

But let us suppose that it is theoretically possible for "the right" to issue an edict from above directing that the Van Jones story be ignored for strategic reasons. Isn't it also likely that sooner or later some of the more moderate liberals (meaning those who don't think putting Communists in cabinet level positions is a good idea) would have noticed, and wondered why?

It's a bit tough to ask bloggers to be thinking about a 2012 strategy in 2009. Besides, don't the 2010 congressional elections come first? There are a lot of voters who might very well care about Communist crackpots appointed to cabinet positions long enough that they'll not only remember in November, but they might remember all the way until next November.

And considering the rate that left-wing ideological zealots are being appointed to high office, with any luck these ideologues will remain in charge of the vetting process. I very much doubt that Van Jones will be the last Communist crackpot who makes it through.

So, I say cheer up!

While the tragic and untimely departure of Van Jones may represent an apparent loss for the cause of conservatism, there should be plenty more where he came from.