|
Lou Dobbs For President News
Lou Dobbs says he might be a candidate for President!
Lou Dobbs CNN AnchorAired February 21, 2008 - 17:00 ET
The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
On CNN on hour before the Lou Dobbs Show
BLITZER: Check in with Lou Dobbs to see what's on his mind right now. His show begins in an hour.
Lou, when you take a look at this contest right now, independent voters out there, whether the moderate center on both sides or people who just don't see themselves as Republicans or Democrats, how do you think this is going to break when it comes down to the two person contest?
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, for the two-person contest moving into the general election, you know, I think you've got two candidates who are going to have to move quite a distance to get to the center. Independents in this country live at the center of the country as do most Americans. And these candidates, whether it's Obama, whether it's Clinton, whether it's McCain or even Huckabee, they got a ways to go to get to the center.
BLITZER: Because McCain's reputation out there is really as sort of a maverick and independent. He's gone against the White House on several issues. He's gone against his fellow Republicans on several issues, one of two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001, as you remember. Only Lincoln Chafee, the former senator from Rhode Island, joined him on the Republican side...
DOBBS: Right.
BLITZER: Does that appeal to the independents out there?
DOBBS: I don't think so. I don't think so at all. I think that maverick thing is - you know I think most Americans and you know all of us can really only speak for ourselves but I truly believe most Americans want reason. They want compassion. And they want people who are concerned about a government that is not representing the majority in this country. They want the national interest represented. Not special interests or ethnocentric interests.
They want the common good represented. And they're desperate for that. I think we all are. The partisanship that is playing out this year, frankly, these candidates, as you know I'm an independent. I'm a populous. I don't have a dog in the hunt as I've said time and time again but I think these are amongst the most disappointing candidates we could have possibly put forward from a nation of 300 million people.
BLITZER: So does that mean a viable third party alternative candidate is not going to necessarily emerge or will emerge?
DOBBS: I happen to believe that a third party candidate will emerge because there is such a void here in leadership and that I think it's almost a certainty.
BLITZER: All right. But it's not going to be Lou Dobbs, right?
DOBBS: Well, as I have said before, you never say never and I might be a candidate last resort but I'm sure as heck not a candidate now. thank you very much.
BLITZER: Lou Dobbs, thanks. We'll see you here on CNN in one hour. Lots of news coming up on his program "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Lou, thanks very much.
Quote: I might be a candidate last resort
ALIPAC NOTE
This shows that Lou Dobbs is giving a run for President serious thought.
Please visit and sign up to show your support at www.loudobbsforpresident.org
DISCUSS THIS MATERIAL WITH OUR ONLINE ACTIVISTS AT...
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-632612.html#632612
Formal Complaint Filed with Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun
February 20, 2008
To: The editors and ombudsmen of the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun.
I wish to file a formal complaint and request a full retraction of the propaganda hit piece that was conducted by your papers and your employee Whitney Blair Wyckoff, on February 19, 2008, titled "Lou Dobbs for president? One anti-illegal immigration group thinks he's the antidote to 'McClintobama'."
I witness so much bias, politicization, censorship, and corruption of journalistic ethics in the American print media on a daily that I am rarely astounded anymore. This "article" by Ms Wycoff stands as a perfect example of what is wrong with America today. Americans used to trust newspapers to provide them with accurate information and portrayals of the candidates and issues that have a direct impact on the quality of their lives.
It is no surprise that newspaper circulations are taking a dive and that polls show only small fractions of our citizenry place any trust in the print media. This "article" is a perfect example.
The topic of Whitney Blair Wyckoff's article is Lou Dobbs and our website to promote a possible Presidential campaign by Mr. Dobbs. Yet, Mr. Dobbs is not quoted as a source and while our home site at ALIPAC.us or our Draft Dobbs for President site are main features in the article, no links are provided thus allowing Wycoff to define the sites without showing readers where they could go to participate or formulate their own opinions.
Wycoff inserts her own opinions into the article several times. She calls Lou Dobbs "cantankerous" in the first sentence, which is defined as a person that is ill-tempered, quarrelsome; disagreeable: disliked. While this is her opinion and an insult, but it is also a lie because Mr. Dobbs is quite a gentleman and well liked by Americans, which is illustrated by his rapidly growing audience.
Wycoff further injects her personal opinions into the article by calling the immigration plans of the wealthiest candidates "moderate", when in fact their plans would be the most radical change in America's immigration laws in modern history!
Wycoff misrepresents my statements and quotes to her, in dramatic fashion. She claims that I made statements about the anti-immigrant vote. I never used the term "anti-immigrant", as my organization ALIPAC supports legal immigrants and we are pro-immigrant. We have many immigrant supporters, in which we greatly value and thus the name Americans for Legal Immigration! Wycoff wants readers to think that Lou Dobbs and I are both "anti-immigrant", which is false and again shows a political opinion inserted into this article.
Furthermore, Wycoff completely misquoted me as saying, I think people should run America. How stupid is that? What would the alternative be? Perhaps America should be run by robots? No, she distorted my true quote, which is "It's about whether the citizens of America or big business run the United States" but Wycoff claims I said something very different.
The worst of the bias in this article is the fact that only one other source was used and that the writer fails to properly identify Alan I. Abramowitz.
Not only does Wycoff allow Alan I. Abramowitz to make several false and negative statements, but she fails to inform readers that Mr. Abramowitz is a member of the ASK Law Group, which specializes in "Immigration and Naturalization law", according to their website at www.kaflaw.com
The readers of Wycoff's article deserve to know that the source is not an unbiased academic Political Science professor, but in fact he is making money from legal and illegal immigration. Do you think that the fact his income is affected by this issue might have an impact on his opinion of Mr. Dobbs running for President? Most people would think so and that is why this information is excluded.
This is not an article, this is a biased piece of trash that deserves to be thrown in the trash and Ms. Wycoff needs to return to college for some refresher courses on the ethics of journalism.
American citizens deserve better than this kind of political propaganda that is masquerading as news or journalism.
I have added notes and corrections to this article, before I circulate it to the national media and our 25,000 national supporters. You can see our revisions at this link...
Biased Tribune article attacks ALIPAC and the Draft Dobbs effort!
http://www.alipac.us/article2972.html
ALIPAC deserves justice. A full correction or retraction is needed and Ms. Wycoff should be appropriately disciplined by your company.
In closing, one of the most attractive things about Lou Dobbs is that he tells people the truth about what is going on and makes his opinions clear, which is a refreshing reprieve from articles like this one that infect the corporate liberal media in America.
William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
www.alipac.us
Lou Dobbs for president? One anti-illegal immigration group thinks he's the antidote to "McClintobama."
By Whitney Blair Wyckoff
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON—Lou Dobbs for President?
Americans for Legal Immigration, a group that favors (enforcement of existing immigration laws) a hard line against illegal immigration, has been pushing the candidacy of the cantankerous (Wycoff insults Dobbs by calling him Ill-tempered, quarrelsome; disagreeable: disliked) CNN host for some time now. But it re-launched a Lou Dobbs campaign Web site this week, now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
In part, this can be seen as a protest message in a campaign where the three remaining candidates favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and a relatively moderate approach toward them (Changing America's existing immigration laws is not the moderate approach but a radical one disapproved of by a majority of Americans).
But William Gheen, president and spokesman of the group, known as ALIPAC, said the campaign is no stunt.
So far, 2,034 people have pledged $509,825 if Dobbs decides to run, he said. Gheen hopes that the site will generate enough interest to convince Dobbs to enter the 2008 presidential race.
“We want to show Lou that there’s a pre-established base out there that he can use to quickly re-energize the campaign,” Gheen said. Gheen said that if Dobbs decides to run, ALIPAC would give Dobbs the information that the Web site collects.
ALIPAC intends to promote the campaign using the group’s e-mail lists. Gheen said he would also post a letter on the site urging Dobbs to quickly decide whether he will run.
Dobbs—a self-described “independent populist” who has spoken out against illegal immigration and corporate influence in government—sparked rumors last November of a possible run when he predicted that an independent populist would win the presidential election. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, Dobbs said that while he didn’t have the personality to run for office, he “cannot say never.”
According to its Web site, ALIPAC’s mission is to “address the disparity between the public’s desire for more control of illegal immigration and the actions of lawmakers,” saying that 75 percent of Americans “want more done to control illegal immigration.” Stories with headlines like “McCain Madness” or “Outbreak: Leprosy in Arkansas Brought Here by Illegal Aliens,” and a nearly 2,000-wo5rd article called “Why the illegals must go” are posted on the site.
ALIPAC has developed a platform for Dobbs, which Gheen said is based on Dobbs’s show, ALIPAC’s understanding of Dobbs’s ideology and polling data. He added that the platforms could change if Dobbs throws his hat into the race.
As John McCain closes in on the Republican presidential nomination, Gheen said that Dobbs could be an appealing choice for anti-immigration voters (False: I never use the term 'anti-immigration' and I did not say this, I said 'anti-illegal immigration).
Republican candidates like Ron Paul and Mitt Romney (Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson) have split the anti (illegal)[/b)-immigration vote, Gheen said. But Dobbs could be the candidate to unite it.
“People are really not happy with McClintobama,” Gheen said, adding that he thinks that McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have similar stances on immigration. Gheen said that there is dissatisfaction within both parties on the issue of immigration.
[b] (WARNING: The reporter is about to cite a source without informing the readers that Abramowitz is a partner in the ASK Law Group which specializes in "Immigration and Naturalization law" according to their website at www.kaflaw.com Mr. Abramowitz has a financial interest in immigration and illegal immigration that is excluded from this article)
But Alan I. Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta and author of “Voice of the People: Elections and Voting in the United States,” said that immigration does not seem to be a high priority among voters. He said that polls that ask about issues important to voters have immigration outranked by the economy, the war in Iraq and health care. )(Immigration is the fourth most important issue in the nation but it is not a top issue?)
“Immigration isn’t a salient issue to most Americans, and many of those who do care about immigration are going to vote for McCain,” Abramowitz said. (False)“I just don’t see that issue as creating a third party movement.”
But Gheen contends that Dobbs’s support of legal immigration is part of a bigger issue. “Lou Dobbs is onto the real issue, which goes beyond immigration,” Gheen said. “It’s about whether people or big business run the United States.”(Misquote: Should read 'It's about whether the citizens of America or big business run the United States)
One problem is that there is not a large pool of voters from which Dobbs could potentially draw support, Abramowitz said. (False: Polling data shows historic low approval ratings for Congress, the President, and both political parties)
“The overall level of dissatisfaction with the major parties is low,” he said, adding that voter turnout for the Democratic Party has been particularly high in the 2008 primaries. He also said that he thinks the “large majority” of Republicans would eventually unite behind McCain, especially if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.
Ross Perot, who ran as a third-party candidate in the 1992 election, did reasonably well because a number of voters were disenchanted with the major party candidates, Abramowitz said, even though in the end Perot did not win a single state in the general election.
But Abramowitz said independent voters do not vote as a united bloc.
“Between two-thirds and three-fourths of independents lean toward one party or the other,” Abramowitz said. “The remaining group makes up about 10 percent of the electorate.”
He added that these true independents often do not vote.
“I don’t see much potential for a third party or independent candidate” in this election, Abramowitz said.
Abramowitz also said that liberal to moderate Republicans might also be available, but he said that these groups are not large.
“It’s not much of a base to build a campaign on,” Abramowitz said.
Abramowitz also said that Dobbs sends too much of a “mixed message” to be a successful candidate. While some of Dobbs’s populist ideas might appeal to Democrats, conservative Republicans would be more likely favor his stance on immigration.
A possible Dobbs run for the presidency does not indicate an ideological change for the Republican Party, Abramowitz said. “McCain has been moderate on immigration, but so has President Bush until recently,” he said. “It’s still an issue that really divides them.”
Abramowitz also said it is doubtful that Dobbs would leave his lucrative position at CNN to pursue the campaign.
“I’m skeptical about the whole idea,” Abramowitz said.
Nonetheless, Gheen said that once the ALIPAC Web site reaches $1 million in pledges, he would meet with Dobbs to see if he interested in running for president. Until then, Gheen said that Dobbs’s producers have promised that Dobbs will read the site’s guest book.
(Note: Apparently the author did not bother to contact or quote the subject of this article, Mr. Lou Dobbs. The entire focus appears to be an attempt to discredit our efforts with the Draft Lou Dobbs website. Also of note is that the article intentionally fails to provide readers with our web addresses of www.LouDobbsforPresident.org or ALIPAC.us which is the focus of this article.)
McClintObama Amnesty Plan: 20 million illegal alien voters by 2010
Posted on Friday, February 01 @ 17:07:57 CST
John McCain President CampaignFebruary 1, 2008
by William Gheen
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us
Have GOP Voters forgotten that just a few months ago, John McCain stood hand-in-hand with liberal icon Ted Kennedy pushing for the largest amnesty for illegal aliens in American history? While Rasmussen polling showed that Americans following the legislation very closely opposed it 3 to 1 (69% to 23%), McCain ignored the massive public outcry!
The angry calls rolling into the Senate offices, including John McCain's, were between 50 and 100 to 1 against McCain and Kennedy's bill. We know this because we stood outside his door counting calls received by his staff and because other Senators told us the ratios they were receiving. History was made when the Capital phone system shut down, due to overload of calls from angry Americans.
John McCain refused to listen to Americans and went so far as to call members of the Senate who refused to support the McKennedy Amnesty "Racists"! John McCain showed no regard for American voices and instead called those who disagreed with him petty names. Who was John McCain listening to? He was listening to the US Chamber of Commerce and the racist illegal alien support groups like La Raza (The Race) whom he openly coordinated the effort with.
John McCain has illustrated in dramatic fashion that when he feels safe in his office, he couldn't care less about what a majority of Americans think.
Now, John McCain claims he is listening because he wants to be President in a few months. He says he will "Secure the Border First!" Even if you could trust John McCain, which you cannot, his border security pledge will be quickly reduced to irrelevance, if his desire for Amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens becomes a reality...
Barrack Obama brags about how he worked with Senator McCain for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" amnesty. If the GOP voters allow McCain to win the primary, they will be denying Americans any real choice against Amnesty in November. Unless an independent candidate enters the race, our choice will be between Clinton, Obama, or McCain all pushing for Amnesty from the White House, just like Bush!
Some conservatives will hold their nose and vote for McCain out of fear of the Democrats, others will go third party. Many conservatives would not vote for McCain at gunpoint!
The Republican Party will not be destroyed, if the McCain, Obama, Clinton Amnesty becomes a reality. Each party will race to replace American voices in their ranks, with the twenty million new voters who were recently illegal aliens. Does this surprise anyone who is knowledgeable about how American homes, jobs, tax dollars, limited health care resources, and finite seats in schools are being given to illegal aliens as well?
Any border security promised by McCain will quickly fade into irrelevance beneath the political weight of America's new race based voting block of legalized illegal aliens. What hope will Americans have for border security or immigration enforcement once this happens? The answer is clear... NONE!
Seventy Seven percent of Americans oppose licenses for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be eligible for licenses within a few years.
Over seventy percent of Americans oppose taxpayer benefits and welfare for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be turned into citizen voters and will be eligible for welfare and all taxpayer benefits.
Over 80 percent of Americans oppose in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million legalized illegal aliens will qualify for in-state tuition.
Under the McClintObama plan, employers will only have to worry about hiring the next twenty million illegal aliens flooding the country, in response to the Amnesty provided to the most recent wave.
John McCain supports Amnesty. If you have any doubts, then ask yourself why his campaign has deployed open borders fanatic, Juan Hernandez to secure the Hispanic vote for McCain.
Juan Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and America. He used to work for Mexican President Vicente Fox by reaching out to and organizing illegal aliens from Mexico inside the US. Hernandez is known for his stance called, "Mexico First". He is a regular on national television, where he flagrantly advocates amnesty and Open Borders with Mexico.
Juan Hernandez is the face of the McCain's campaign to Hispanic voters and he did a great job delivering the Hispanic vote in Florida to McCain!
There are two main reasons McCain is winning the GOP Primary right now. One is the anti-illegal immigration vote is split up between Romney and Paul, who appear to be sincere in their "No Amnesty" pledges. The anti-illegal immigration vote is also splitting to Mike Huckabee, who truthfully supports Amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, but is a very skillful liar. Huckabee is deceiving voters by mailing out endorsment cards from lone Minuteman Jim Gilchrist. The anti-illegal immigration vote is divided three ways, and the pro-amnesty vote is now collected around John McCain.
The second reason McCain is winning is that many GOP voters don't know his immigration stances, have forgotten his immigration stances, or have forgiven his immigration stances. They say, "He has changed" or "We have to stop Clinton and Obama".
John McCain has not changed or he would not have Juan Hernandez out promising Amnesty for illegal aliens. John McCain has not changed or he would not be saying, "Secure the Borders first", without getting into the part where amnesty is then passed. John McCain has not changed because he recently stated on the national news that he would still vote for his amnesty bill or sign it into law as President!
Do GOP voters really prefer to have one of their own pushing amnesty than a Democrat? I am a Republican, getting closer to independent every day, but I will say that at very least the Democrats are more honest about their pro-amnesty positions than McCain and Huckabee.
What madness, lies, or misinformation would infect the mind of a GOP voter for them to support a man like John McCain, who works openly with ultra-liberal Democrats, almost changed parties to join the Democrats in 2001, and has the worst record on immigration of any of the GOP candidates?
Why would anyone support a man who is so detached from reality that he told a booing crowd of Union workers that they would not pick lettuce for even $50 an hour!?!?!
John McCain says he knows all about securing the border because he is from Arizona. Say what? Has anyone seen the conditions in Arizona lately, where they have declared a state of emergency and fought to pass strict state laws to enforce the immigration laws, which John McCain and his DC insiders refuse to enforce?
There are good reasons why Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin are heavily criticizing John McCain. There are good reasons for Ronald Reagan's son, Michael to condemn the McCain candidacy. There are good reasons why ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, and almost every other organization in America fighting against Amnesty and illegal immigration, while supporting Border Security, are screaming NO to McCain!
The principles of this nation are at stake. The value of our votes is at stake. The survival of the United States, in its current form, is at stake.
We must stop the McClintObama Amnesty Plan. We must stop twenty million illegal aliens from becoming voters by 2010. We must race against time to warn every GOP voter before Super Tuesday, because we must do all we can to stop John McCain.
---
William Gheen is the national spokesman for ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee) found on the web at www.alipac.us ALIPAC is a collective of Americans of every race and walk of life that are unified in their support for Border Security and enforcement of America's existing immigration laws. William Gheen is a veteran campaign consultant with over 15 years and 44 campaigns of experience. He has served GOP candidates in North Carolina since 2000, before founding ALIPAC on 9/11/2004.
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WITH ALIPAC ACTIVISTS AT...
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-606364.html
At RWU, Lou Dobbs repeats tough stance on immigrants
Friday, February 1, 2008
By Alex Kuffner
Journal Staff Writer
BRISTOL — No, Lou Dobbs did not announce his candidacy for the presidency during a speech at Roger Williams University last night.
Despite an audience member holding up a “Lou Dobbs for President” sign, despite the CNN anchorman’s own call for an independent candidate and despite a reference from the university’s leader to an Internet campaign urging Dobbs to throw his name in the ring, he did not address the issue.
Last month, the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, a group dedicated to fighting illegal immigration, launched an effort on the Web to draft Dobbs into the presidential race as an independent. In response, the 62-year-old host of Lou Dobbs Tonight told various media outlets that he had no plans to run but with the caveat that he “cannot say never.”
After a half-hour speech to a full house in the university’s gymnasium, one student gave Dobbs the perfect opportunity to promote himself as a presidential hopeful, when he asked the newsman to name a “viable third-party candidate.”
Dobbs, however, wouldn’t bite, opting instead for gloom.
“If this is the best we can do,” he said in reference to the Democrats and Republicans that remain in the race, “then we’re in a hell of a lot of trouble.”
Dobbs has morphed from a financial journalist to a vocal opponent of illegal immigration to a self-proclaimed “independent populist,” but it appears that he isn’t yet ready to make the leap from media to politics.
Dobbs spoke at Roger Williams as part of the university’s Civil Discourse lecture series, a program started by university president Roy J. Nirschel that over the past three years has included visits by Nobel Peace Prize-winner David Trimble, author Salman Rushdie and conservative activist Gary Bauer.
Over the course of his sometimes cynical and frequently sarcastic talk, Dobbs touched on some of his favorite subjects: immigration, border security, trade agreements and what he called in the title of a 2006 book, “the war on the middle class.”
Some highlights:
•He hammered home his hard-line position on immigration in response to one question.
“This nation is English-only. Illegal immigrants should be in jail. I know it’s tough, but you know what? There’s a legal way to do business.”
•He parodied what he believes is the media’s reluctance to cover the important issues in the presidential race and news outlets’ focus on the candidates’ race, gender and religion.
“We have learned that Barack Obama is a black man. We’ve learned that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Did you know that Mitt Romney is a Mormon? Mike Huckabee believes in God. Everyday.”
•He was dismissive of the Bush administration’s economic-stimulus package, which includes refunds for all taxpayers.
“In economics, there’s a word for that: stupidity.”
But it was partisan politics that came in for the greatest criticism. As Dobbs sees it, only a select group benefits from the two-party system — corporate America and its “three-piece suit lobbyists.”
“We are confronted by many challenges,” said Dobbs, who wore a gray pinstripe suit, “but the greatest challenge of all is that the American people are not being represented in our capital.”
The capacity crowd was mostly supportive of Dobbs, cheering and applauding him throughout his talk and giving him a standing ovation when he finished.
During a question-and-answer session, a woman who identified herself as a law professor at the university and who was clearly at odds with Dobbs, asked him to clarify his own recommendations for immigration policy.
Dobbs said he would tighten the country’s borders and increase the size of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but then talked generally of supporting a “rational, effective and humane” policy.
In a move that drew some laughs, Christopher Young, who ran in the Democratic primary won in 2006 by U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, took to the microphone to tout his latest run for the Senate, this time against incumbent Jack Reed.
“Would you have me on your program?” he asked Dobbs.
The anchor assured him that he would if he could get Reed to come on, too.
Riding Lou Dobbs’ coattails
January 20, 2008 at 12:04pm
by Gary Jacobson
Lou Dobbs, the tough-talking anchor for CNN, is expert at riding popular opinion. Last week, a group called Americans for Legal Immigration attached itself firmly to Dobbs’ popularity as it launched an effort to draft him for president.
If nothing else, it was a good public relations move by ALIPAC, headed by William Gheen. The group shares Dobbs’ fervor against illegal immigration.
Kevin Horrigan reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that in the first 24 hours Gheen’s group received campaign pledges, should Dobbs choose to run, totaling $160,000.
Compare that to ALIPAC’s own fund raising. According to the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, through June of last year, the group raised $72,418 for the 2007-08 election cycle. It raised $47,433 in the 2005-06 cycle.
In his column headlined “Loupublicans and Dobbsocrats,” Horrigan wrote that when he first saw the email announcing the draft Dobbs effort, he thought it was a joke. He probably wasn’t alone.
But it would be a mistake to discount the appeal of the Harvard-educated broadcaster who has transformed himself into a raving populist. Dobbs says free trade costs American jobs. He regularly bashes big business, big government and the established political parties. CNN calls Dobbs the “leading media advocate” for America’s working men and women.
“The truth is not ‘fair and balanced,’ Dobbs told the New Yorker in 2006.
The Dobbs-for-president buzz is not new. It received a jumpstart in early January when the The Wall Street Journal ran a story about Dobbs gaining attention as a possible independent candidate.
The story quoted Gheen and Dobbs, who said he wasn’t a candidate but he had not ruled out the possibility.
Later that day, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Dobbs about the Journal’s story. Dobbs said he was flattered by the interest and repeated that he wasn’t a candidate but could never say never.
“I’m an advocacy journalist and I’m having a great, great time right now,” Dobbs told Blitzer.
Whether he runs or not, Dobbs will have an impact on the election because of the audience he appeals to. Writing in The Politico last October, Christopher Gacek said that Dobbs “may be the most important person in the 2008 presidential election aside from the candidates themselves.”
Loupublicans and Dobbsocrats
By Kevin Horrigan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/20/2008
Kevin Horrigan
On Wednesday afternoon, an e-mail arrived announcing an effort to draft Lou Dobbs for president. I thought it was a joke, someone from "The Onion" or "The Colbert Report" having some fun. Maybe it was someone who'd seen the 1976 movie "Network" one too many times.
You remember "Network." Peter Finch as Howard Beale, a fading network anchorman who goes a little wacky and turns into a populist Jeremiah, ordering viewers to open their windows and scream, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more."
For the past few years, Lou Dobbs, the CNN anchorman, has been in full Howard Beale flight. As in the movie, his ratings and celebrity have increased. He's no longer the avuncular "Moneyline" guy sucking up to Wall Street tycoons. He's a full-spectrum populist expert on everything, but particularly on the evils of illegal immigration and corporate greed.
CNN pays him $6 million a year, plus he's got income from books and speeches. He lives on a 300-acre horse farm in New Jersey, but suddenly he's Woody Guthrie without the guitar. It's hard to believe anyone takes him seriously, but in Raleigh, N.C., William Gheen's got the proof.
"We raised $160,000 in pledges in the first 24 hours," said the man behind loudobbsforpresident.org. Actually, it was less time than that, since I called Gheen about 20 hours after his news release went out. In 20 hours, some 1,226 Americans went online to pledge money to Lou Dobbs, should Lou decide to run for president. Apparently they're mad as hell and can't take it any more.
Gheen was fishing in known waters, since, as founder of the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, he's got a mailing list of people who believe the United States should strictly enforce its current immigration policies. Above all else, this means that undocumented immigrants should be deported if caught and not given a path to citizenship. At ALIPAC, "amnesty" is a mortal sin.
"But this is actually a much deeper issue," Gheen said. "The American public is no longer self-governed or an integral part of what's happening in [Washington] D.C. In fact, even the Congress has been relegated to a vestigial political body. The executive branch, under George W. Bush, has been deciding what laws it will or will not enforce. This is equivalent to appointing yourself as king."
Speaking of which, Lou Dobbs has refused to rule out running for president. "Never say never," he says. But Gheen did not ask his permission to set up his organization. "This is by popular demand," he said.
"Many people are grateful to him for reporting stories that aren't getting through to the public via traditional channels," said Gheen, 39. He is a professional political consultant by trade and speaks the language fluently. "We are celebrating his efforts to raise public awareness of key issues — immigration, trade, electoral integrity, harmful consumer products and so forth. "Lou Dobbs is a positive populist, and that's at the root of societal and political evils, that the American public has been dispossessed of power."
Lou Dobbs would seem to be a very odd savior. But then this is a very odd movement. Its focus on illegal immigration and victory in Iraq appeals to Republicans. Its anti-corporate themes — wage disparities, excessive executive pay, corruption — are geared to blue-collar Democrats. "The general appeal is to slap the face of the D.C. status quo," Gheen said.
But how do you get Lou Dobbs to pick up the torch?
"We theorize that Lou Dobbs is watching the primaries very closely and is not content with the current situation," Gheen said. "We think he's weighing the progress of the primaries against the fact that he doesn't want to [run for president], but someone will have to. And that someone may have to be him."
Plus, he added ominously, what happens if America's corporate and political elite decide they've had enough of Lou Dobbs. "How much longer does Lou Dobbs think his voice will be allowed to be heard?" he asked.
I suggested to Gheen that as a professional political operative, he must know the sad history of third-party movements in America. After all, fewer than 1 million people a night watch Lou Dobbs on TV, and some of them might, just possibly, regard him as a kook.
"Yes, but we're in historic territory as a nation now," he said. "We're not just talking about change. We're talking about saving the United States of America as you've known it."
Seems like a pretty big job for one man, even a man as great as Lou Dobbs. I wished Gheen good luck and said goodbye. I wasn't mad as hell, but I couldn't take it any more.
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times
Email Author
Washington, January 19, 2008
First Published: 21:53 IST(19/1/2008)
Last Updated: 22:45 IST(19/1/2008)
Outsourcing bogey revives in USA
Admirers of the most famous United States critic of outsourcing have launched a campaign to persuade him to run for the White House. The Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee called on 62-year-old CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs to consider a run for the US presidency. It set up a website "to allow people to express their political support for Lou Dobbs, to show Dobbs what kind of support is out there, and to have some supporters organised, if he decides to run."
Dobbs, who has for years used his CNN post to launch savage attacks on US companies who outsource jobs to India and elsewhere, had recently told the Wall Street Journal he didn't have either "the personality or nature to be a politician." However, Dobbs did not rule out the idea entirely saying, "I cannot say never."
The draft Dobbs for president campaign could help revive outsourcing as an election issue in the US. Though all the major Democratic candidates have taken swipes at US companies for outsourcing jobs, the message has so far had little resonance in the broader campaign.
The committee behind www.loudobbsforpresident.org is primarily an anti-immigrant group, but the website warns about the "war on middle class America" — a reference to a segment of Dobbs's show called "The War Against the Middle Class" replete with outsourcing bashing. The committee's head, William Gheen, claims a survey showed 70 per cent of his group's support list were prepared to vote for Dobbs. By Thursday evening the website had received $ 320,000 in contributions.
Dobbs is equally at home attacking Chinese exports to the US, illegal immigrants from Mexico and call centres in India.
He has long raised the bogey of millions of white collar jobs fleeing the US for India. In an interview he once denounced, "Denying citizens of [the Midwestern US state of] Indiana a job to help citizens of India."
Says outsourcing expert Jacob Kierkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, "Dobbs is the latest incarnation of a long historical list of American 'middle class' demagogues. His thinking is one-dimensional: trade (ie foreigners) are to blame for all ills that befall the US middle class."
Others were even more dismissive. Tim Adams, managing director of the Lindsey Group and former Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs, said, "I don't think Dobbs candidacy is a serious effort. It's mostly a public relations stunt to help bolster his ratings."
If Dobbs ratings are a measure of the appeal of his anti-outsourcing and anti-immigrant message, then countries like India have little to worry about. A report in December noted his CNN show averages 830,000 nightly viewers and was 16th in place in cable TV news and talk show ratings. The larger evening news programmes had viewerships about ten times larger.
Lou Dobbs — An Independent — For President?
Posted by Bernard in Borders, Campaign 2008, Conservatism, Current Events, Democrats, GOP, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Mexico, Politics, Ports, Pres. Bush
Friday January 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm
On Wednesday of this week, I published this post on ALIPAC’s nascent, grassroots’ campaign to get CNN’s Lou Dobbs — a registered Independent and avowed populist — to enter the political fray and run for President of the United States.
As I wrote in that post:
I watch “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN most every evening (the only CNN news’ program I care to watch) and I support most of Mr. Dobbs’ positions, particularly those on illegal immigration and fair trade. Because Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) candidacy for the GOP’s presidential nomination has gone nowhere and I still remain mistrustful of the remaining slate of Republican candidates, save for Fred Thompson, I would like to see some momentum build for Lou Dobbs’ entry into the race, if for no other reason than to keep the issue of illegal immigration front and center in the minds of concerned voters.
I think it fair to say that ALIPAC’s principal interest in a Dobbs’ candidacy centers on his long-standing public advocacy of secure borders and ports and strict enforcement of federal immigration laws. No surprise there. And, no surprise as well, that my principal interest in Lou Dobbs revolves around that same splendid, persistent advocacy.
A good friend of mine and astute political observer, Frank Laughter, who blogs at Common Sense Junction, left a thoughtful “comment” in response to my post:
I’ll support ALIPAC’s effort as long as the primary process continues on its present track, i.e., Democrats and liberal independents controlling GOP primary results. If apathetic conservatives wake up in time to produce a bona fide prospect for the GOP ticket, I would rather support that approach for November.
A third party ticket with Dobbs or anybody else that pulls conservative votes from the GOP will assure a Hillary or Obama presidency. Of course, a liberal (RINO) on the GOP ticket will probably do the same thing.
Subsequent to Frank’s “comment,” I read the following well-thought post on the draft movement targeting a Lou Dobbs’ presidential bid at Diggers Realm, from which I excerpt the following:
The growing discontent of the American people at its current selection of presidential candidates put forth by both parties probably has a lot to do with it. I personally find all of the crop of candidates from both parties to be lacking. The front runners of McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama all have pasts that speak volumes of what will happen to this country regarding illegal immigration. McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama all have past records of being friendly and encouraging more illegal aliens through their past votes in Congress and actions as governor. Romney seems to have only referred to illegal immigration at the end of his term as governor and it plays as a political trick that he signed laws days before leaving office only to have them repealed by the incoming governor immediately.
This along with the lack of caring that most Americans see in the candidates as to what they are facing on a day to day basis is what I see as driving this support for a third party, Independent candidate. All the talk of Bloomberg running doesn’t really have anyone excited either. Oh great, another billionaire running simply for power and ambition instead of what is good for the American people. Color me apathetic.
However, with Lou Dobbs many see the passion he has for the issues facing Americans.
Which brings me to an amplification of my initial post on Mr. Dobbs. I am a conservative. I am also a registered Republican, but my long-held belief in over-arching conservative principles should drive my ballot decisions, not my party affiliation. As I have stated any number of times previously, I am determined this time around, in the national elections of November, 2008, to vote not for the lesser of two bad choices, as I did in 2000 and 2004 in voting for George W. Bush over Al Gore and John Kerry, but to vote instead for a candidate who subscribes to conservative values and principles and acts on them for the good of the country, rather than, as George W. Bush has done, pays mostly lip service to them.
Save for his tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments, Bush ‘43 has been a huge disappointment for me and, in my view, a profoundly mediocre president, despite his chest-thumping claim to the contrary that he’s been just what the doctor ordered — a fully committed “security president” in an age of international terrorism. Fact is, in the wake of the horrific Islamofascist terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush did not secure our nation’s land borders and maritime ports, nor did he ramp up enforcement of federal immigration laws and particularly internal enforcement of employers who willfully violate the law in employing illegal aliens. Worse, he established yet another bureaucratic boondoggle, at the behest of the Democratic Party, in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security that has proven itself, time and time again, to be a willing co-conspirator in President Bush’s patent indifference to (if not downright advocacy of) porous borders, the unimpeded, uninspected movement of goods and people across international boundaries, the corresponding, unprecedented growth in an illegal alien population in the U.S. that may now reach 38 million people, and an inexplicable apathy (if not egregious appeasement) in the face of incessant meddling in America’s internal affairs by the corrupt government of Mexico — a country hellbent on exporting its poor, uneducated masses and effecting, in the process, Reconquista.
The upshot has been that the sacrosanct principles of “Rule of Law” and “American Sovereignty” have been seriously compromised and the potential for further terrorist attacks on our homeland considerably heightened. That’s the sad tale of the tape. The president would have you think otherwise, as would the GOP, but the record is one that even Republican candidates regularly assail.
So just what is a conservative, registered Republican to do, and at this juncture of the protracted primary season? The principled Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has already been forced out and the equally principled Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will no doubt, despite claims to the contrary, become the next casualty. Fred Thompson, despite impeccable conservative credentials, has gained little traction and, until recent days, has shown little fire in the belly. Absent a much-needed win in South Carolina, he may soon follow Tancredo and Hunter on the Republican Party’s casualty list. That would leave John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudolph Guiliani (only if his imponderable Florida strategy pays off) as the surviving contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination and there’s not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative among them. And all are easily identifiable flip-floppers, each having gone through a calculated, cynical, political metamorphosis in rethinking his past positions on illegal immigration and border security.
As Gloria Borger writes for U.S. News and World Report:
It’s hard to be a Republican these days. While Democrats are pleased with their crop of presidential candidates and energized by them, you’re unsure and unenthusiastic. You’re not eager to go to the polls and vote because you can’t even decide which box to check. You used to feel inspired and at home with the ideals and ideas offered by your leaders; now you can’t find one fellow who has it all. It’s way past Ronald Reagan in the GOP, and about to be post-George W. Bush. So who’s your daddy?
It’s a question Republicans can’t seem to answer. In the early primary and caucus states, GOP voters made only one thing clear: They’re searching. Like the proverbial blind man and the elephant, they find presidential attributes in different places, yet they can’t come upon the whole picture. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s I’m-fighting-for-the-little-guy economic populism and faith-based homilies can be appealing. John McCain’s fierce independence and national security credentials are impressive. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s can-do CEO experience is part of a great résumé. Or maybe Rudy Giuliani is the tough boss America needs.
Way back when (last summer), the Republican establishment was looking at TV star and former Sen. Fred Thompson as the guy who might rescue the party from any messiness. Trouble was, while he looked like a president, he campaigned as if he were running for a part-time job. So the establishment went back on the hunt for Mr. October.
But there was no natural.
And therein lies the rub. There’s no “natural” out there for conservatives to throw their arms around and, most certainly, no one approaching the stature and convictions of a Ronald Reagan. And more unsettling is the fact that so many of us feel burned by George W. Bush and we’re resistant to the prospect of electing another pseudo conservative who says one thing in a presidential campaign and does quite another as the Oval Office occupant. Why, even Barack Obama has now adopted the Republican candidates’ habitual practice of pointing approvingly to Ronald Reagan.
But why then would a conservative even contemplate casting a supportive glance in the direction of a mainstream media icon, such as Lou Dobbs — one with certifiable, self-styled “populist” political credentials? Even my good friend and fellow conservative blogger Frank Laughter is rethinking his previous “comment” (published above), having watched with disappointment “Lou Dobbs Tonight” last night.
Well, I’ll try to explain it and despite my misgivings that I haven’t thought this through well enough.
I have no use for the Democratic Party — a party whose present standard-bearers are the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. They’re all left-of-Left liberals, not a one has an ounce of executive experience (or any noteworthy track record in the U.S. Senate of bipartisan legislative brilliance), and each, I’m convinced, still sees so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation as a way to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to legions of illegal alien lawbreakers so as to increase the ranks of Democratic Party voters.
I feel betrayed by the Republican Party, which in the presidencies of George W. Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush failed to adhere to the conservative principles of the Reagan presidency. The mantle was passed to each, but each transmogrified that heritage into a stubbornly willful belief in the efficacy of big government, big spending, unchecked globalism, Congressional tone-deafness, and an elitist-styled indifference to the forsaking of American sovereignty and any notion that big business can be both profit-driven and patriotic. Indeed, in this day and age of U.S. Chamber of Commerce pandering to the slave trade emanating from corrupt Mexico, “profit-driven” and “patriotism” have become mutually exclusive terms in certain sectors of the business community and job exportation looms as the trump card threat if federal or state governments turn off the spigot on cheap, pliable, undocumented foreign labor.
So that’s why I’m intrigued by the notion of a Lou Dobbs’ presidential campaign even knowing full well that Third Party campaigns fail in their own right and typically siphon off voters from Republican ranks. I like the idea of Lou Dobbs speaking passionately from an Independent Party’s bully pulpit on the thorny issues of illegal immigration, fair versus free trade, the dismantling of America’s manufacturing base, and their enervating effects on America’s Middle Class. I’m convinced that Lou Dobbs, unlike his Democratic and Republican counterparts in the 2008 campaign, would stand up to the outrageous government of Mexico and its incessant meddling in America’s internal affairs and unveil for the country what that corrupt government is really all about. And Lou Dobbs has no allegiances (or outstanding I.O.U.s) to either of the two major political parties. If you watch his broadcasts, he gives them both low marks. He’d be a made-to-order political gadfly who could put both parties on high alert and fire up American voters to reassess each and their platforms.
Most importantly and where I’m at right now: I’d like to see a tsunami of cold, hard, political realism engulf the GOP and its current slate of chameleon-like candidates, all of whom are already taking WE THE PEOPLE for granted through their endless iterations of self-serving mendacity. I’d like to see the political party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan put on firm notice that American conservatives are fed up and not about to take it anymore or to buy into any form of unctuous Hucksterism on the campaign trail. For many of us, “voting for the lesser of two evils” is simply no longer an option. After all, to do so is not compromise; it’s betrayal. This time around, we’re going to draw a line in the sand, for anything less is to fail the American Founding.
Maybe, just maybe, a Dobbs’ candidacy could be a magnet for a true, principled conservative to emerge, and particularly if, as it presently seems, the Republican Party could be thrown into a brokered convention.
Follow-Up: Patrick J. Buchanan opines that “what is taking place inside the GOP is not decay, but creative destruction ” in this column up at his Web site. He continues …
It is not Reaganism that is being repudiated in the GOP primaries; it is Bushism and its fruits: an unpopular war, a deindustrialized nation, a Third World invasion. Ronald Reagan’s principles and philosophy remain the bedrock upon which any conservative and Republican majority must be built. But the policies of that era, on immigration, trade and jobs, must change. And as the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union are history, U.S. strategic interests are no longer at risk in every quarrel or on every continent, as in the 1980s. As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, let us think and act anew.
Nor was Reagan an inflexible ideologue. Though a free-trader, he did not hesitate to put free-trade absolutism on the shelf if national interests commanded it. Thus he imposed quotas to halt the dumping of steel, autos, computer chips and motorbikes into the United States. Saving Harley-Davidson meant more to the Gipper than fealty to Manchester School economists, none of whom had ever built or run a great nation.
Read the entire piece!
Follow-Up II: Rick Moran, of Right Wing Nut House, writes of Fred Thompson:
Fred Thompson is not the most inspiring speaker in the GOP race for President. Nor is he the best looking or the smoothest talking among the candidates running. He doesn’t have Mitt Romney’s hair or Mike Huckabee’s glibness. He isn’t as aggressively positive as Rudy Giuliani. And while his personal story is compelling, it can’t compete with John McCain’s inspirational journey from POW to the gates of the White House.
But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantitive candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.
Moran continues:
His most recent appearances in South Carolina have shown an entirely different candidate than the one who appeared unfocused and low key during the first three months of his campaign. He has now found his mission; that the campaign is for the heart and soul of the Republican party and the future of the old Reagan coalition. When speaking in this vein, the candidate exudes a passion that may have been lacking in his earlier campaign stops.
I, for one, hope Fred Thompson prevails in South Carolina or comes in a not too distant second. I believe him to be a Reaganite.
Follow-Up III: Lonewacko provides a telling glimpse into the unpatriotic, self-serving machinations of those “certain sectors of the business community” I addressed in my post above.
Follow-Up IV: Grassfire.org provides a video at its site that conveys the very concerns I have expressed above in the calculated flip-flopping (in this case on “amnesty” for illegal aliens) by GOP candidates. Do take a look.
Follow-Up V: Mark Cromer, in an editorial published in The Washington Times, betrays a cynicism similar to my own in offering both political party’s presidential candidates a “cheat-sheet” guide of “easy-to-use cliches” when speaking to the “hot button issue” of illegal immigration:
As the freewheeling primaries promise a wide-open presidential race that may stretch even beyond Super Tuesday next month, I thought it might be helpful to offer the candidates a cheat-sheet of easy-to-use-cliches when addressing the hot-button issue of immigration.
Granted, some of the contenders are polished pros when it comes to using meaningless rhetoric on immigration. Others have turned into semantic gymnasts, like Sen. John “Straight Talk” McCain, who now insists with a straight face that he never supported amnesty. Or his esteemed colleague from New York, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose position on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants makes her husband’s infamous “it depends what your definition of is, is” sound coherent.
But even veteran political contortionists can use a little brush-up on sure-fire phrases that pander to the open-borders crowd, so this should come in handy as the campaign roles into the Southwest.
An example:
“Living in the shadows”: The gold standard of public utterances on illegal immigration that deftly defies reality while evoking Dickensian imagery to pull heart strings, use it liberally — but be ready in the unlikely event a reporter asks how public schools, hospitals and entire blue-collar industries like construction qualify as “shadows.”
Follow-Up VI: Columnist Mark Steyn (among my favorites) offers his thoughts on a question posed to him by talk show host, columnist, and conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt:
HH: … Let’s turn to the Republican side. Are we going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty, the party, back together again after the fighting is all over?
MS: I think it’s looking difficult. You know, what is interesting to me, you get criticized and hammered a lot for supporting Mitt Romney. I’m not a … I liked Mitt more or less until I introduced him at dinner one night, and he gave a disappointing speech. And I’ve kind of been off him a little bit since. But what’s become clear is that there are certain figures who are acceptable to broad parts of the party, and I think Mitt Romney would be a lot of people’s second choice. A lot of people’s first choices are totally unacceptable to other people in the party. And that’s particularly Huckabee, who is looking less and less of a threat, I think, and McCain. And then other people would have brought problems all on their own, like Giuliani, who’ve fought this disastrous, you know, he sort of waited until late in the third act to get in the game, and he’s surprised that the plot has already been set in motion, and that nobody’s interested in a late-entering character.
HH: Do you think, though, I actually believe that if it’s McCain, people will rally to him, holding our noses. If it’s Huckabee, he’ll get 95% of the party behind him, and he’ll move to the center. Ditto Romney. Ditto everyone.
MS: Well, well, I think the problem is, you know, we always think, and talk about these things as if there’s a vast pool of so-called independent voters, you know, these people they have in the focus groups, in the TV studios after the debate. The fact is, in a 50/50 nation, it’s likely to be a turnout election. And there’s no doubt that if you have a candidate certain people have problems with, then it is going to be difficult to drive that turnout, particularly the vanity side of McCain.
I agree with you, Mark Steyn, and I’m presently holding my nose until a real conservative emerges — one who I am convinced will deal vigorously and effectively with illegal immigration, and who will answer the nation’s clear mandate for “enforcement first.”
Follow-Up VII: The esteemed political columnist Thomas Sowell, writing for Townhall.com, offers this observation (germane to the substance of my post, I believe):
It is becoming increasingly and painfully clear that voters in both parties are having a hard time settling on a front runner.
Not only have different people won different primaries thus far, no one won a majority in any primary in either party — until Hillary Clinton, running virtually unopposed in the Michigan primary, received just over half the votes, while “uncommitted” received 40 percent.
What is wrong with this year’s candidates?
The short answer is that most of the Republicans are questionable and all three leading Democrats are dangerous.
And, similar to my own thoughts, Sowell adds (my emphasis added):
The only real conservative candidate is former Senator Fred Thompson but his low vote totals in all the Republican primaries thus far make him a one-man endangered species.
But, and as if speaking directly to me, Sowell writes (again, my emphasis):
It may not be emotionally satisfying to vote for the lesser of two evils but a lot depends on how bad the worse evil is. Nobody running on the Republican ticket is as dangerous as the Clintons.
Follow-Up VIII: ALIPAC has issued an important announcement/clarification here with respect to its “Draft Lou Dobbs for President” campaign.
Follow-Up IX: David Limbaugh endorses Fred Thompson as “a reliable, consistent conservative.”
Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.
The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.
But as I’ve stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he’s the right choice.
The money quote:
You’ll find he’s very strong in all areas important to mainstream conservatives, including national defense, taxes, spending, life, immigration, federalism, appointing originalist judges, health care and education.
Of course, the question becomes will Fred survive a poor showing in South Carolina?
Follow-Up X (01/19/08): Read the final paragraph of this Hot Air post of Allahpundit’s and you’ll better understand why Reagan conservatives like myself are so distraught and why some may view a 3rd party entry into the race by Lou Dobbs as a much-needed countervailing force to all of the bullshit that’s being shoveled these days in an endless political masquerade.
Immigration Group wants Lou Dobbs for president
PAC for tighter border supports broadcaster's opposition to illegals
By Eunice Moscoso
Cox News Service
Thursday, January 17, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A group that seeks stronger immigration controls launched a Web site Wednesday that could be used to try to draft CNN anchor Lou Dobbs to be a presidential candidate.
The group -- Americans for Legal Immigration PAC -- said that 84 percent of its members would vote for Dobbs "if the GOP primary fails to yield a candidate opposed to amnesty." The group says it has 25,000 supporters in 50 states.
Dobbs devotes much of his nightly news and opinion show to illegal immigration, raising the ire of many Latino groups who say he is xenophobic and anti-Hispanic. Others say he is a hero for working-class Americans because he exposes problems caused by illegal immigration and the exporting of jobs overseas.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, said that Dobbs has "earned national recognition for his tough stance on border security and curbing illegal immigration" and that his focus on the economy, trade agreements and America's middle class would appeal to Democrats, Republicans and independents.
"Lou Dobbs could run and win because he could easily raise the funds and grassroots support he needs to be a historic and viable candidate quickly. The public is eager to rebuke the D.C. status quo and would quickly rally to Dobbs," Gheen said.
Gheen said that the group would push Dobbs if Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee or John McCain become the Republican nominee.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC was created in 2004 and is based in Raleigh, N.C. It is one of many groups lobbying for tighter border security and against efforts to give a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. The group often features stories about crimes committed by illegal immigrants on its Web site as well as other immigration news.
The site -- www.loudobbsforpresident.org -- allows people to sign up as potential volunteers and contributors.
Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal quoted Dobbs as saying that he wasn't planning to run for office. However, he also said, "I cannot say never."
A spokeswoman for CNN declined comment.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Matt.org
Effort to draft Dobbs as presidential candidate gains steam
The effort to draft CNN pundit Lou Dobbs as a presidential candidate gained steam this week, as Americans for Legal Immigration, a political action committee (PAC), officially launched their campaign, reports USA Today.
The move to draft Dobbs is likely a result of GOP voters disillusioned by Tom Tancredo having dropped out of the race for their party’s nomination. Tancredo was mostly a single-issue candidate, tackling illegal immigration on every front.
And what does the potential draftee say about all this? Last we heard, Dobbs told the Wall Street Journal about a month ago, "I cannot say never." Sounds Bloombergian—and open-ended—to us.
By: Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence
USA Today
January 16, 2008
Add "Draft Lou Dobbs" to the efforts by independents to bring another candidate into the presidential race.
The movement was launched today by Americans for Legal Immigration. The group, in a press release, praises the CNN host for "his tough stance on border security and curbing illegal immigration. While encouraging voters to register as independents, Dobbs addresses a host of issues dealing with the economy, trade agreements, election integrity, and America's middle class that would appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters alike."
William Gheen, who heads the organization and its political action committee, says in that release that Dobbs "could run and win because he could easily raise the funds and grassroots support he needs to be a historic and viable candidate quickly. The public is eager to rebuke the D.C. status quo and would quickly rally to Dobbs."
Would Dobbs do it? "I cannot say never," he told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, about presidential speculation.
Yesterday, a Draft Bloomberg effort was launched by fans of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Draft Dobbs Web Site Launched
Posted by Brian Montopoli| 5
January 16, 2007
First Al Gore. Then Mike Bloomberg. And now, well, the URL pretty much says it all: http://www.loudobbsforpresident.org/.
Yes, the Draft Lou Dobbs movement is up and running, thanks to an organization called Americans for Legal Immigration.
"Lou Dobbs is right about the issues concerning illegal immigration, no AMNESTY, and secure borders!," the site proclaims. "Lou Dobbs is right about our deplorable trade agreements and the war on middle class America. Lou Dobbs is right about the rising military threat from communist China!"
Americans for Legal Immigration acknowledges that "Lou Dobbs does not want to run for President and does not consider himself a politician." But they say there are times when "history demands" great men act even when they don't want to. On the site, you can fill out a form if you're interested in contributing to or volunteering in the Draft Dobbs effort.
Dobbs told the Wall Street Journal last Monday that he isn't planning to run for president but "cannot say never."
In an new commentary, the CNN host argues that the "partisan nonsense and predictable platitudes of this presidential campaign does not augur well for the nation." He adds that "none of the candidates of either party is capable of extricating us from the mess their partisan politics have created."
ALIPAC Begins A “Draft Lou Dobbs For President” Campaign
Posted by Bernard in Campaign 2008, GOP, Illegal Immigration, Politics, Television Wednesday
January 16, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The “Americans for Legal Immigration PAC” (ALIPAC) has announced today the commencement of a “Draft Lou Dobbs for President” campaign. From an e-mail announcement I received, I excerpt the following:
With illegal immigration as a top issue in the 2008 campaigns and the possibility of a pro-Amnesty candidate such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee winning the GOP primary, forcing American voters to choose between two pro-Amnesty candidates, a Draft Lou Dobbs for President campaign is being launched today by Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC) found at www.LouDobbsforPresident.org.
“Ninety percent of our supporters are behind either Romney, Thompson, Paul, or Hunter for President because they appear truly opposed to Amnesty for illegal aliens,” says William Gheen of ALIPAC. “Eighty four percent of our supporters say they would support Lou Dobbs for President, if the GOP primary fails to yield a candidate opposed to Amnesty.”
Lou Dobbs has earned national recognition for his tough stance on Border Security and curbing illegal immigration. While encouraging voters to register as independents, Dobbs addresses a host of issues dealing with the economy, trade agreements, election integrity, and America’s middle class that would appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and Independent voters alike.
I watch “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN most every evening (the only CNN news’ program I care to watch) and I support most of Mr. Dobbs’ positions, particularly those on illegal immigration and fair trade. Because Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) candidacy for the GOP’s presidential nomination has gone nowhere and I still remain mistrustful of the remaining slate of Republican candidates, save for Fred Thompson, I would like to see some momentum build for Lou Dobbs’ entry into the race, if for no other reason than to keep the issue of illegal immigration front and center in the minds of concerned voters.
As for ALIPAC, I quote from the announcement:
ALIPAC is one of the largest organizations in America fighting for secure borders and immigration enforcement, while fighting against Amnesty and illegal immigration. Founded on 9/11 in 2004, ALIPAC supporters are active in all 50 states and represent Americans of every race, party, and many walks of life, which indicates a desire for more to be done about illegal immigration.
I should add, in terms of full disclosure, that their organization has been supportive of my blog and it periodically re-publishes posts of mine on illegal immigration at their Web site, for which I am grateful.
Regular readers of ACSOL have long seen links to ALIPAC and Lou Dobbs Tonight in my site’s right sidebar under the “Illegal Immigration” heading, so my support has been longstanding.
Follow-Up: Diggers Realm, a “must read” blog on illegal immigration, has similarly published a post on the ALIPAC announcement.
Follow-Up II: Newsmax.com also carries the announcement.
Draft Lou Dobbs effort begun
Jan 16, 2008
LATimes
A group dedicated to fighting illegal immigration today launched an Internet effort to cajole one of the most vocal and well-known advocates of that cause -- CNN's Lou Dobbs -- into the presidential race as an independent.
The website (found here) was set up by the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), headed by North Carolina resident William Gheen. He was prominently featured in a recent Wall Street Journal article that summed up speculation about a Dobbs run -- and served to add fuel to such talk.
The 62-year-old Dobbs, who over the years evolved from a fairly traditional financial correspondent for CNN to a full-throated advocate of economic populism, told the Journal he wasn't planning on a White House bid, saying he did not have either "the personality or nature to be a politician."
But then, in the best tradition of politics, he left the door open ...
a crack, saying, "I cannot say never."
Gheen and his group hope to knock the door off its hinges and get Dobbs into the presidential mix, citing his opposition to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants (i.e., any plan that does anything other than have those immigrants leave the U.S. for their home country, get in the back of line for returning and wait for however long that takes).
An ALIPAC release says it was officially starting its draft Dobbs effort because of "the possibility of a pro-amnesty candidate such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee winning the GOP primary, forcing American voters to choose between two pro-amnesty candidates" (i.e., anyone the Democrats nominate).
The website was established, the release says, "to allow people to express their political support for Lou Dobbs, to show Mr. Dobbs what kind of support is out there, and to have some supporters organized, if he decides to run."
Gheen, in the release, says 84% of his group's supporters reported they would support Dobbs this November "if the GOP primary fails to yield a candidate opposed to amnesty."
Today, Gheen elaborated on that number for us. He said it was based on the results of an electronic poll that drew responses from roughly 10% of those on the group's support list. In that survey, slightly more than 70% said they were prepared to support Dobbs immediately and almost 14% said they would do so if their current choice for president fails to get nominated.
The website surfaces a day after efforts intensified to draw New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into presidential fray as an independent candidate.
Republican Doug Bailey, a onetime campaign consultant to former President Gerald Ford, and Democrat Gerald Rafshoon, a key aide to former President Jimmy Carter, are leading this charge, which they publicized Tuesday in Washington.
-- Don Frederick
Dobbs: Campaign a lot of partisan nonsense
By Lou Dobbs
January 15, 2008
CNN
Lou Dobbs says the candidates for president have not intelligently addressed the key issues.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Remember how excited everybody was just a short while ago that this presidential campaign was the first in 80 years to be wide open, without a president or vice president in the campaign?
Remember how excited we all were that American presidential politics had matured to the point that a woman and a black man were winning primary and caucus votes that allowed both to claim front-runner status?
Now Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ensnared in petty racial and gender politics and that does neither of them credit.
But at least the ugly spectacle that Clinton and Obama created should serve as a reminder to all of us that group and identity politics have outlived their effectiveness and that pandering to socio-ethnocentric interest groups and special interests, whether as large as corporate America or as small as the construction company in a congressman's district, has no rightful place in 21st century American politics.
The Democratic and Republican candidates for president have done hardly better than President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress on the issue of the war in Iraq. The candidates trip over one another to bring more of our troops home faster than the other candidates, or refusing to withdraw our troops from Iraq until the job is done; policy choices not dissimilar to the simplistic White House's false choices in either staying the course or cutting and running.
But these presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, obviously would prefer not to discuss the war in Iraq in their campaigns, nor to state clearly whether they would secure our borders and ports as an absolute first condition before taking up the issue of immigration reform.
Both parties and nearly all of their candidates continue to drive false choices for the illegal immigration debate as well. The centrist and appropriate policy response to this crisis is to secure our borders and ports, and enforce current immigration laws.
Now that the economy has become the number-one issue for primary voters of both parties, we can expect the candidates to come up with new economic programs that will solve every problem in our society. Economic stimulus packages will soon be the order of the day, with more false choices: The Democrats will offer handouts to every man, woman and child and the Republicans will give drastic tax breaks to large corporations and the wealthy as the panacea for what ails us.
These candidates will not have addressed the causes of our economic malaise: The critical issue of the faith-based free trade policies of the past decade that have been devastating to working men and women and their families, policies that have enlarged our trade debt to more than $6 trillion.
And while presidential candidates of both political parties talk about our public education system in terms of globalism and American competitiveness, they fail to recognize the crisis in our public schools and they fail to prescribe urgently needed solutions.
This partisan nonsense and predictable platitudes of this presidential campaign does not augur well for the nation, and I fear none of the candidates of either party is capable of extricating us from the mess their partisan politics have created.
CNN's Lou Dobbs for President?
He Says No, Sort of
By GREG HITT
January 7, 2008; Page A6
As Democrats and Republicans battle for their parties' presidential nominations, speculation grows that an independent candidate might jump into the race. While the most frequently mentioned prospect is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another name also is getting increasing mention: Lou Dobbs, CNN's fuming voice for the disaffected.
Conservative columnist Robert Novak floated Mr. Dobbs's name as a possible independent candidate. So did John Fund, a columnist for this newspaper's opinion pages. From Indiana to Arkansas to Pennsylvania, Mr. Dobbs has been trumpeted by regular Americans in letters to local newspapers as presidential timber. One writer even likened him to George Washington.
"At this point, Dobbs is the only man in the country that would have a shot at making a historic independent run, and winning," says William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, an influential grass-roots group that favors strict enforcement of immigration laws, a favorite subject of Mr. Dobbs's.
Mr. Dobbs says he isn't planning to run. "I haven't got the personality or nature to be a politician," he said in an interview Thursday. But he makes clear he hasn't ruled out the idea. "I cannot say never," he said.
"All he'd be doing is acting as a spoiler," said former Texas congressman Martin Frost, a Democrat. "I can't take it seriously."
That Mr. Dobbs, a self-styled "independent populist," would even slightly leave the door open to a candidacy is indicative of how volatile the political landscape is in 2008. Polls show Americans are strongly dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and change is the overarching theme among voters.
For all of the discontent, no outsider has stepped forward. If it happens, it likely won't occur until after the presumed nominees emerge in mid-February.
Mr. Bloomberg, who left the Republican Party in June to become an independent, has been the center of speculation that he has presidential ambitions. Like Texas billionaire Ross Perot, who shook up politics as an independent candidate in the 1990s, Mr. Bloomberg could easily finance a campaign.
But he would need a message that appeals broadly. One possibility would be to tap into the concerns of Americans put off by business-as-usual politics. Today, Mr. Bloomberg plans to attend a forum in Oklahoma, organized by former Sens. David Boren and Sam Nunn and billed as an effort to encourage bipartisanship in the nation's capital. Mr. Bloomberg insists he won't be a candidate, even as he dabbles on the edges of the national debate.
Mr. Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration expects public pressure to build for a Dobbs candidacy if no major-party candidate emerges who is strong on immigration. "We will start gathering outside his office," Mr. Gheen said. "We understand he is a reluctant candidate, but we like that about him."
Republican political consultant Greg Mueller, who advised Steve Forbes in 2000 and Pat Buchanan in 1996, suggests "the issue stars are aligned" for Mr. Dobbs should he decide to plunge in.
From his nightly program, Mr. Dobbs gives voice to a range of concerns that reflect public angst. He opposes creating any pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and champions tightened border security. He is critical of the military and economic threat posed by China. He bashes the Bush administration's free-trade agenda and laments the squeeze on incomes of middle-income Americans.
"The middle class in this country, the majority in the country, has been ignored," Mr. Dobbs said. "Our elites in Washington, D.C., both political and corporate, are hell bent on ignoring the majority."
Mr. Dobbs himself fanned the presidential speculation in November, posting a column on CNN's Web site that floated the idea that a surprise candidate was poised to enter the race.
Mr. Dobbs says he hopes "one or two" candidates will step forward in the next 90 days to "give us some choice in this election," beyond the two major political parties.
Any independent candidate for president would face big hurdles. Getting on ballots around the country as an independent requires volunteers willing to collect signatures on petitions. It requires teams of lawyers ready to negotiate the myriad state election laws. And it requires money.
There is little doubt Mr. Dobbs, if he wanted to, could raise enough cash for a campaign. Ron Paul, a fringe candidate among Republicans who taps into many of the same populist strains, raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007.
Lou Dobbs to the Rescue?
CNN Anchor Eyed if Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani Can't Be Stopped
By TEDDY DAVIS and KEVIN CHUPKA
Dec. 27, 2007
CNN's Lou Dobbs could come under pressure to run for president from a group opposed to illegal immigration if the GOP nominates former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain or former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"We still hope that we can get a comprehensive enforcement candidate out of the Republican field," William Gheen, the president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, told ABC News. "But if we can't, we're going to grab Lou Dobbs by the ear and drag him into the race."
Dobbs has not taken any formal steps to become a presidential candidate. But The Wall Street Journal reported last month that friends of Dobbs say he is "seriously contemplating a race for the first time, although it's still unlikely."
Dobbs would not have anywhere near the financial resources of billionaire New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is contemplating an independent bid.
But political scientists who have studied Ross Perot's 1992 run believe that the CNN anchor's well-honed position against illegal immigration and free trade could give him a well-defined ideological niche.
ALIPAC's threat to back a third-party run by Dobbs came as the group began making thousands of anti-Huckabee calls in Iowa.
Huckabee is being targeted by ALIPAC because Gheen believes the former Arkansas governor is using a recent endorsement by Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, which opposes illegal immigration, to shield his immigration plan from scrutiny.
"We've got a traitor to the movement and a lying candidate," said Gheen, referring to Gilchrist and Huckabee.
Huckabee's immigration proposal, which he unveiled earlier this month, would require illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. to register within 120 days of the law's enactment and leave the country before gaining legal status in the United States. Illegal immigrants who fail to comply with the registration requirement would be deported and barred from re-entry for 10 years.
Huckabee says he will require illegal immigrants who return to their native countries to "get in the back of line," a rhetorical talking point popular with conservatives.
But he opened himself up to criticism from ALIPAC by telling Fox News Sunday on Dec. 9 that "getting in the back of the line" would take "days, maybe weeks, not years."
"Look," Huckabee told Fox's Chris Wallace, "if we can get a credit card application done within hours, it shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of my plan is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway to get back here legally that would take days, maybe weeks, not years."
Huckabee was quizzed about his touchback provision last week at a public event where local voters asked questions.
Deb Miller of Muscatine, Iowa, wanted to know if illegal immigrants would be allowed to come back to the United States right away after touching back in their native country.
"No, no, no," Huckabee told her. "They touch back. Then they get in the back of the line. Then they have to get through the paperwork and start over."
He would not, however, specify how long the process would take. For Huckabee, the period of time that an illegal immigrant would have to remain outside of the United States would turn on how swiftly a revamped legal immigration system would take.
"Depends how the government's plan comes up," said Huckabee.
"Here's the thing," he added, "everyone who's in line in front of them would have to get processed before these folks who are in the back of the line."
ALIPAC's anti-Huckabee calls, which are being made to 43,000 Iowa Republicans, are in the form of a poll. But the poll's phrasing is designed to spread rather than to gather information.
"We're asking: Do you support or oppose Mike Huckabee's touch-back amnesty plan to allow illegal immigrants to leave the United States and then to return legally in a day?" said Gheen.
"We're asking the question with the intent of informing people about it, but we want to document what we think the response will be."
To generate free-media coverage, ALIPAC plans to release the results of its skewed "survey" to the press.
Gheen, who has met Dobbs once and has appeared on his show, has not had any direct contact with the CNN anchor about a presidential run. But that has not dimmed his belief that a Dobbs bid could prove necessary if the GOP nominates Huckabee, McCain or Giuliani.
"We cannot have an election," said Gheen, "where the same thing will happen regardless of who people vote for."
Going to bat and battle to save the middle class
Dobbs sees himself as fighting the good fight against the elite
By Peter Rowe
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 11, 2007
'It's not very complicated,” insisted Lou Dobbs.
The cable TV anchor was in a car, somewhere in New York, talking into a cell phone. The topic of the moment was drug abuse, but he quickly shifted gears. In a 20-minute chat, he would touch on immigration, Iraq, the war on terror, immigration, corporate malfeasance, public education, immigration, the 2008 presidential election, political parties and immigration.
Fertile ground for debate, a current events smorgasbord with plenty to chew on? You might think so, but the star and managing editor of CNN's “Lou Dobbs Tonight” wouldn't. In the Dobbsian worldview, none of this is very complicated.
On one side, you have the American people. They're right – and they side with Dobbs.
On the other side, you have elites with power, position, money. They include virtually every elected official, most corporate leaders, prominent educators and high-powered media figures. They're wrong – and Dobbs is gunning for them.
In his new book, “Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit” (Viking, $24.95), the newscaster argues that contemporary politics is a sterile exercise in ideological maneuvering, where partisan agendas trump the national interest. The solution? Americans must abandon the hidebound Republican and Democratic parties in favor of a middle course that benefits the middle class.
“Most Americans live at the center,” Dobbs said, “and they think and they feel at the center of society. Independents are focused on what is good for the country, on what is good for America.”
The center vs. the fringes, good vs. evil.
Nothing complicated about that, is there?
Villains galore
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, this once-apolitical business journalist is probably best known for his views on immigration. In this debate, he's a key figure, but not a central one. His seal-the-borders, deport-the-illegals stance places him within the conservative camp on that issue.
But it would be a mistake to see Louis Earl Dobbs, 62, as a doctrinaire, across-the-board conservative. He's pro-choice and anti-school vouchers. Tonight at 7, during a talk in La Jolla sponsored by UC San Diego Extension, he may describe himself as an “independent populist,” someone who is as apt to blast the Bush administration as the Pelosi Congress. In other forums, he's labeled his views as those of a “Rockefeller Republican,” an “advocacy journalist,” or simply as a “commentator.”
Lou Dobbs says he is an "independent populist," as apt to blast Bush as Congress.
Critics prefer “demagogue” and – perhaps most viciously – “entertainer.”
“He's not a journalist,” said Jon Garrido, a Tucson-based activist whose Hispanic News Web site often skewers Dobbs. “He's theatrical. He has a theme, which is bashing Hispanics ... He uses that theme to energize his audience to think that the Hispanics are to blame for everything that goes wrong in America.”
Actually, in Dobbs' world, there is no shortage of villains. They include:
The ineffective “war on drugs” waged by presidential administrations, from Reagan on: “ 'Just Say No' is a rube response to a complex social issue.”
College professors: “They are mostly now in the pay of think tanks and corporations.”
Presidential candidates, for failing to address our public schools' woes: “This is a crisis, not a political game to be played around 'No Child Left Behind.' ”
The White House, for its Middle Eastern strategy: “Without any sense of incongruity, President Bush defies the will of the people while at the same time asking that we be patient with him, his discredited policies and the generals who've failed for all these years in Iraq.”
Dobbs insists that his list of wrongdoers does not include immigrants who come here illegally; instead, he argues that they are pawns manipulated by corporations seeking cheap labor and politicians seeking easy votes.
In fact, throughout “Independents Day,” almost all of America's problems are traced to influential elites jockeying for power and conspiring against the common good.
“On one side of this issue are the people of the United States,” he writes in a typical passage. “On the other side are special-interest groups . . . ”
Who are these nefarious figures?
“The elites are those – for example, this was illustrated rather well in 2004, when the presidential candidates, selected from a population of more than 300 million, were two men both from families of privilege, both graduates of Yale, both members of Skull and Bones.
“It's an absurdity.”
Radical change
This Harvard graduate and handsomely paid cable TV anchor may seem an unlikely champion of the middle class. But Dobbs was born in a small Texas town, Childress, and served a long apprenticeship in the news business, beginning as a Los Angeles Times copy editor. His career has been intimately tied to CNN, where he started as chief economics correspondent for “Moneyline” in 1980. A favorite of CNN founder Ted Turner, Dobbs quickly became a star.
His rise was not without controversy. In the 1990s, the network scolded Dobbs for filming promotional videos for Paine Webber, Shearson Lehman Brothers and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. His now-defunct Lou Dobbs Money Letter, a $199-a-year monthly publication, recommended that readers buy and sell stock in several corporations his CNN show had excoriated for shipping jobs overseas.
“Actually, Dobbs only acts like an anti-trade zealot in public,” James K. Glassman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in Capitalism Magazine. “In private, where he is appealing to subscribers to the Lou Dobbs Money Letter, a 'private and confidential market report,' he carries a different tune entirely.”
Dobbs has consistently denied any conflicts of interest. In retrospect, though, he admits that he was too trusting of corporate America. The 2001-02 scandals at Enron and WorldCom shook his faith in Wall Street: “The worst cases of corporate corruption in our history.” At the same time, his views on the federal government – and “elites” in general – were also undergoing a radical alteration.
“On Sept. 11,” he said, “we had a failure of our government to, first, understand the threat to our existence that had existed for a decade. That led, second, to this global war on terror that the government is conducting so haphazardly and with, I think, the shallowest of thinking.”
The disillusioned newsman soon found his signature issue, one that fused his critique of both America's corporate chiefs and political leaders.
Total control
“Lou Dobbs Tonight” is broadcast in color, but the anchor's views on immigration are strictly black-and-white: “We need to control our borders and our ports.”
When Dobbs says “control,” he means total control. Today, he maintains, only 5 percent of all cargo entering the U.S. is searched for contraband or, more importantly, biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
“It should be 100 percent,” Dobbs said. “Why not?”
Because of the cost? “We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on what is described as a war on terror,” he replied. Failing to scrutinize all incoming cargo is “absolutely irrational.”
How about concerns that stepped-up inspections would bring cross-border trade to an economy-crippling halt? “What the administration has chosen to do is accept a trade-off between national security and public safety and the flow of goods and commerce.”
Incoming people, too, need to be tracked and inspected. National security, Dobbs said, demands as much. So does our economy.
In “Independents Day,” Dobbs cites a Georgia congressman, Republican Phil Gingrey, who argues that “each newly approved illegal alien could bring in as many as 273 relatives.” If you accept the book's estimate of up to 20 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and if each brought in an additional 273 family members – large ifs, admittedly – that means our population could grow by as many as 5.46 billion people.
In other words, more than 80 percent of the world could move here.
As unlikely as that seems, Dobbs insists that the vast majority of the current American population seeks tighter borders and stronger leadership. Will they find the latter from Lou Dobbs, political candidate?
“Absolutely not,” he said. “I have been asked by lots of people, believe me, to run for president. But my role is as an advocacy journalist. I am fulfilling my role now.”
Simple as that.
|
