May 25, 2006

Quick Question For Lou Dobbs

Humpday, 30 Reckning 2006

I noticed that you had this question up on your online poll today:

Do you find it reprehensible that the U.S. Senate is about to pass legislation without careful analysis and study of the number of illegal aliens in this country and the cost of that legislation to taxpayers?

Since I am reasonably certain that you will not be noticing the feedback I submitted to your online site, I thought I would take the liberty of sharing it with the dozens who view this site on a regular basis:

Why are you suddenly so concerned about the U.S. Senate passing legislation without careful analysis and study of the effects of that legislation in this country and the cost of that legislation to taxpayers? I cannot seem to recall you saying the same thing when the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress without having the time to be read, much less analyzed. And I would have to say that the Patriot Act has much more impact on ordinary Americans on a daily basis than immigrants, regardless of their legality. Why is this issue pushing your buttons, when many more important issues have fallen off of your radar?

I would be reasonably interested in hearing from you, Mr. Dobbs, or anyone else at the Conservative News Network, should they be willing to provide some sort of explanation as to the continued and somewhat extreme (especially compared to the response from the Lou Dobbs Tonight program, as well as the rest of CNN's reponses, to the myriad Publican scandals, the current Publican culture of corruption in DC, and the high crimes and misdemeanors that the current Publican administration is engaging in) focus that the Lou Dobbs Tonight program appears to be taking with regards to immigration in general, and illegal immigrants in particular.

I would also be interested in some sort of explanation as to why, when the eeeevul ClenisTM was getting his pole smoked by someone who was not his wife (which, no matter how hard the religiously insane try to spin it, is not against the law - and was really not much of anyone else's business in the first place, don't you think?), CNN was broadcasting any and all updates on the subject all day every day - yet, when Publicans commit actual crimes, we can't even find out about it from you. And, then when you do "report" some of the news (as late as you possibly can, and generally speaking after others have made it prominent enough that you can't ignore the story any more - and this sort of news usually mysteriously seeming to be less than flattering to the current cabal), you spin your coverage so as to paint the current junta in a favorable light (in addition to supressing, distorting, and/or ignoring/belittling the news that is less than fawning).

I know I'm just a nobody in any of these obscenely rich news readers' eyes (you could check out my previous experience with former CNN talking melon Aaron Brown to see one of the reasons why I feel this way) over at CNN. But I think there are others who are interested in finding out the same thing. There are hordes of us out here on the Fashionable Left Bank of Blogistan who no longer trust your news spin to be reality based*. And I think you should at least consider our opinions, and the discrepancy we notice between your treatment of the current administration (and, as a matter of fact, any Publican, or their sources who supply you with Klan material), and your treatment of any member of the Democratic Party that comes under your scrutiny. As well as go back to being journalists, and possibly investigating what, in my humble opinion, may well be the biggest story of the new millennium - the corporate takeover of the United States government.

Maybe it's just me...

* - to be precise, some of us have rarely trusted you, and try as best as we can to verify everything we see on any of the news networks in the conservative media empires (as well as a lot of stuff that the american media will not cover).

Posted by (: Tom :) at May 25, 2006 05:45 PM
Comments

CNN has one non-liberal commentator and that is Dobbs. I watch Dobbs at 6:00 EST every weeknight because he has been talking about illegal immigration for awhile now and unlike O’Reilly and many on the Right, he actually holds a similar belief to the majority of Americans.
Did the Patriot Act go though too quickly? Probably, especially when you consider the inertia the Congress has on almost everything else. But, the immigration problem is not new. This is an issue that has come up over and over again in this country as it did 20 years ago when the Congress passed an amnesty bill for 5 million illegal immigrants and the result was that twenty years later we have at least 13 million illegal immigrants. Here is another point too, the Congressional Budget Office only lays out their budget for the next 10 years and no more, but in 11 years when the amnesty guest worker program is in full swing, the Senate legislation will cost an additional $55 billion annually for all the social services the “forgiven people” will be receiving.
If Dobbs keeps beating one drum night after night, its only because there are still so many people, including 62 Senators, who are not listening.

Posted by: Publius at May 25, 2006 11:36 PM

Wow! Where to start….

CNN has one non-liberal commentator and that is Dobbs.

I would disagree with this statement. It looks like CNN has a (very) few moderate liberals in their lineup – Christianne Amanpour sticks out to me. And I would categorize Dobbs as being middle of the road to moderately conservative, myself.

I watch Dobbs at 6:00 EST every weeknight because he has been talking about illegal immigration for awhile now and unlike O’Reilly and many on the Right, he actually holds a similar belief to the majority of Americans.

I’m sorry, I am not aware of the belief that Lou holds which is similar to the majority of americans. Could you spell it out for me? I’m not even particularly concerned about immigration, except for the way that corporations use it to pressure wages lower, skirt fair labor practices and laws, and find a way to cut out those awful health care benefits for some of their employees.

Did the Patriot Act go though too quickly? Probably, especially when you consider the inertia the Congress has on almost everything else.

The fact that there is the slightest doubt in your mind about whether a three hundred and fifty page document being rammed through both houses of congress in two or three days, without even a reading of it in either session, was put into law too quickly, speaks volumes to me with regards to your beliefs on this subject.

But, the immigration problem is not new. This is an issue that has come up over and over again in this country as it did 20 years ago when the Congress passed an amnesty bill for 5 million illegal immigrants and the result was that twenty years later we have at least 13 million illegal immigrants.

I’m not aware of this amnesty bill. Would you be so kind as to send a link this way in a future comment, so I can read about this? 20 years ago would have been during the Ray-Gun regime, and I can full well imagine that the Jellybean Man would have signed some half-a$$ed immigration “reform” that didn’t work out so well. His sterling success (cough) with those tax reductions (that got added back in – sorta – before he could be gotten out of office), and his tripling of the national debt, is a clear pointer to me about Ronnie’s competence (or lack thereof). I would like more proof before I hang this around his neck, too.

Here is another point too, the Congressional Budget Office only lays out their budget for the next 10 years and no more, but in 11 years when the amnesty guest worker program is in full swing, the Senate legislation will cost an additional $55 billion annually for all the social services the “forgiven people” will be receiving.

This would be for all the no longer illegal immigrants that Red-Ink Ray-Gun gave amnesty to when he was pRezNit, right? Or is this the predicted costs of the new law? If the former, then what’s your beef? They’ve been paying into the system, so why shouldn’t they get the cheese? And, if it’s the latter, and they are paying taxes, and health care, etc., on the income they earn here in america, then I still don’t understand what the problem is. Try projecting the costs of executive salaries, congressional health care, pensions, and other retirement benefits 11 years from now.

Remember the whole tax giveaway boondoggle at the beginning of pResident Dunsel’s occupation of the White House? About how it would all work out okay, because all of these tax giveaways would be sunsetted in ten years? Remember all the finagling they did with the CBO numbers then? Because I sure do. And so, when I see them being used for any sort of justifications like these, especially when they are used to try and justify things like this (or demean them, two sides of the same coin), the flags go up and I start getting a little suspicious. I’m not saying you’re wrong (because I don’t have all the information I need to make that call), but I would like some more data before arriving at a conclusion.

If Dobbs keeps beating one drum night after night, its only because there are still so many people, including 62 Senators, who are not listening.

As opposed to all of the executive and the congress critters who have not listened when millions protested an illegal and immoral war before it even started?

In comparison to the ignoring of all the high crimes and misdemeanors (or even finding out about them) of the current executive branch that the conservative media, including Mr. Dobbs, has done over the years?

Or as compared to the relatively quiet response from the conservative media to the government conducting intrusive surveillance on its own citizens, and covering up the details?

All I’m trying to say here is that there are quite a few other drums to bang on. Why is Lou Dobbs obsessed with illegal immigration to the exclusion of most everything else that has been going on?

Posted by: (: Tom :) at May 26, 2006 08:03 AM

CNN's commentator list includes: William Bennett, J.C. Watts, Daryn Kagan, and Glenn Beck, all obvious conservatives. People like Larry King and Soledad O'Brien seem to skew their coverage to the right, too. I'd have to argue that Wolf Blitzer leans to the right, as well. And the overall coverage certainly does. Check it out here.

Posted by: Kenneth Quinnell at June 2, 2006 11:17 AM

Very, very correct, Kenneth - and thanks for the link. I think I was being quite conservative in my estimation of Amanpour being one of the few moderate liberals they give face time to at CNN, and there are some real Reich Wing types in the list, besides the recent addition of Beck. I saw the Larry King Dixie Chicks interview, and man oh man he was just hounding these girls trying to get just the 'right' sound byte. And Larry's one of the more moderate conservatives on the network - he has to be just to keep the alimony checks up to date. He's only reading the script they've given him, doing what they want him to do.

It certainly is interesting to see how differently people see some things - some think that every commentator except for Lou Dobbs is liberal, and (from the sound of it) that Lou ain't enough of a conservative himself. While others might believe that mostly everybody at CNN is conservative of one stripe or another, with a few liberals and some moderates thrown in for 'balance'. And of course lots of others whose opinion would be somewhere in between.

It might be interesting to see how others look at that type of thing on a network by network basis.

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 3, 2006 10:09 AM