Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals


PDA






Desertdog
February 15, 2006, 05:29 PM
I guess there is one show on CNN that I will have to give a try.

Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/15/155549.shtml?s=ic

CNN’s Lou Dobbs is garnering praise for his relentless on-air attacks on illegal immigration – and his refusal to back down to critics.


"People across the country tune in to Lou Dobbs because they know their views on immigration will be presented,” Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations at NumbersUSA – a policy group that favors reducing immigration – told the New York Times.

"He is a hero to a lot of people.”


On his CNN show "Lou Dobbs Tonight,” the lifelong Republican assails the Bush administration for doing too little to stem illegal immigration.

He rails against businesses for outsourcing American jobs to other countries, and advocacy groups for helping illegal aliens in the U.S., and lauds officials who try to enforce immigration laws.

Critics of Dobbs – who occasionally appear on his show – complain that he neglects to say that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don’t want.

Others attack him as anti-immigrant or even racist.

But Dobbs brushes aside attacks and continues on with his anti-illegal immigration crusade.


When the Catholic Church opposed legislation that would make it a federal crime to assist illegals, Dobbs told his audience: "Tonight, the effort to secure this nation’s borders has a new opponent. It is the Catholic Church.”

After critics of the Minutemen called them "vigilantes” for patrolling the Mexican border in search of illegal aliens, Dobbs declared: "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they’ve accomplished, fully, relentlessly and proudly.”

Dobbs says he has a "mission” to tell viewers the truth, regardless of controversy, according to the Times.

Former "Nightline” host Ted Koppel, has said that anchors and reporters like Dobbs who mix commentary with news should not call themselves "journalists.”

"The moment you start inserting your own passion, in whatever direction, it ceases to be journalism,” said Koppel.

But Dobbs told the Times: "There’s nothing fair and balanced about the truth. ‘He says, she says” journalism is a monstrous cop-out.”

Dobbs was anything but "balanced” when he gave NewsMax Magazine an exclusive interview last July.

"To permit this continued lack of enforcement and lack of accountability on immigration laws, especially since 9/11, is inexcusable,” he declared.

About outsourcing, he told NewsMax: "Any company that kills an American job and places it overseas should be prohibited from doing so, either by regulation or tariffs or both.”

Dobbs has certainly found a willing audience for his TV program – ratings have jumped 28 percent since the former host of "Moneyline” began "Lou Dobbs Tonight” in 2003.

And he plans to continue his crusade against what he calls "collusion” between the White House, business executives and the Mexican government.

"We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws,” he said.

"If we fail as a nation of laws, the rest doesn’t make one bit of difference.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cosmoline
February 15, 2006, 05:31 PM
Dobbs has really turned my thinking around on this issue. He's a rare non-partisan commentator and cuts through the BS nicely. I never used to watch CNN, but I love his input.

I have to laugh at Ted Koppel. He spent decades foisting leftist garbage on us under the guise of "neutral journalism." He's been a screaming, anti-gun leftist for decades. "Nightline" was a joke of a show.

http://newsbusters.org/node/400

While introducing the lead story on Thursday’s Nightline, Ted Koppel confessed near confusion as to how the media missed attacking the NRA in July, when the Senate passed the latest gun bill. He described the media as "clearly on the side of stricter gun laws," then complained that the "press even missed it or overlooked" the bill which he described as "Christmas in July" for the NRA. To justify coming to the story late, Koppel concluded, "And while we are late in reporting it, this, we felt, is truly a case of better late than never." (read the full transcript...)

fourays2
February 15, 2006, 05:36 PM
how ironic that his show is on CNN

Cosmoline
February 15, 2006, 05:45 PM
CNN is really turning around. I've been watching it lately and I find it's nowhere near as bad as it was a few years ago, when I could barely take it for ten minutes at a stretch. There are certainly some of the left-leaning folks around there, but generally the show has shifted towards the center. Anderson Cooper, their bright young thing, seems pretty unbiased. I have much less trust in Paula Zahn. Dobbs has has taken a lot of the discontent that had been brewing on the AM radio talk circuit for years and made it mainstream. A lot of people are gunning for him--and I don't mean that figuratively. The Bush administration hates him, as do the Mexican authorities and the myriad of pro-immigration and atzlan groups from the extreme left wing. He's bringing up issues a lot of people don't want discussed.

Desertdog
February 15, 2006, 07:43 PM
CNN is really turning around.Have you seen their ratings the past year? I haven't seen their ratings lately,but they were about 1/4th of the Fox News Channel.

Biker
February 15, 2006, 08:08 PM
Have you seen their ratings the past year? I haven't seen their ratings lately,but they were about 1/4th of the Fox News Channel.
I don't watch TV anymore, but from what I remember, CNN and Fox are just two wings on the same bird taking us all to the same place as their respective political parties want us to go. As far as ratings go, when you come right down to it, the masses are asses, aren't they?
Biker

garand_shooter
February 15, 2006, 08:10 PM
+1 Lou Dobbs

I have to laugh at Ted Koppel.

It's hard not to. What with him being a near-clone of Alfred E Neuman...:D

Cosmoline
February 15, 2006, 08:20 PM
Have you seen their ratings the past year? I haven't seen their ratings lately,but they were about 1/4th of the Fox News Channel.

They've been No 2 to FOX for awhile now. But I absolutely approve of their decision to boot Aaron Brown and replace him with Anderson Cooper. Cooper got points from me when he tracked down Mayor Nagin after the Mayor had refused to show up for yet another scheduled interview, claiming an "emergency" had come up. The emergency turned out to be a mess of crawfish that were about to be boiled alive. Nagin was there on the spot with his bib and some butter. AC had a camera outside the restaurant, taunting the mayor to come out.

hksw
February 15, 2006, 08:48 PM
You mean this Lou Dobbs?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=101298&highlight=lou+dobbs

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/13/ldt.00.html

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues with more news, debate and opinion. Here now, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: The soon-to-expire assault weapons ban is a source of heated debate all around this country and at almost every level of our society. Gun control is a fundamental wedge issue.

My next two guests tonight have very different views about the ban and whether it should be extended. Senator Dianne Feinstein is in favor of extending the assault weapons ban. She says it's critical to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Senator Larry Craig says the assault weapons ban was ineffective and that he is happy, for one, that it is expiring at midnight tonight. Senator Feinstein, Senator Craig join us from Capitol Hill.

Thank you both for being here.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: You're welcome.

SEN. LARRY CRAIG (R), IDAHO: Lou.

DOBBS: And let me begin if I may with you, Senator Craig. Every poll that we have taken a look at suggests that a majority of voters would favor an extension of this ban. Yet you're happy that it's expiring. Why so?

CRAIG: Well, Lou, I don't question the polls. I might look at some of the way the questions were asked. But I do know that since 1994 when the ban was put in place, it has made no difference in law enforcement and/or the times in which this style of semi-auto is used: less than 3 percent before '94, less than 3 percent today.

Why won't Congress reauthorize this? Because Congress has studied the facts, looked at the statistics, and said to this bill let a sleeping bill lie. This bill has been ineffective. It was a political placebo to begin with. It remains that, a feel-good bill, that most of the American people say, well, gee, it worked. No, it didn't work, and the statistics bear that out.

DOBBS: Senator Feinstein, Senator Kerry said today that now, as a result of the expiration of this ban, that a terrorist or a criminal will effectively be able to walk into a gun shop or a gun show and ask to buy an AK-47 and the answer now will be: "Sure." Is that really the case?

FEINSTEIN: Well, there's no question that they will be back in the gun shows. They will be back in the gun shops. The big clips will be all around. And, you know, Larry Craig and I have worked together on many things, but, on this, we are exact opposites.

I believe that the supply of weapons has dried up over the last 10 years. I believe that the legislation has worked. It has reduced guns traced to crime by two-thirds. Now that may not be a huge amount, but many of these incidents that took place before the ban were in school yards -- there were many of them --all -- and work places all around this nation, and the thrust of the ban was to dry up the supply over time.

And you're right, Lou. Anywhere from two-thirds to three-fourths of the American people support its extension. Actually, the ban expired last night, early this morning at 12:01. So it's really a dark day for me and for those of us who fought so hard to get this legislation through and then to watch it.

We will be back. We will be back next session. We will be back with another bill, and we will bide our time and find the opportunity to present that bill to both the House and the Senate.

DOBBS: Senator Craig, representing, as you do, the State of Idaho, a state committed to the outdoors, to the environment, hunting is a big part of the outdoor activities in Idaho. Do you support assault weapons not being banned, if I can put that way, because of your interest in hunting and sportsmanship?

CRAIG: It's a combination of a lot of things, but, first and foremost, Lou, let me say that the assault weapon is not the weapon of choice of terrorists. Last I checked, nearly 3,000 Americans died, and the weapon of choice was a fully-loaded airliner.

So we don't know what terrorists use. They don't use these kinds of weapons in this country. If they chose to, they could buy them off the black market and out of the back streets of America, but darn few of them are available there, simply put.

But, in Idaho, let's remember this is a semi-automatic firearm. It doesn't have any more power than any other semi-auto. It's the cosmetics of it that allow it to be called an assault weapon. Are semi-autos used in hunting? Yes, they are. They certainly are. Why am I opposed to this bill? I am opposed to laws that don't work, number one. And I do believe that Americans generally support Second Amendment rights as I do.

DOBBS: Senator, let me ask you this, as a sportsman, a hunter yourself. You don't think it's very sporting, do you, for anyone, a man or woman, to be in the field with a semi-automatic weapon shooting game? I'm a hunter myself, but I mean the idea of somebody using a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun in the field is an absurdity.

CRAIG: Well, Lou, let's get the facts right. There are a lot of shotguns out there today that you and I use that are illegal and legitimate and they are semi-autos.

DOBBS: That's what I'm saying. I am just giving my opinion, Senator. I don't think there's much sport in that.

CRAIG: Well, when you shoot at a pheasant or a duck and the bullet's ejected and another one is put in the chamber as most of the shotguns do and you're ready to shoot another duck, isn't that sporting or do you think that you ought to stop and reload and the flight of ducks is already gone? That's the difference...

DOBBS: Well, I'll tell you the truth, Senator, when I was hunting pheasant in southern Idaho, my buddies and I used to, as young fellows, we hunted pheasant with .22s, in point in fact. That's in a different time, a different era and a different place.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Senator Feinstein...

CRAIG: Were they single shots of semi-autos?

DOBBS: They were single shots, Senator.

FEINSTEIN: May I say something?

DOBBS: You may indeed. I was begging you to.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, most states limit the number of bullets for hunting that you can have in a clip and most states are under ten bullets in a clip. You don't need an AK-47 with a 50-round clip to shoot a deer. I think that's pretty clear. The fact of the matter is that the ban has worked. The fact of the matter is that there are organizations that are intensely selfish, and they want it all their way. And they don't much care the fact that these weapons -- you have some of these weapons. You can adjust the trigger, so they can fire as many as 30 bullets in three seconds. Who needs that on the streets of America?

The fact is, no one needs it. But the selfishness, and I'm sorry, this is where I -- the absolute selfishness of the National Rifle Association to make this their number one priority and the citizens of this country are going to be much less safe because of it.

DOBBS: Can I say something to both of you and just get your quick reaction because we are way over time. But isn't it true, if it were not as you suggest the selfishness as you put it, Senator Feinstein of the NRA, and it at the same time the enthusiasm of the gun control lobby to go beyond simply assault weapons, that we might be able to come together to make rational decisions about gun legislation, is that just simply idealistic or unrealistic?

FEINSTEIN: There are very few things -- we would like to have trigger locks on weapons, which is a common-sense thing. One of the interesting things -- Senator Schumer and I had a press conference to urge Wal-mart not to sell these weapons and we heard that they're not going to sell these weapons and they're not going to sell the big clips, and I think that's a real point of integrity in the retail community.

DOBBS: Senator Craig, you get the last word.

CRAIG: Well, thank you. In this instance, a majority of the United States Congress has said, no, we're not going to reauthorize this bill. Trigger locks are becoming the assistance of the day to almost all firearms that are now sold through legitimate gun dealers, federal licensed gun dealers, and lastly, what Senator Feinstein just said is 30 bullets in three seconds. That's a fully automatic weapon and that's against the law and it has been since 1934.

DOBBS: Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, we thank you both for being with us here tonight.

RealGun
February 15, 2006, 09:34 PM
The story says nothing about firing on illegals ("Fire on Illegals"). I found this to be off topic.

Cosmoline
February 15, 2006, 09:39 PM
I don't blame Dobbs for that--Craig was the one supposed to be arguing against the renewal. He muddled the issue and did a poor job. He even used the term "assault weapon" and failed to jump in and attack that human excrement from **********.

CAnnoneer
February 15, 2006, 09:40 PM
Feinstein: You shut your trap about statistics. I said, the ban worked. Dammit. Lalalalalalalalala. We'll be back with more unconstitutional garbage. Lalalalalalala...

:barf: :barf: :barf:

That old bag gives me indigestion every time I hear her speak.

ReadyontheRight
February 16, 2006, 12:28 AM
Lou Dobbs is NO FRIEND OF RKBA. I watched his defense of the AWB live and I can no longer suffer this fool lightly.

Lou Dobbs: "I mean the idea of somebody using a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun in the field is an absurdity.":scrutiny:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/13/ldt.00.html

DOBBS: Senator, let me ask you this, as a sportsman, a hunter yourself. You don't think it's very sporting, do you, for anyone, a man or woman, to be in the field with a semi-automatic weapon shooting game? I'm a hunter myself, but I mean the idea of somebody using a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun in the field is an absurdity.

CRAIG: Well, Lou, let's get the facts right. There are a lot of shotguns out there today that you and I use that are illegal and legitimate and they are semi-autos.

DOBBS: That's what I'm saying. I am just giving my opinion, Senator. I don't think there's much sport in that.

CRAIG: Well, when you shoot at a pheasant or a duck and the bullet's ejected and another one is put in the chamber as most of the shotguns do and you're ready to shoot another duck, isn't that sporting or do you think that you ought to stop and reload and the flight of ducks is already gone? That's the difference...

DOBBS: Well, I'll tell you the truth, Senator, when I was hunting pheasant in southern Idaho, my buddies and I used to, as young fellows, we hunted pheasant with .22s, in point in fact. That's in a different time, a different era and a different place.


Don't stand downrange of the pheasant-hunting journalist! He's using a rifle!

beerslurpy
February 16, 2006, 01:00 AM
Where I come from, hunting fowl with a rifle is illegal. I would like nothing more than picking off ducks with 120gr V-max at 3400 fps.

Who cares what Lou Dobbs thinks about RKBA as long as he hammers on the bush administration for letting the illegal alien problem get so bad? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least a useful idiot.

I suspect Dobbs is avoiding the gun issue because:
-it isnt really on everyone's mind
-gun control is political poison in all but the most left-leaning areas
-bringing it up only increases the amount of money that panicked gun owners give to the NRA and GOA
-i dont think he really cares. His loathing of guns is akin to my loathing of figure skating- out of sight, out of mind.

Camp David
February 16, 2006, 10:57 AM
I guess there is one show on CNN that I will have to give a try.

Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/15/155549.shtml?s=ic.

Desertdog: I have watched Dobbs and I think his show is drenched in hypocrisy... inasmuch as I agree with some of his viewpoints on illegal aliens, I find his position as a pundit rather than a serious newsman; certainly he is no journalist as his opinions pepper his show. Mr. Dobbs, however, calls his craft journalism which is patently untrue...

Further, while he spends about 90% of his typical broadcast hurling dirt against the current administration on its border policies, he rarely if ever surfaces any ideas, new or otherwise, about combatting the illegal alien problem... Almost invariably with Dobbs it is "Look what this administration is not doing about the illegal alien issue!"... It would help if Dobbs would devote some time to new ideas rather than throwing mud.

While these new "pundit" broadcast figure heads seem a dime a dozen, it would help if they would investigate new ideas for issues, rather than criticize politicians... and they have no business calling themselves journalists and they most certainly are not.

longeyes
February 16, 2006, 11:57 AM
Further, while he spends about 90% of his typical broadcast hurling dirt against the current administration on its border policies, he rarely if ever surfaces any ideas, new or otherwise, about combatting the illegal alien problem... Almost invariably with Dobbs it is "Look what this administration is not doing about the illegal alien issue!"... It would help if Dobbs would devote some time to new ideas rather than throwing mud.

You are under the impression that the current administration is seeking bold new ideas to deal with illegal immigration? You can't be serious. The Bush admin has shown itself, by five years of inaction, committed to open borders and expects to get away with de facto open borders as long as possible, just as--let me be fair--Clinton did. Someone has to call attention to the fact that there's a problem and that it's very serious. Meanwhile, most of the press seems preoccupied with graver matters, like Cheney's klutziness in the field.

Desertdog
February 16, 2006, 01:26 PM
Someone has to call attention to the fact that there's a problem and that it's very serious.
Most of the press is as quiet as a mouse on this issue, that is except to trash the MM and other groups trying to draw attention to the problem.

ReadyontheRight
February 16, 2006, 04:18 PM
The Bush admin has shown itself, by five years of inaction, committed to open borders

Granted we need to keep pushing the Republicans to get tougher on this issue, but which party would be tougher on Illegals?

Not Libertarians. (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml) As much as I like the libertarian mindset, this is an issue that will keep Libertarians from power.

Cosmoline
February 16, 2006, 05:41 PM
The whole point, IMHO, is to put enough pressure on the GOP to challenge the current conventional wisdom in DC on immigration. It's a GOP vs. GOP issue. We all know what the Dems think, and that's never going to change.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!