PDA

View Full Version : Dobbs: I'm a populist, deal with it


dirk digler
11-15-2006, 01:56 PM
I like Lou Dobbs and I tend to agree with him on alot of his ideas. So I guess I am a Centrist populist.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Democratic victory last week has our political elites in both parties and in the national media squealing like stuck pigs. Way to go, America, we may be on the way.

It seems nothing frightens our free trade and pro-illegal immigration orthodoxies more than putting the common good and the national interest above dominant special interests, corporate America and, of course, our darling elites in both political parties and the media.

The Bush administration long ago took polemics and false choices to a high art form. On the issue of the war in Iraq, this administration has starkly defined our choices, until recently, as "stay the course" or "cut and run." Any critic of our conduct of this war, like me, has been declared unpatriotic. Any critic of this administration's faith-based economic policies that drive its free-trade agenda, like me, has been labeled an economic isolationist.

But now the name-calling and labeling is reaching a new level, and from all quarters. The political, business and media elites have called me a "table-thumping protectionist" because I want balanced and mutual trade, because I want this country to export as much as it imports. They've called me a racist, nativist xenophobe because, in order to win the war on terror, the war on drugs and to stop illegal immigration, I want our borders and ports secured.

Over the past week, pundits and savants of both the left and the right have been trying to simultaneously define me and the newly elected Democratic victors in the Senate and the House by accusing us of being populists. What a dirty little word. Horrifying.

I admit to being, among many other things, a proponent of populism. But I do believe my critics should look up the definition before they sling the word at me like a filthy epithet. On second thought, it may be to them, because a populist is, after all, nothing more than "a supporter of the rights and the power of the people." In fact, I'm a damn proud populist.

Since the election, there's been an incredible confluence of one of the nation's most liberal online magazines -- Slate -- with one of the world's most traditional establishment newspapers -- The Financial Times -- to decry what Slate columnist Jacob Weisberg calls the ascension of the "Lou Dobbs Democrats."

Weisberg decries what he sees as my "economic nationalism" and instructs us that such nationalism "begins from the populist premise that working people aren't doing so well. But instead of blaming the rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad."

The Financial Times also published Weisberg's column, obviously equally unsettled with the possible turnaround in the new Congress, which could inconveniently lead to some mild discomfort for the Times' corporate masters and some marginal improvement in the lives of America's middle class.

Both Slate and The Financial Times resist saying what I've been saying loudly and clearly: We're in a class war, and our middle class is losing, and losing badly. But I do blame and have blamed the rich, corporate America and our political elites in both parties who have permitted the unabated assault on middle-class working men and women and their families. And by God, I hope they're right about the Lou Dobbs Democrats, and I hope they find some Lou Dobbs Republicans in the fight to return our government to the people.

I have never blamed the poor of Mexico, China or India for corporate America's avarice and our political elites' cowardice. I blame us for forgetting that the United States is first a nation, and secondly a marketplace or an economy, and I blame us for being taken as fools by both political parties for far too long. It is not nationalism by any stretch of the imagination for me to remind those in power that our political system, our great democracy, makes possible our free-enterprise economy, and not vice versa as the elites continually propagandize.

From the right, The Weekly Standard lamented that the Lou Dobbs Democrats "didn't just attack the GOP's corruption and malfeasance; they embraced a more thoroughgoing economic populism...." The conservative Standard is obviously more upset that the newly elected Democratic senators and congressmen want to focus not only on the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans, but -- God help us -- many of our new officeholders also actually want to see this great free-enterprise democracy work for all Americans. No wonder the orthodoxies on the left and the right are convulsing.

Human Events Online, another conservative publication, attacks my sincerity and conviction with the bizarre notion that because -- as it says -- I can "afford a bottle of Cristal or Dom Perignon" that my concern for the middle class is really nothing more than crocodile tears. Human Events didn't quite get the fact that as flawed as I am, as many mistakes as I've made in my life, the one thing I haven't done is forget that I was born poor, both parents working, and I've never forgotten those who have made my opportunities in this country possible.

Also disturbed by the perturbation in their political universe and liberal orthodoxy, Newsweek columnists Fareed Zakaria and Jonathan Alter attacked my positions on illegal immigration (I'm against it) and border security (I'm for it).

Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.

And what does it mean to be a nativist in the United States in the 21st century when ours is the most ethnically and racially diverse society on the face of the earth? Both Alter and Zakaria are smart enough to know the answer to that question, and they know better than to write such drivel. Neither Zakaria or Alter can substantiate their disappointing attempts at labels with a single thing I've ever said or written. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

What we all need to be about now is honesty and forthrightness. And the truth is, our political, business and media elites have abandoned the cornerstone of this great nation: equality of rights, equality of economic opportunity and equality of educational opportunity.

And, yes, I'm an ardent and fervent believer in the first three words of that radical populist document, which begins with the words "We the People."

banyon
11-15-2006, 02:06 PM
I think a lot of the Dem's that won this year are what you would probably call "Lou Dobbs Democrats". Strong on border security, against Iraq, angry with the lousy free trade agreements, not very concerned with the "moral issues" like abortion/gay marriage.

dirk digler
11-15-2006, 02:21 PM
I think a lot of the Dem's that won this year are what you would probably call "Lou Dobbs Democrats". Strong on border security, against Iraq, angry with the lousy free trade agreements, not very concerned with the "moral issues" like abortion/gay marriage.

Yep I agree with most of those but I am not a democrat. I happen to think the majority of Americans agree with those as well.

This one I believe something like 80-90% probably agree with:

in order to win the war on terror, the war on drugs and to stop illegal immigration, I want our borders and ports secured.

StcChief
11-15-2006, 02:24 PM
Actually there are more Independent people that will vote either side depending on the candidate, current state of the country, state etc. than both parties believe exist.

Centrists or populists. Party alignment is NOT really relevent to them.

dirk digler
11-15-2006, 02:30 PM
Actually there are more Independent people that will vote either side depending on the candidate, current state of the country, state etc. than both parties believe exist.

Centrists or populists. Party alignment is NOT really relevent to them.

I have to agree because I am one of them. I always vote for who I feel will do the best job regardless of party affiliation.

Calcountry
11-15-2006, 04:53 PM
I think a lot of the Dem's that won this year are what you would probably call "Lou Dobbs Democrats". Strong on border security, against Iraq, angry with the lousy free trade agreements, not very concerned with the "moral issues" like abortion/gay marriage.Oh yeah, LD was on the national Ticket. Heck, run him for President.

Blue Dog, Lou Dobs, has a nice ring to it.

That's it, that is what happened.

I have talked to 6 conservatives so far, and to a man they all said the same thing, Bush wasn't a conservative, and they were unenthused when they voted.

Apply that across the entire base of conservatives and you get dissaffected conservatives who felt like they had been abandened for the center. Well I guess Bush got the center, yep. No, them Lou Dobbs Democrats all fled right over to the left winger side as you claim, ROFL, what a joke.

banyon
11-15-2006, 05:03 PM
Oh yeah, LD was on the national Ticket. Heck, run him for President.

Blue Dog, Lou Dobs, has a nice ring to it.

That's it, that is what happened.

I have talked to 6 conservatives so far, and to a man they all said the same thing, Bush wasn't a conservative, and they were unenthused when they voted.

Apply that across the entire base of conservatives and you get dissaffected conservatives who felt like they had been abandened for the center. Well I guess Bush got the center, yep. No, them Lou Dobbs Democrats all fled right over to the left winger side as you claim, ROFL, what a joke.

Wow your poll of 6 conservative friends led you to believe I was incorrect? http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-wingedeagle.gif

All I said was that many of the newly elected Dem's share Lou's positions on those issues. Webb, Tester, Casey, etc. Hell I don't even know what's controversial about what I posted. I would think that the fact that these new seatholders shared opinions with Dobbs on these issues would be transparently obvious to all, but apparently not.

Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:10 PM
Wow your poll of 6 conservative friends led you to believe I was incorrect? http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-wingedeagle.gif

All I said was that many of the newly elected Dem's share Lou's positions on those issues. Webb, Tester, Casey, etc. Hell I don't even know what's controversial about what I posted. I would think that the fact that these new seatholders shared opinions with Dobbs on these issues would be transparently obvious to all, but apparently not.I almost didn't vote, for the first time in my life. That is how I felt.

The times when I was enthused, we won.

I am just drawing an anecdotal inference from a statistically insignificant sample size, but it is a safe inference nonetheless, that conservatives were put off big time by the liberalness of George W Bush, and they had enough of it. THAT, and not your "lou Dobbs Democrats" is what this election was about. Go ahead, and think the way you want to, go ahead. It is a foolish mistake to be overconfident about the "why's" of this election.

The Republicans found that out back in 98 after the impeachement of Bill Clinton, remember?

banyon
11-15-2006, 05:13 PM
I almost didn't vote, for the first time in my life. That is how I felt.

The times when I was enthused, we won.

I am just drawing an anecdotal inference from a statistically insignificant sample size, but it is a safe inference nonetheless, that conservatives were put off big time by the liberalness of George W Bush, and they had enough of it. THAT, and not your "lou Dobbs Democrats" is what this election was about. Go ahead, and think the way you want to, go ahead. It is a foolish mistake to be overconfident about the "why's" of this election.

The Republicans found that out back in 98 after the impeachement of Bill Clinton, remember?

What, are you dating BucEyedPea now?

That's the only other person I've seen that believes that George Bush by some magical redescription is a liberal. I guess it's only natural when you've got one of the worst leaders in history to try to associate him with your opponents somehow.

Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:18 PM
What, are you dating BucEyedPea now?

That's the only other person I've seen that believes that George Bush by some magical redescription is a liberal. I guess it's only natural when you've got one of the worst leaders in history to try to associate him with your opponents somehow.Liberals are big spenders, and they like big government. Liberals fight wars to build nations, not for our strategic national interests. Liberals are afraid to say what they mean, and use gobbledygook speach to give them plausible deniablility and Political correctness.

Conservatives do not. They are well ordered in their belief structure and are comfortable with who they are.

Conservatives are not perfect and can be fooled.

Bush is not a conservative.

noa
11-15-2006, 05:23 PM
Liberals are afraid to say what they mean, and use gobbledygook speach to give them plausible deniablility and Political correctness.
Conservatives do not. They are well ordered in their belief structure and are comfortable with who they are.


Easy there Ann Coulter. You're painting with some broad strokes.

mlyonsd
11-15-2006, 05:28 PM
What, are you dating BucEyedPea now?

That's the only other person I've seen that believes that George Bush by some magical redescription is a liberal. I guess it's only natural when you've got one of the worst leaders in history to try to associate him with your opponents somehow.

I think when a true Republican conservative hears the word "conservative" the first thing they think of is 'fiscal' conservative. Their visual image is Ronald Reagan.

When a liberal hears the word "conservative" the first thing they think of is 'social' conservative. Their visual image is Pat Robertson.

Unfortunately Bush has proven he isn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the word.

banyon
11-15-2006, 05:34 PM
Liberals are big spenders, and they like big government. Liberals fight wars to build nations, not for our strategic national interests. Liberals are afraid to say what they mean, and use gobbledygook speach to give them plausible deniablility and Political correctness.

Conservatives do not. They are well ordered in their belief structure and are comfortable with who they are.

Conservatives are not perfect and can be fooled.

Bush is not a conservative.


We are in Iraq for our Strategic National interests. I sincerely doubt, that once the cowardly Democrats see what is on the table, they won't run from Iraq. They will be content to let Bush take the poitical heat for it, and then run against him on it in 08. They still will not be advancing any alternative foreign policy objectives vis a vis the WOT, because they have none. They don't believe we are at war, and those that do, are either Halliburton or Racists.

So, which is it? Do Bush and the Republican rubber stamps believe that we are in Iraq for our strategic national interests, or because they are liberals who like to Nation-build?

What policy or initiative was it that Bush spearheaded that liberals were so keen to support? It wasn't No Child Left Behind or the Prescription Drug Entitlement. Those were passed only by the conservatives in Congress because their corrupt buddies in the Pharmaceutical and Educational Testing industries stand to make a killing from those bills. Just Because Bush has been an a**clown with our national debt doesn't make him a liberal. If it does, then so were Reagan and Bush I, which is patently absurd. As for the "political correctness" label that you seem to be fond of, pretending that it is a practice limited to liberals is pretty naive. "Death tax" , "Cut and Run", "up or down vote". They have perfected it and it's not just Bush using those phrases. If you want to pretend this clown is a liberal that was installed by conservative money and politicians and has a slew of positions that are easily identified with the conservative agenda, then enjoy Narnia.

Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:49 PM
So, which is it? Do Bush and the Republican rubber stamps believe that we are in Iraq for our strategic national interests, or because they are liberals who like to Nation-build?

What policy or initiative was it that Bush spearheaded that liberals were so keen to support? It wasn't No Child Left Behind or the Prescription Drug Entitlement. Those were passed only by the conservatives in Congress because their corrupt buddies in the Pharmaceutical and Educational Testing industries stand to make a killing from those bills. Just Because Bush has been an a**clown with our national debt doesn't make him a liberal. If it does, then so were Reagan and Bush I, which is patently absurd. As for the "political correctness" label that you seem to be fond of, pretending that it is a practice limited to liberals is pretty naive. "Death tax" , "Cut and Run", "up or down vote". They have perfected it and it's not just Bush using those phrases. If you want to pretend this clown is a liberal that was installed by conservative money and politicians and has a slew of positions that are easily identified with the conservative agenda, then enjoy Narnia.I believe taking out Sadaam was in our Interests. I believe that holding Iraq is also in our interests.

I disagree, with the cover that is used to justify this occupation. "we are there to establish a free and democratic Iraq". I would much rather Bush say, that we are there to secure the flow of oil and engage the terrorists that may want to get a piece of this. Encourage the terrorist to fill there hands and bring it to Iraq where we can get it on and kill as many of them as possible. That is what war is.

I believe, that we are in Iraq to establish a base with which to contain Iran, Iran is now the focus. We need to contain them the way we did Iraq for the past decades. We need to secure the flow of oil out of the Gulf through the straits of Hormuz. Why should we be ashamed of this?

Answer: Becuase, mocking voice on/ "We don't want to fight a war for oil".

Me back on/ WTF not? They won't let us drill for it in our own country?

Prescription drugs, not = to conservative

Big spending deficits not = to conservative

Low taxes without spending constraints, not = conservative.

Allowing Dubai to be in charge of our ports, under the threat of a veto. not = conservative.

We had to drag him out of that one Supreme court nominee, get him to change his mind. The dude, if not liberal, is at least a moderate Republican, and he in no way approaches a conservative. He couldn't hold Ronald Reagan's jock.

Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:51 PM
Easy there Ann Coulter. You're painting with some broad strokes.I like Ann Coulter.

We need more like her.

noa
11-15-2006, 05:57 PM
I like Ann Coulter.

We need more like her.


You both resort to ad hominem attacks (liberals are insecure, conservatives are well ordered in their belief structure and are comfortable with who they are) without any way of backing them up. Just saying that all liberals act a certain way or believe a certain thing doesn't make it so.

banyon
11-15-2006, 06:03 PM
Big spending deficits not = to conservative

Low taxes without spending constraints, not = conservative.

How do you not understand that these two charges apply to Bush I and Reagan?

Allowing Dubai to be in charge of our ports, under the threat of a veto. not = conservative.

Couldn't disagree with this one more. Selling out American interests in favor of breaks for their corporate buddies is what this Republican Congress has specialized in.

penchief
11-17-2006, 10:43 AM
I like Ann Coulter.

We need more like her.

Often you have solid opinions even when I disagree with them but this is a perfect example of why it is sometimes so hard to take you seriously.