Lou Dobbs Stomps Out the Smoldering Match

Lou Dobbs is a bright man. Thoughtful, concerned and caring, as well. The shame is that too often he tends to get distracted from using those qualities together when a microphone is placed before him.

We need people getting on soapboxes. It's just that when you put yourself forth as the oracle of Grand Issues That Face Us All, and instead have tunnel vision so myopic you make Mr. Magoo seem clear-sighted, it makes your otherwise Grand Issues seem petty, small and silly.

You see, the problem with piling soapbox upon soapbox to be sure you're high above the crowd -- is that it ignores how much one teeters under such conditions. And last Thursday, Lou Dobbs outdid himself and became a Saturday Night Live sketch.

"You know, I have heard a lot of reasons over the years as to why George W. Bush should be impeached," Dobbs told his audience, wondering in anticipation of what deep thoughts on this visceral, divisive issue were to come. And come they did.

"For them to leave the Food and Drug Administration in this state," he went on," -- its leadership in this sorry condition and to have no capacity apparently or will to protect the American consumer -- that is alone to me sufficient reason to impeach a president who has made this agency possible and has ripped its guts out in its ability to protect the American consumer. It's insane what is going on here."

Lou Dobbs is right. "Insane" is a very good choice of words.

Impeachment has been a grave concern of probably tens of millions of Americans for the past four years. It's a profound issue, deeply controversial enough that Democratic House Speaker leader Nancy Pelosi has attempted to calm fears by stating that impeachment was off the table.

Countless national discussions have been held whether the president -- and even vice president and others in the Bush administration -- committed impeachable acts. And whether the nation could handle an impeachment trial, or if it would rip apart the country. Or cleanse the country.

And I'm just going to go out on limb here to guess that in none of those debates, prior to Lou Dobbs, did the concept of tomatoes, the FDA or consumer protection come up. Even once.

Mind you, I'm not saying that destroying the FDA and consumer protection isn't horrible. And given the track record of this administration, illegality could probably be proven without much difficulty. It's just that on the food chain of impeachable offenses it's so low down as to deserve only an asterisk, designating "And other offenses."

There are so many ways to address the ludicrousness of Lou Dobbs's "outrage" that the head spins, trying to figure out both where to start, and how to avoid the obvious.

At the very least, it's worth noting that having "no capacity apparently or will to protect the American consumer" is not actually "sufficient" constitutional reason to impeach the President of the United States. It's probably not even be sufficient reason to impeach your town councilman, though local laws vary.

Also, while it's nice that Lou Dobbs is enraged at the theoretical guts being ripped out of consumers, one would think that having the actual guts ripped from American soldiers in an illegal war would be higher up on Mr. Dobbs's list. After all, he acknowledges having heard "a lot of reasons" why President George Bush should be impeached, so you have to figure that this was one of them. It's been in all the papers. Yet Mr. Dobbs puts the FDA above that.

Actually, it goes beyond this -- because as Lou Dobbs stated, this gutting of consumer protections "is alone to me" reason to impeach George Bush. "Alone." So, that whole Iraq stuff, nah. This -- tomatoes, salmonella -- this is alone reason.

Okay, if you really wanted to be fair, it should probably be noted that the Bush administration probably hasn't protected the American consumer. But the only reason it's acceptable to make that assumption is because the Bush administration hasn't really protected the American... well, American.

Ask the people in New Orleans how well the administration has protected them, before and after Katrina. Ask those in Minneapolis how well administration cutbacks in taxes protected them and their bridges. Ask pet owners and parents and people who brush their teeth how well the Bush Administration's Federal Trade Commission protected Americans from lead poisoning. Ask Americans how well they feel protected by the administration from attacks, with national resources drained.

And none of this even touches on illegal spying on Americans, illegally outing an intelligence agent, illegally using the Justice Department for political purposes, illegally using federal agencies for political campaigning, illegally subverting new laws by creating "signing statements," illegally removing habeas corpus protections, illegally destroying legally-protected emails. And none of that even touches on the entire illegalities surrounding the Iraq War.

On an old episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, a novice cameraman brings back footage of a bug crawling, to show that just a few feet away from a raging fire, "life goes on." A furious Mr. Grant, who's just lost a big scoop, replies with controlled fury, "Couldn't you have shown that a few feet away from a bug...THERE'S A FIRE GOING ON?!!!"

Yes, Lou Dobbs is right: a bad tomato patch is problematic. But the entire farm is on fire.

Comments

[apoyo]

Horton hears a hoo.

[kroses98]

I stopped watching Lou over a year ago, after watching him for more than a year. I had been one of his most passionate supporters. (Even wanted him to run for the presidency). But, eventually something happened. I realized that Lou's outrage was not really about the issues he professed to care so deeply about. I learned to believe that he outrage came from deeply inside of him! Lou Dobbs has an unresolved anger problem, from god knows what (probably his childhood)! When people have unresolved childhood issues of anger with their own parents, and cannot "own" that anger, they tend to project that anger onto others, and justify it with issues of the day. That is what I believe Lou is doing, and he is bringing many people along with him, causing much harm in the process. I cannot continue to watch him, because I no longer believe in him. He is not always right, and he is sometimes very wrong about the issues he espouses. He is just a little rotund angry man, who needs to get some very good psychotherapy, if he is to ever live a happy life.

[observer46]

If someone were to stick a pin in Lou Dobbs all the hot air would escape
and he would look like Michael Chertof

[Freesia2]

Lou Dobbs used to be the 7:00 fixture in our house. 7:00 - make dinner and listen to Lou discuss.

But at some point, my husband and I realized we weren't listening to discussion. Or even really debate. Rather an endless litany of "That's OUTRAGEOUS"! Yeah...we got it Lou. Some things are. I found my mind tuning out as it does anytime I listen to, or rather attempt to listen to Bill O'Reilly (and I'm not making a direct comparison. No one deserves being called the B word. Them's fightin' words.)

The problem is there are issues on which I have agreed with him, frankly. I want my borders secure and find it inexusable that they aren't. I applauded him for hammering night after night when it came to light that there were plans to outsource our port security to foreign contractors, etc.

But ranting doesn't help. I kept wishing he would broaden his field of grievances and topics and would use his nightly platform to bring on people with solutions or ideas at least, and give them a venue. And if he didn't agree, to do more than incessantly interrupt with "That's OUTRAGEOUS!". Or appalling, or.....pick a derogatory adjective. I wished he'd broaden his field of those, too.

I haven't watched the show in a couple of months. I sort of miss the crusty old guy. Not enough to turn on CNN, but I just wish he'd be a little less crusty and a little more inciteful.

[JanSP1971]

Freesia2 you took the words right out of my mouth. I too used to watch Lou but then he went a little BillO on us. I agree I hate to compare anyone with Billy boy but there are times I think Lou is trying out for the BillO replacement. Lou we depended on you what happened? We want our old Lou back, PLEASE....­..........­..........­..

[Freesia2]

Oh that would be nice.

We used to always jokingly refer to him as Uncle Lou. Every family has one by one name or another. They show up at every function already mad at the traffic ( back in his day people knew how to drive unlike that buncha punks they give licenses to today heck his dog could drive better) , and there are strict instructions to everyone that no one is to bring up politics at the table because you know how Uncle Lou gets and it's Christmas.

But fact is the Uncle Lou's are often right about some issues even if they're placing the blame on the wrong thing and aren't afraid to debate it and no one can deny that they genuinely, passionately care about the cause they're banging their fork on the table about.

Only now I get confused which is more important to him - the issue or Lou Dobbs.

I echo you. Come back Uncle Lou.

[Merlin7]

Please don't encourage Dobbs by writing about him. He's a right-wing tub-thumper posing as a neutral populist and the mere fact that he's on the air speaks volumes about our right-wing corporate media who, like Dobbs, pretend to be neutral while carrying out their conservative agenda. The most alarming aspect of all this is that formerly respectable corporations such as Time-Warner have drifted so far to the right that they now employ petit-fascists such as Dobbs, Glenn Beck and others. Clearly, the main problem is not with Dobbs, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity or their ilk, but what must be done to clean up our media in the years ahead. Revising the Fairness Doctrine would be a good first step, followed by a mandated massive break-up of the corporate media conglomerates.

[Dustee]

Now that's where we should start, with "Revising the Fairness Doctrine"!

I'm sick of the entertainment news media. I just want the facts with NO embellishments.

[LittleBrother]

There's a JD Salinger story revolving around a sensitive young woman in college who has what used to be called a "nervous breakdown".

The poor girl's father sort of hovers around in the corner, unable or unwilling to come to grips with his daughter, who is at home going to pieces on the couch.

But at one point he asks her if she'd like an orange. This isn't presented comically, or to make the character seem stupid. It's just as if in the middle of this life crisis, the best he can come up with is to offer her an orange.

Maybe it should've been a tomato.