Lou Dobbs Shows CNN the Way
I have posted several times on the incredible sinking ratings at CNN as they continue to provide around the clock doses of liberal laced news. So what can CNN do? Lou Dobbs is blazing a clear path for what CNN needs to do.
Lou Dobbs has been mercilessly hammering the illegal immigration issue. His message is ringing loud and clear with viewers. According to NewsMax:
Lou Dobbs has been mercilessly hammering the illegal immigration issue. His message is ringing loud and clear with viewers. According to NewsMax:
Dobbs message is clear, consistent and conservative and the nation responds. CNN should pay attention or they will continue to trail behind Fox in a distant 2nd."Lou Dobbs Tonight” averaged 817,000 total viewers last month - a 46 percent increase over April of last year, according to Nielsen Media Research. So far in 2006, Dobbs is up 33 percent.
"The passions of the country have aligned with Lou's passions for subjects like broken borders," CNN/U.S. president Jonathan Klein told the Philadelphia Inquirer."The rest of the nation is awakening."
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 12:08 AM
21 Comments:
At 5:36 PM,
SkyePuppy said…
Now, if we can get the Senate to figure out what Lou Dobbs knows...
At 8:08 AM,
Malott said…
SkePuppy,
Great Point! ...as you are in the habit of making...
At 8:32 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
And President Bush could use this insight too. He seems willing to throw away the remainder of his presidency and the GOP majority so that illegal immigrants (and potential terrorists) can keep flowing over the border. He needs more than insight in this area. He needs sight period. It is the biggest political blind spot I have ever seen.
At 2:01 PM,
Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…
Yep, Mr. Dobbs is leading the charge as the Whores in DC,both Right and Left ignore the will of the American people. This from a guy that started his career as a Financial Analyst.
I find Lou very Morrowesque as he will present the facts and let others have their say, without the Bill Oreilly pompousness or shout down.
Also, he doesn't have a very high opinion of Bush...how about those poll numbers 29%%%%.
I SMELL IMPEACHMENT!!
At 2:13 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Joe, If Bush does not start keeping his committment and oath to uphold the laws of the land including immigration law, I will join you.
It is one thing to stick to the war on terror in spite of public opinion. It is another to resist public opinion to continue to help people break the law.
At 2:29 PM,
Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…
Pally,
This guy is like the rest of them in the Govt these days, they are all bought and owned by the CORPORATIONs. Just look at the country???? Massive debt that is owed for the most part China, Illegal Hordes pouring across the borders and a Quagmire in Iraq ,and Bush trying to sellout our Security to any Middle East Buddies and the price of Gas through the ROOF.
Could you ever Imagine that it would get this bad??? We are right back to where we were as a nation before the Revolution ie NO REPRESENTATION WITH TAXATION.
It's almost surreal!!!!
At 9:45 AM,
Anonymous said…
Is AICS slipping? You let Joe Smoe's 29% Bush poll numbers go unchallenged. No Rasmussen retort? Actually, you seem ready to jump on with both feet? The Bush cartel using torture, running rough shod over the Constitution and spying on average Americans wasn't reason to impeach but this apparently is. A couple questions for all of you.
What's changed since last year, or two years ago? These blogs were silent when Bush flip-flopped and cut 9800 border security personnel from his 2005 budget. How much fence and border patrol would that $300 billion we've spent so far in Iraq have bought us? $3 for a gallon of gas isn't enough? Are you ready to pay $8 for a head of lettuce? Are all of you ready to sign your sons and daughters up for National Guard duty? Don't forget that the Millenium Bomber was crossing over from Canada, and Timothy McVeigh was one of our own.
At 12:25 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
wwjk, why do you insist on adding false points to your argument. Your point on the immigration and reduced patrols is valid.
Then you go and mix in the bogus line "The Bush cartel using torture". Please how long are we going to define loud music, sleep deprevation and cold tootsies as torture?
At 2:07 PM,
Anonymous said…
Please how long are we going to define loud music, sleep deprevation and cold tootsies as torture?
This comment is almost as disgusting as these images from Abu Ghraib. But even more disgusting and cowardly is having someone else do the dirty work for us in Syria, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, countries whose abusive practices have been documented and condemned by the State Department's annual human rights report. "Only 10 of the [Guantanamo] detainees have been charged with a crime, and not one of the trials has been completed." Hundreds if not thousands of detainees held for 5 years and only 10 charged. None even convicted yet. You go spend a few years rotting in a jail without being charged (let alone waterboarded or held in 30 degree rooms or in constant harsh light or with intolerable music blared intolerably loud at you 24/7) and then get back to me on this. You can tell me how you feel about your captors at that point too.
Alberto Gonzales' legal calesthenics and Bush apologists' ignorance does not make these realities go away.
At 4:08 PM,
Anonymous said…
The torture issue isn't the only one wwjk got wrong. "Running rough shod over the Constitution and spying on average Americans" -- these two things have not happened either. Giving some specifics to back up your general statements would bolster your credibility. The problem is, there are no specifics to back up those claims (unless you consider the definition of the "average" American to be one who is in contact with al-Quaida on a regular basis).
At 8:06 AM,
Anonymous said…
It's called the Fourth Amendment. It's part of the Constitution of the United States of America. You should read it. Unlike General Hayden, who is poised to head the CIA, maybe you'll read it and get it right since like him now you've got it wrong so far. At least a few Republicans get it.
At 9:31 PM,
Anonymous said…
OK, I've reread the Fourth Amendment (which I have read several times in my life, despite your implication that I have never seen it). You have not given any specific examples of how President Bush has run rough shod over it. You did notice the word "reasonable" in there, right?
At 4:12 PM,
Anonymous said…
r2w, you may have read the Fourth Amendment just now and a few other times in your life, but still you manage to miss the last half of it:
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The whole reason the NSA debacle became the debacle it is is because these activities were all carried out without FISA court approval, which is required by law as based on this last part Fourth Amendment you want to conveniently ignore.
Just what exactly do you consider "reasonable" about the KGB-style tactics of tracking phone calling patterns of the American citizenry? You'll also need to remind me about what is so apple-pie American and appealing to you about torture since you think I've got it all wrong.
I'll say it again. Alberto Gonzales' legal calesthenics and Bush apologists' ignorance does not make these realities go away.
At 7:25 PM,
Anonymous said…
You're going to try to tell me that approval by the FISA court, formed in 1977, I believe, is required by law based on the Fourth Ammendment? I've said it before, and I stand by it: The FISA law enacted by Jimmy Carter is unconstitutional since it removes presidential authority - authority granted to the President by the Constitution.
At 1:40 PM,
Anonymous said…
You may have read the Fourth Amendment but you obviously don't understand it or how it applies to FISA. The Fourth Amendment holds that the home is practically sacred, and its protection must be fiercely guarded from government intrusion: no unreasonable, warrantless searches or seizures. FISA is a clear reflection of this tenet, specific to the context of foreign intelligence gathering.
I've said it before, and I stand by it: The FISA law enacted by Jimmy Carter is unconstitutional since it removes presidential authority - authority granted to the President by the Constitution.
Why do you pretend to know about something you don't? In your eager attempt to bash Carter you ignore that Congress passed FISA on a vote of 95-1 before sending it to him to be signed into law. Stand by your statement all you want, but you'll still be misinformed and wrong. You spit out this complete lie of a soundbite without backing it up and expect people to believe it just like Malkin, Limbaugh, Drudge, Coulter and all the other blowhards, which is probably where you heard this drivel in the first place. You're just irresponsibly repeating what you've heard. You may posture that you do but you're showing you have no real clue about FISA or Constitutional law/theory. If you did you would know that the Constitution gives Congress express authority to create things like FISA and other laws - laws which even the President must adhere to. The Constitution was framed to create a three-branched, co-equal government which included the courts specifically to prevent the kind of abuses of sole executive power the Framers experienced under the monarchy of the King of England. If FISA was unconstitutional, as you wrongly claim, it would have been struck down long ago. Congress amended FISA several times under Bush and no one was calling it unconstitutional then. It was only after the Bush Administration was found to be in blatant violation of FISA did it trot out the argument that FISA had been unconstitutional all along. The Bush Administration is banking on Americans to be ignorant enough to forget such details. Are you going to continue to be one of those ignorant Americans?
That's not all. This issue has also clearly shown Bush's willingness to be a bald-faced liar. On April 20, 2004, Bush said, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.''; on July 14, 2004, he claimed that "the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order"; and on June 9, 2005, he said, "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools."
At the time he said each of these things Bush had already authorized these very law enforcement officials to bypass federal judges and proceed without warrants.
At 12:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
WWJK, So, you don't like the fact that I blamed FISA on Jimmy Carter. I don't like it when ignorant (to use your word) politicians blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina, but they do. If you want to blame Congress instead, that's fine. I'll join with you. After all they passed the law by 95%. Whoever is responsible doesn't change whether the law is Constitutional or not. Your claim that if FISA were unconstitutional, it would have been struck down long ago, is faulty. The fact is that there are many occasions in which laws are passed that are unconstitutional, and, either nobody challenges them, or challenges are answered with incorrect rulings about the laws' constitutionality. The fact that many people believe a law is constitutional does not make it so.
At 3:21 PM,
Anonymous said…
As expected, you offer no factual basis for your claim of FISA being unconstitutional. Take your baseless argument to any court of law and be laughed out of it. You're no Constitutional or Court expert, that is plain to see.
I don't care what you blame on Carter. You can blame 9/11 or your divorce on him for all I care. It's your choice to look foolish on your own. I was pointing out that a firmly bipartisan Congressional effort created FISA, not your boogieman Carter.
Bush didn't cause Katrina, but the pitiful government responses then and now are his, just as you would be frothing at the mouth about it if a Democrat were President at the time.
At 3:37 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
wwjk, I have not seen evidence of your constitutional expertise. You are the one who implied there is a time limit on how long before a law can be challenged. FISA could be challenged 40 years from now and thrown out.
Anyway, the laughable premise that blog posters are constitutional scholars is ridiculous. Just remember that such insults are no substitute for a logical argument. I'm sure they make you feel better, though.
Bush didn't cause Katrina, but the pitiful government responses then and now are his, just as you would be frothing at the mouth about it if a Democrat were President at the time.
Wrong yet again. A position consistent with my political views would be that people should not have been looking solely to the government for assistance during Katrina. I would not have criticized a Dem president for the Katrina response any more than I criticized Bubba when a Chicago heatwave killed hundreds.
At 9:12 PM,
Anonymous said…
Thanks for backing me up, AICS. One thing I find interesting about many liberals is that they project their own attitudes on others. WWJK tells me I would be frothing at the mouth if a Democrat were President at the time of Katrina. I, unlike so many liberals today, do not blame people for things that are not their fault. In fact, I don't remember blaming Clinton for much of anything during his presidency, other than his many lies and his immoral behavior, which set a poor example for the youth of this nation.
At 5:35 PM,
Anonymous said…
AICS and r2w, unlike either of you two, I have not made any claims I have not been willing to back up with source links and historical precedent when questioned. You say FISA could be challenged in 40 years and thrown out? "Coulds" and "what ifs" are a sure sign of an argument that has nothing to stand on. Weak.
Your abuse of the word logical and changing the subject is no substitute for reasoned debate based on verifiable facts.
My Constitutional knowledge is solid. Your saying it isn't is meaningless. r2w is right: that many people believe a law is constitutional does not make it so. What makes it so is legislation hammered out in Congress (the sole body charged with doing so) and if challenged, arguments made and decided in the courts based on historical precedent and pertinent facts. So far neither of you have done anything other than make baseless, unsupported statements of your opinion.
As for Katrina, who else was anyone supposed to get help from when that city of 500,000 was literally wiped off the map, let alone the surrounding areas? The local 4-H clubs? The Boy Scouts? It's certainly not Louisiana's fault that all their National Guard troops and equipment are in Iraq rather than Louisiana, where the National Guard is supposed to be. And why would FEMA exist in the first place if not to deal with Federal Emergencies that need Management, as the name implies?
I've scanned this blog. You both froth plenty about Democrats and liberals for lots of things. You're definitely all over Nagin and Blanco for Katrina. You're even on the residents of New Orleans for not evacuating.
The r2w, AICS-inspired quote for the millenium: "I, unlike so many liberals today, do not blame people for things that are not their fault."
This will be fun to see how long before this becomes inconvenient for you to live up to.
At 10:21 AM,
Anonymous said…
Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home