DEAR MR. DOBBS (re Coulter)

Dear Mr. Dobbs,

I must admit that my curiosity got the better of me tonight, and I couldn’t resist the deliciously evil temptation of watching Ann Coulter being trounced on your show. I was sure you would counter her vitriolic nonsense with intelligent debate, and would bring to bear the even-handedness that her kind of idiocy requires to be marginalized, and hopefully diminished in today’s out-of-control rhetoric that serves to divide an already all-too-divided nation.

What I saw instead was an unabashed info-mercial for Ms. Coulter’s most current spewing of non-facts and hate-mongering, visually framed by a giant backdrop depicting the cover of her new book, just in case any of your viewers might inadvertently miss the point: “Leave your intellect at the door, and buy this piece of crap.”

When you extended an invitation to Ms. Coulter to appear on your program, I can only assume that your research team was on vacation. Were they doing their jobs, you would have been well-acquainted with some of her more quotable quotes:

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

Yes, there’s nothing like an invitation to violence, as long as that violence is directed at the people Ms. Coulter finds offensive.

Or perhaps your support staff somehow missed this little gem: “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

Or: “Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.”

Or yet again: “While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.”

I am a proud Liberal, sir, and I have yet to ‘give a cushion’ to anyone wanting to attack my fellow citizens. I believe in securing our borders, heightened security at our ports and nuclear facilities, putting an end to the outsourcing of American jobs and the plunging of our country ever deeper in debt for the sake of the bottom line of corporations, and waging wars in the Middle East based on lies that serve only to encourage terrorism against my nation and its citizens. If THAT can be construed as treachery and the undermining of American security, then I plead guilty as charged.

It is for these reasons that I have opposed the War In Iraq. But as Ms. Coulter has stated: “(Anti-war Democrats) know that the American people support defending America, unlike them. Their real feelings are coming out as much as they can right now, which is that they're desperately dying to provide aid and support to al-Qaeda."

Opposition to this war, in my humble but unheard opinion, does not constitute “aid and support to al-Qaeda”, an organization that promotes unfettered violence against those who do not agree with their extremist religious views. However, making a statement like …

“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too.”

… tends to lead one to believe that when it comes to inciting violence, Ann Coulter has no peer. And her call to death and violence against those who disagree with her ideology is equally straightforward, to whit:
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in (Supreme Court) Justice Stevens’ crème brulee."

Along with Ms. Coulter’s open-mindedness with respect to anyone who does not share HER religious views, we have:

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Now, if THAT doesn’t exemplify ‘religious extremism’, I can’t imagine what’s in second place.

Yes, sir, that’s your winning hearts and minds for you!

And let’s not forget Ms. Coulter’s incredible ‘support the troops’ style of compassion, amply displayed when she told a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war," or her sense of embracing the hard work of the immigrants who built this country when she said of journalist Helen Thomas, a woman of Syrian descent, that press passes must be easy to come by as the: "White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."

We have all heard Ms. Coulter’s ideas about her fellow citizens who are not of her ethnic background, her religious persuasion, her political views:

“I think the government should be spying on ALL Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

Yes, Mr. Dobbs, this is the charming, all-American girl whose book you blatantly promoted on your show this evening.

Now, some might say this is a matter of free speech, and Ms. Coulter – as hateful as she is – has a right to express her opinion. And I stand behind that notion one hundred percent.

The problem is that there is no ‘free speech’ concept at play when people like this are allowed to promote hatred, bigotry, and out-and-out violence against their fellow Americans WITHOUT the counter-balance of being called to account for their remarks.

It was not the fact that you had Ms. Coulter guesting on your show. It is the fact that you fawned over her as though she were promoting quilting bees, apple pie competitions, and peace through understanding the world over.

Let me pose one question, if I may: If I write a book advocating the poisoning of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, the forced conversion of Christians to Islam, the detaining of all conservatives at Guantanamo Bay, and suggest that Americans torturing their fellow human beings be the next ‘reality show’ to hit the airwaves, how soon will I be asked on your show? Will you display an enormous blow-up of the cover of my book as a backdrop? Will you allow me to speak, uninterrupted, about my personal views and opinions about those who disagree with me without having to support a single thing I say with incontrovertible facts?

Yeah, I think I already KNOW the answer to that one. And so do you.

So thanks for giving so much precious air-time to someone who thinks the widows of men killed on September 11th are publicity-hungry whores who are ‘enjoying’ the fact that their life’s partners died horrible deaths, and who ‘revel’ in the idea that their children are fatherless.

Well done, Mr. Dobbs. Well done.

Yours Most Sincerely,
Nancy Greggs (former viewer of The Lou Dobbs Show)

P.S. Just had to add that I love CNN’s newest soundbyte: “Keeping Them Honest”. By the way, who’s keeping YOU honest these days?

the illegal immigration issue and outsourcing, never forget who he really is. He is more like Ann Coulter than not. He wants those outsourced jobs saved and wages raised for the (white) middle class.

I saw Lou on the Montel Williams show, and noticed he seemed to be back peddling there, too.

But promoting Coulter's book takes it to a new level entirely.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...but the DU verdict was basically that Lou could not restrain himself from a slobbering worship of the scrawny hate-monger.

And as much as I appreciate you taking Dobbs to task, let's not forget that Matt Lauer closed out HIS interview...the one that started this current controversy...with "Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here..."

Say whatever you want about Lou Dobbs...I position Lauer much, much lower on the food chain. Lou may be a bigot, or xenophobe, or whatever people think he is...but Lauer is simply a friggin' IDIOT.





:patriot:

:thumbsup:

Woo-hoo! I love it!

:bounce: :woohoo: :bounce: :woohoo: :bounce:


:toast: :yourock:

Is that those of us who view the Constitution as the bedrock foundation of America regretfully must accept that the First Amendment guarantees that treasonous jackasses like Coulter are allowed to spit their corrosive ichor in the eyes of the national discourse, and make money doing so.

But Dobbs had a choice as to whether he wanted to aid and abet the nation's enemies by providing her yet another forum. He chose.

Well done.:toast:

Thats the difference between DUers and GOPers - we 'give' the fifth (rec) while they 'take' the 5th, so as not to incriminate themselves!

FUCKIN' A!!


I've found growing (and unexpected) respect for Mr. Dobbs as he has turned a clear eye on Republican incompetence these last awful seasons.

I had come to expect better of him than this. I believe watching the tape, he might wish better of himself.

"I believe watching the tape, he might wish better of himself."

GREAT WRITING!

It was like Lou turned into sean hannity for that interview. Made me mad too!

with hate crimes? If I talked like that at work I'd be fired.

I believe in free speech. But when it is 'free' to Ann Coulter while others are being silenced, there is something terribly wrong going on here, people.

....mail he's getting about the Coulter appearance.

to piss up a pipe.

Beautifully done, and very necessary.

Loud cheers.

"a wildly talented writer"?

:blush: :blush: :blush:

crafted sentences together and you slapped ol' Lou down. He deserved what he got, but probably isn't accustomed to getting it from such a talented writer.

"Wildly" for me is a strong, affirming compliment. As in, Wynton Marsalis is a wildly talented musician.

In short, I loved the letter, thought it was splendidly composed with brains & heart, and I add a thank you for telling Dobbs where to get off the train. Coddling facists like Coulter is unacceptable.

Bravo, Nance.

It is well known that she is a plagiarist, so some strange light was shone upon Dobbs

during this interview.

from Louie, or CNN, or anybody from his show.
I strongly suspect that we will be ice skating with raygun before that happens.

Fuck CNN and the MSM, fuck em all.

For those DUers that somehow hoped to expect better from Lou Dobbs, please read:

1- Lou Dobbs is a Republican, has always been, and for years has passionately argued in favor of any Republican measure ever passed. He was the Rush Limbaugh of economic news on CNN, and has been an ardent support of Bush until recently.

2- Lou Dobbs only recently started to give lip service about unions and the American worker. Don't be fooled: he is only doing it to morally justify his racist and xenophobic crusade against immigrants. About a year and a half ago Lou went off the deep end, and his show became a one-issue daily rant against immigration. He's running out of reasons to justify his racist xenophobia. But recently, Lou seems to have found a moral boon on the "interests of the American worker," and is using and abusing this issue like mad. Don't be fooled: Lou Dobbs is the type of guy that would advocate the imprisonment of unionists if it affected his bottom line.

3- Every now and then Lou Dobbs reverts to his bad old self, and reveals his true nature. This interview with Ann Coulter should serve as an eye opener to all those liberals who have fallen for Lou Dobbs new populist facade.

Don't be fooled: Lou Dobbs has always been a right-wing Republican, and he is today. Only recently he started bashing Bush and claiming to support workers' rights because it works for his anti-Mexican crusade. His criticism comes from the right, not from the left.

Beware.

Isn't it strange that the "liberal" media gives a person like Ann Coulter free reign to spew her hate and incite violence?

The idea that it is has been pretty well disproved, except with the people who find this urban myth useful.

We should "Hang Coulter round thier kneck till the can't stand the odor"

Anyhow, here's my love note to Lou...

"I was beginning to have some hope for you Lou...
You even made my daily news taping schedule for later viewing. But never more.

The way you treated Rhandi Rhodes was a discgrace-Laughing at her like a boys club in unison-Vulgar!. Degrading & not called for.The Democrats are NOT calling for a re-distribution of wealth. Merely equity in the taxation of working Americans.

The last VERY last straw was the Coulter interview....
Giving a hate merchant a voice is an error on your part. Letting her spew vitriol on your show was an error on your part. NOT HOLDING HER RESPONSIBLE FOR HER COMMENTS WAS THE LAST STRAW.

Your pretending to care about America for ratings Lou...You & the rest of Republicans only care about themselves.They don't respond to any please for reason or empathy & I have stopped watching YOU Mr. Dobbs. Your just a pandering Republican.

This is precisely why CNN, FOX and all other cable news networks are BLOCKED on my cable box!!

:argh: :argh: :argh:

1. She was virtually unknown prior to 9/11.
2. Her screed about Muslims (that got her fired) launched her current career.
3. Typical of anyone who is a caricature of themselves, Coulter must turn up the volume with every new encounter. Her volume is just about at maximum now.
4. Coulter's brand of neo-conservative hatred has lost its punch, and she knows it. She is losing her base, and she is repulsed by who she's become.
5. She is in the final stages of her flameout.

The problem is that there is no ‘free speech’ concept at play when people like this are allowed to promote hatred, bigotry, and out-and-out violence against their fellow Americans WITHOUT the counter-balance of being called to account for their remarks.

It was not the fact that you had Ms. Coulter guesting on your show. It is the fact that you fawned over her as though she were promoting quilting bees, apple pie competitions, and peace through understanding the world over.

:applause: :applause: :applause:


Why no one call this foul mouthed bigoted demon out is beyond me...but you said everything that needs to be said and I hope this get's read everywhere because it's so important to the continuence of any hope for civil dialog left in America. When Democrats are forced to constantly apologize for what they say are "mis-speaks" and yet this propaganda spewing vixon is promoted lauded all over the airwaves for hate and terrorist speak it reminds me of the McCarthy era when fear reigned because no one would speak out. To see that dark time return again is almost too much to bear.

to make these very points!!!

:applause:

K&R!! :kick:

:)

--IMM

I am printing this and taking it home for my scrapbook.

...being a rightwing hack.

Dobbs is not a conservative and proved this when he fawned all over Ann-the-Man while she spewed racism, hatred, and her usual bile without ANY liberal---Randi Rhodes would've been MY pick!---countering.

He is also to blame for promoting hatred against undocumented workers who have come because Republicans HATE spending money, be it in a fair wage, taxes, or even on REAL border control.

These money-greedy Americans are to blame for the so-called "broken borders" Dobbs froths about each and every effen day. THEY are the PROBLEM, not the undocumented workers.

Instead, Dobbie-boy attacks the symptoms, and promotes hatred against any undocumented, AND documented Latinos (to tiny-attention-span Americans there's no difference these days!) while offering no sensible solution other than repeating ad nauseum NO AMNESTY.

Hating amnesty so viciously for those that have come in illegally over our borders facilitated by greedy employers and tax-hating Americans is narrow-minded (a Republican trait) and just plain stupid.

Why? Because there is no alternative!

So, for those who don't want to issue a path to citizenship for those millions undocumented in our country already...what do you propose we do then?

Whether we like it or not (and I don't since I live in Southern California that has disproportionately the most undocumented AND documented Latinos of the nation), Americans must take responsibility for having 11 to 20 million undocumented workers already in America, and offer them the Bush plan to citizenship after we've finally secured the damned open borders!

Blaming the undocumented for mistakes we've made/allowed is shortsighted, bigoted, and childishly irresponsible and a throwback to the times when the Irish, the Jewish, the Italians, Chinese and above-all, the Blacks were blamed for all the bad things the elite showered on the ignorant American masses.

Lou Dobbs is NO conservative. He's a Tancredo-clone...with a cable show, and that's dangerous.

Here's the thing. Well, a number of things:

1. Ann Coulter is not a real person as we think of real persons. She is a female impersonator.
2. Ann Coulter is almost impossible to deal with because she interacts the way men interact (think, Ken Mehlman) while looking like a woman.
3. Ann Coulter thrives on being reviled.
4. Ann Coulter would die on the vine if people ignored her.

I understand your being out of patience with Lou Dobbs. I watched the show too. But I admired him for defanging Coulter. No, he didn't refute her insanities. Yes, they got along. But she was left with nowhere to go but to try to be charming. I did not think it was a bad tack for him to take. Had he done what you would have liked him to do, he would have come off as a strident male having his balls cut off by a skinny, blond witch. Not a good thing. I think he did the right thing.

I know it's next to impossible not to take the bait when Coulter says inflammatory things. But I would like to see people ignore her.

I keep thinking of Joe McCarthy on his last day when he was left shuffling papers as people finally turned their backs on him, refused to rise to his baiting and walked away from him. At that moment he was a broken man.

People treat Coulter as though she's a woman. She's not. She engages with the world in a thoroughly male, dispassionate, aggressive, analytical, way. She should be responded to in kind.

So...you may ask, why didn't Lou Dobbs respond to her man-to-man? I don't know. He chose another way. But what he refused to do was let himself be baited into bitch-slaps.

Joy Tomme
Ratbang Diary at: http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com

What I would have liked him to do was treat Coulter in the same way he would have treated me, had I written the books she has written and made the statements she has made. Nothing more - nothing less.

As I stated in my original post, were I to advocate the poisoning of a right-wing SC justice, the shipping of all conservatives to Gitmo, or the execution of Duke Cunningham as a lesson to Republicans that they, too, can be killed, I sincerely doubt that Mr. Dobbs -- or ANYONE ELSE, for that matter -- would invite me on their show to so blatantly advertize a book containing more of the same.

As for "defanging" her, Coulter stated that she and people like her have to retain bodyguards to protect themselves against "them" (liberals), while liberals are free to speak without having to do so.

Dobbs KNOWS that to be untrue; he KNOWS that liberals get death threats all the time -- threats that are promoted and advocated by Coulter's rhetoric. And yet, he allowed her to make the statement without challenge or comment.

And that is just ONE example of the 'journalistic integrity', or lack thereof, that was evident last night.

Based on your statements so far, you have stated that you:

Believe in securing our borders
Believe in heightened security at our ports and nuclear facilities
Believe in putting an end to the outsourcing of American jobs and the plunging of our country ever deeper in debt for the sake of the bottom line of corporations
Believe in waging wars in the Middle East based on lies that serve only to encourage terrorism against my nation and its citizens.

That actually CAN "be construed as treachery and the undermining of American security", when the last item is taken into account.

Might one suggest you either edit the original entry to be clear as to what you're actually trying to say or append a clarification? You're not helping anything by allowing the current language to stand, and only providing fodder for those who like to seize single statements made by someone and hold them up as an immutable indicator of that person's full belief structure, or worse, use such a glaring error to invalidate any valid points you may bring up. In such ways are arguments of substance swept under the table in favor of a very public setting up and knocking down of quite irrelevant positions which no bodies of reason tend to hold. And there's no reason your words should be so blatantly made susceptible to such tricks.

I believe in PUTTING AN END TO:

* the outsourcing of American jobs
* the plunging of our country ever deeper in debt
* waging wars in the Middle East based on lies

The only people who would parse what I've said in order to deliberately scew it into somehing else would have a far greater problem with my ideology than my sentence construction.

As for my words being "blatantly susceptible to tricks", everyone who speaks out against this president, this administration, and people like Ann Coulter are "susceptible" to having their statements twisted and their meaning misconstrued. And the people who do the 'twisting' don't require any assistance, real or imagined, in that regard.

Nance wrote:

"I am a proud Liberal, sir, and I have yet to ‘give a cushion’ to anyone wanting to attack my fellow citizens. I believe in securing our borders, heightened security at our ports and nuclear facilities, putting an end to the outsourcing of American jobs and the plunging of our country ever deeper in debt for the sake of the bottom line of corporations, and waging wars in the Middle East based on lies that serve only to encourage terrorism against my nation and its citizens. If THAT can be construed as treachery and the undermining of American security, then I plead guilty as charged."

"Putting an end to" applies to "waging wars in the Middle East based on lies that serve only to encourage terrorism against my nation and its citizens." That seemed clear to me.

Especially since the next paragraph begins, "It is for these reasons that I have opposed the War In Iraq."

And the next after that begins, "Opposition to this war, in my humble but unheard opinion, does not constitute “aid and support to al-Qaeda..."

What's the problem? :shrug:

The problem, such as it were, seems to only be in attempting to shoehorn too many ideas into a single sentence. I certainly understood the intent as y'all are describing, but here's the thing.

So the "I believe in" is to be applied to all subsequent clauses in the sentence.
...securing our borders...
Comma - meaning next clause
...heightened security...
Comma - next clause
...putting an end to...
Comma - next clause
And here's the rub: the rest of the sentence is all part of the "...putting an end to" clause. But since the structure of the sentence up to this point has been "commas indicate the next clause to which to apply the "prefix", there's now a disconnect. As it's standard usage to use "and" to indicate the final clause, and given that the use of "and" here is in opposition to that interpretation, it should be evident where the potential for going astray lies. Unfortunately the poor comma is inadequate to indicate your intent.

Of course the meaning is clear. Most of the folk who read this are more or less aligned with the ideologies and beliefs expressed. But this letter wasn't (ostensibly) written for this audience, nor even for a friendly audience. It was written to a public figure, who may not be so disposed to make assumptions about the intended meaning. And reading over the letter from my best attempt at throwing myself into that mindset yielded this usage error we're currently on about. If it jumps out at me, I would presume it would also stick out for others (although that belief may well be more tied to my own belief that those in the media are better versed in English usage than the average citizen, and that belief in turn may well be completely void of crunchy bits of veracity).

Does it make any sense in the context of the entire letter to mis-interpret? Of course not, but that's not at all the point. Will those nit-picking have more issues with what they assume is the backing ideology than with the sentence structure? Almost certainly, but again not the point. Letters to public figures, media outlets and personalities are held to a higher standard than that applied to casual conversation or messages betweeen members of a group who share commonality. Any "disconnects" cause the message to run a much greater risk of being lost in the structural flaws. It happens too bloody often, and it's beyond time those of us who are tired of the rantbags and neocons realize that logic and grammar are not the tools of the enemy, and therefore to be avoided in some sort of, I dunno, expression of solidarity against "the Establishment". We're more than capable of wielding these tools as weapons, and the only counter to the spew is to call 'em out on their ill-informed opinions presented as facts, poor contextual interpretation of facts, tendencies to confuse "fact" with "truth", and similar tricks. While we don't have (yet) voices able to drown out the high-volume existing outlets, that's changing, and will continue to change for the better and in our favor if we don't do anything to shoot ourselves in the metaphorical foot.

We've all (another assumption and generalization, but one I feel safe making here) seen how folks can (and will, if allowed) seize on a grammatical error or spelling errors or similar and use those in an attempt to minimize the credibility of the author(s). It would be truly a loss if this beautiful letter were casually and (arguably) callously discounted in such a manner. So few people seem able to respond to Coulter without becoming so emotionally fired up they forgo logic in favor of ad hominem counterattacks that generally come across as childish or churlish. I was so glad to see an author who DIDN'T fall into that trap, I felt I had to pick at the only structural flaw I saw which might lead to unwanted discounting of a necessary message.

Anywho, this is already way too many words spent on a simple criticism of the structure of a single large compound sentence. For the record - since some of the comments following mine seemed almost antagonistic (which I don't at all comprehend, but that's neither here nor there) and of an "oh yeah?" nature - I am not at all in disagreement with the thrust or intent (as I am able to see it) of this letter. I hope Dobbs has the cojones to respond; I hope this site and the folk on it keep on keeping on for a very long time; I'm glad to (now) be a (quite small) part of things myself; I'm glad I found the site; I hope to see y'all around the forums and I hope everybody has a fantastic weekend!

We now return you to (one sincerely hopes - see how much hope I have?) the arguments of real substance!

... about my message being mis-read, or misconstrued.

This message was intended for (and sent) to Lou Dobbs. The man may have his faults, but stupidity is not one of them. I doubt that he would have attached the wrong meaning to my statements.

I have often had my articles and letters published on 'freeper-type' websites, and believe me, no one is parsing my words in an attempt to suggest that I meant to convey anything other than what was clearly said. The most cogent 'freeper' response to my writing is almost invariably "Fuck you, Nancy" - a phrase that, considering its source, I consider to be a badge of honour.

As I stated earlier, people who would deliberately pounce on what 'might' or 'could possibly be' a statement that could be misconstrued, when taken out of context, are not restricted by mere commas. They will do what they will, regardless of structure or intent.

Also, the people most likely to twist words are the same people who have been adoringly hanging on every word ever uttered by their fearless leader. If they choose to misunderestimate me while I put food on my family, let them!

So relax. I have no fear of being misunderstood here, or elsewhere. As for having my statements twisted or misrepresented anywhere -- well, quite frankly, I'm just NOT important enough to be targeted in that way.

The reactions you got from others here, which you deemed to be 'antagonistic', are simply part of being the DU family. Had you criticized one of my fellow DUers' posts in the same way, I would have pounced on you, too! It's not meant to be uninviting; it is merely a reaction we all have when someone gets nit-picky when there is a much bigger picture to be looked at.

This comes belatedly, but:

Welcome to DU!!! :hi:

I'm an epistemologist by nature, which I offer as context to help (myself) understand why I chose such a nit to pick as a first post. Honestly, it's what grabbed me the most out of all of the front page items I had to catch up on (I had fallen behind in my lurking) and before I could stop them my fingers had registered and generated lots of letters in a row!

All of your points are well taken and acknowledged; it's funny, all night I kept wanting to get back to a computer to correct a horrid mistake I had made: projecting motivations into the words of others on first contact. One must, I apparently forgot, always re-read anything and think, think, think before sending words out. Prescribe them if you need to, but never speak in haste. And here I was using my first posts to indirectly air my apprehensiveness at wading into things. Sigh. I offer apologies for that to alla y'all - that was just...I'm sorry for that. I'd be just as protective, and I thank you for the gentle explanation.

See, this is why I wanted to jump into this community and wade around - there's a core of honest, thinking and caring folk who really love this country who refuse to remain silent...what a treasured experience given the tone of the conversation at so many other venues. Refuge.

Thanks, keep it up (well, duh), and it's good to finally be on board!

<insert clever sig here>

"There's a core of honest, thinking and caring folk who really love this country who refuse to remain silent...what a treasured experience."

Again, welcome to the DU family!

:toast:

I thought that "interview" was appalling. Shame on Lou Dobbs.

See the link to "The Conservative Voice" here: http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/06/annie-hates.html

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

but I don't have enough posts. (You'd think they'd drop the required number when you donate--consider that a suggestion.... ;-> ). So here's another post to add to my number. Sorry it doesn't say much. I have nothing to add besides "yes, Yes, YES!!!!"

... and welcome to DU!

:hi:

But then, K & R'ing one of your posts is never a burden :thumbsup:

because he is a conservative and only wants everyone on his side when it comes to immigration because he believes it effects everyone.

Some who listen to dobbs didn't begin watching him until lately, I have watched him before now and I always watch how when he is discussing some problem that really is the republicons fault he always find away to blame the dems, no matter what the problem is.

A virtuoso performance.

You do the writing I wish I could do. Fair and balanced, one might say. I wouldn't count out the appearance on Dobbs. By the time you finish your book, Dobbs will be having progressives on by the boatload, I'll wager. Although if the market economy works the way it has for the past few decades, Dobbs will probably lose his job as the country swings left. Which I would not applaud, because I want to see the people who have committed the media crimes against humanity be forced by economics to change with the times, and the times they are a-changing.

Again, I applaud you. Please keep writing; it is among the absolute best DU has to offer.

I doubt he'll reply tho. How could he?

he looked and sounded as though he was afraid of her.

... and that's what caused the look of fear.

I saw that segment of Lou Dobbs too, and I must say that I was disappointed in why Lou didn't have his choppers in his mouth on that day. I'm usually prepared to see a man that has done his homework on a guest, and we the viewers be entertained with a hearty debate on a subject. That segment was like two people getting together to discuss the weather over coffee!:wtf:

I just wonder if they're (CNN) worried that she may not wish to appear on the show again if they get her to pissed; well I say, "Damn the torpedoes! Go for it!"

Your piece was well written! I remember my father having me type up a letter for him concerning the time when Larry King took the same route with Bob Woodward.:eyes:

But I wouldn't worry about Ann too much--people like her find a way to stand over their own grave and voluntarily jump in. ;)

a deft blast at his poor judgment for allowing Ann Coulter to blather and slander people on his program.

I've already recommended this and would do it again if the software would let me.

I hope someone on Lou's staff at CNN gets a good long look at this letter and I hope it's the topic of conversation over lunch on Monday.

Nance, you rock.