A More Subtle Take on the Dobbs Interview With You-Know-Who.

So, I finally got to see Lou Dobbs' interview with Ann Coulter, And in it, Mr. Dobbs maintains his usual manner; Polite and subtle. Perhaps slightly more so. My distaste for Coulter had little bearing on that observation.

Subtle, polite, and charming individuals may be very different in manner from myself, but I do know when they're making strong statements.

I found that he did challenge her. And with the many demanding and rancorous pre-show emails about Coulter fresh in his mind, he incorporated those attacks into some of his questioning as well.

Dobbs challenges the loftiness of Coulter's efforts: "What if I said to you, though, I think that you're marketing books with some of these outrageous remarks "

When Coulter claims she is the "right-wing Mark Twain" Dobbs responds, "I will let you define yourself, obviously..." That is, in my experience, a strong disagreement at its most refined. Even a bit "bitchy".

Dobbs states "We have such important issues here." and goes on to bemoan that "we have to go through the attacks and we have to go through the rancor." (Challenging Coulter, as well as the left.)

Dobbs expresses his view that both sides are mean-spirited and this exchange follows:

COULTER: You really can't say both sides. That is simply -- yes, but it is not true.

DOBBS: Well, I just did. Watch me. I'm going to say it again. I think both the left and the right are mean-spirited.

Dobbs closes with "The book is "Godless," and it's already number one. And if you're liberal, you ought to read it. It's kind of fun. If you're conservative, you already know what's in it. No, have I messed up your marketing? I said it."

Dobbs says "The book is Godless", not "The book is called Godless" And here, perhaps I'm reading too much into it. (some will say I'm reading a great deal into the interview, but such is the case when discussing subtlety.)

Even with a back-screen projection of the tainted Coulter tome mouldering in the background, Mr. Dobbs had in essence just told us that her book is basically worthless.

After all the emails prior to the Coulter appearance, he knows full well it would not be "fun" to read for liberals. And for Conservatives, he implied that it's the "same old, same old."
A double-dig. Or was it a triple-play?

Mr. Dobbs expressed some other views that I more or less disagreed with in the interview, but I'm always very aware of the fact that I'm not listening to my favorite, Randi Rhodes when tuned in to Dobbs. :-)

My disappointment in the interview was that Dobbs let his feelings over the pre-Coulter interview email attacks influence the course of the discussion. And yet I've come away still not entirely certain of how he personally feels about Coulter's statements regarding the women who lost their husbands in the attacks of 9/11.

Mr. Dobbs' style is polite, subtle and gentlemanly, and I never expected him to bat-around Coulter in the manner of an O'Reilly. But while Dobbs made his feelings known about the book, I was expecting some stronger statement about the comment that set off Coulter's latest PR barrage. If one can still access a sense of decency, it would appear to be a given that her statement is pretty damn ugly. And that may be the point.

Despite Coulters' claim that the left inoculates itself from discussions of 9/11 when widows choose to become activists, she's never actually challenged her own theory to prove it. It exists in the netherworld of assumptions Coulter makes when defining liberals for what seems to be her own partisan and economic benefit. Coulter even attempts to define Lou Dobbs twice in the interview, and interrupts him eight times as he attempts to formulate questions, which on one occasion made it somewhat difficult for me to know exactly what Dobbs was intending to ask.

And as usual, Coulter ascribes the right-wing modus operandi to Liberals. Who can ever forget the cries of "9/11!" or, "You're as bad as the terrorists!" that greeted questions about Bush's impending invasion of Iraq?

It would have been good to hear Dobbs say "Well, let's test your premise. What would you like to say about the issues that the Jersey Girls raise?"

Chances are excellent that there are a great deal more researched and factual responses to anything she might say. I've yet to hear or read of anyone responding with "You're mean!" as Coulter claims we all do in the 9/11 discussion.

Her statement stands on it's own for what it is when she attacks the widows. My response is actually "You're seriously messed-up in the head!" But I would have a very different response to any actual and sincere questions about 9/11 itself. Coulter simply wishes to derail the discussion altogether. She never actually begins one at all. And that's where she wants it to remain.

Here is a transcript of the interview:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/08/ldt.01.html

Lou Dobbs stance on migrant labor is "Godless". Dont' watch him anymore and won't watch him anymore. A friend of mine oredered one of those mail order brides from Costa Rica, Ok, not the best way to get married, but heh.....this gut is no charmer either.....Because he didn't
meet the required time in her country for Immigration to believe it was a "real" marriage (he never went to Costa Rica, did it all over the Internet), she was arrested at his home 4 months after they got married and was deported back to Costa Rica 7 weeks later. It cost him $10,000 to get her here....and now to get her back he has to start all over again, plus take 30 days of vacation time "getting to know her family" in Costa Rica, plus pay her marriage counselor another fee, just to make it all look real!!!! Lou Dobbs sucks!!!

That's swell.

Yes, Lou Dobbs does have some stinky ideas about illegal immigration, I agree.

Now what about the post at hand?

If George Bush rolled out 4 widowed wives from 9-11 who demanded to know why Bill Clinton hadn't done something to prevent 9-11, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder. This is all a tempest in a teapot. In comparison to the total viewing audience, overall, in this country, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aren't squat. Another reason I quit watching cable pundits......they screech and scream and the vast majority of Americans are watching re-runs of Doogie Houser....or his
real time equilivant.....so what???? Lou Dobbs stance on migrant labor is still racist....period!

I'm not sure if your argument is a straw man. Can someone elucidate?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060006

Although Coulter also criticized 9-11 widows for "cutting commercials" for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) during his 2004 presidential campaign against Bush, Lauer failed to note that other 9-11 widows made campaign appearances for Bush. As Newsday reported September 25, 2004:

t the Republican National Convention, Debra Burlingame, whose brother piloted the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was one of three women who spoke in highly personal terms of their loss. She told the Associated Press yesterday she, too, was willing to make campaign appearances for Bush to outline her differences with the pro-Kerry families. "They want people fired, and I think we've moved on from that," she said."

widowed wives from 9-11 campaigning for bush I doubt ANY of us would accuse the widows of enjoying their husbands deaths or call them Jersey bitches as Coulter did these widows.

Maybe it's a substitute for the "b" word.

She's also referred to them as "broads", lending her sadism a Damon Runyon touch.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, jbnow. Especially your thoughts on Dobbs expressed further down-thread.

frigging campaign ads in 2004. Wonder why Coultergeist and her apologists never remember that?

Remember the one where the little girl, who lost her mother in the WTC, wanted Chucklenuts "to keep her safe." Pure whoring of a tragic child but you didn't hear the left calling anyone godless.

And, yes, Dobbs is a racist. He can pretty it up under national security, calm, "reasoned" speech, and endless claims that we are under attack (code words for the reichwing faithful) by allowing illegal immigrants free reign over our country. To me he is just another pseudo victimized white man trying to protect his own domination of the country. He is scared sh*tless that them foreigners are going to be the majority some day.

That said, I'm not saying all people who are against illegal immigration are like Dobbs - it is just that Dobbs has a national forum to pretend he is "furthering" the debate when he routinely skews the discussion and his lame ass polls.

So now that he's paid so much for his woman, what happens if she decides the marriage isn't working for her or she wants out? Is he going to be willing to take a loss on his "investment?"

it's also prostitution and ought to be illegal.

Not to mention that your friend ought to try and win over a lady by his own charms, not buy one like chattel.

And yet she is marketing it with some of the nastiest remarks ever printed. Wow, how unChristlike,lol

shutting down discussion, deflecting attention, getting everyone in an uproar, and fueling her torrid, whirlwind nights with plenty of cash.

As Dobbs appears to point out, this book is the same as her other books.

You make a salient point in that Ms. Coulter does not even attend the church to which she is registered. I wonder if she even tithes?

"The basis of the Republican Party is lower taxes, protect life, defend the country. That's it..."

Here's a telling line from Lou, too:

DOBBS: I'm still working on the Mark Twain and the H.L. Mencken. Ann Coulter, thank you.

He's not buying. Although, I didn't like the mean-spirited liberal cant university thing much.

I may have to write him and explain the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

K&R.

It's not quite like the old days. I'm biased of course, but I think part of why Universities are often academically leaning toward the left goes back to the whole "reality based" study. And then there's "right-Winger" Stephen Colbert's comment "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."

And some Universities are all too happy to accept Corporate cash to bolster the views of right-wing corporatists, even at the expense of the full truth.

Patsy, Have you written to the Dobbs show yet to encourage him to fully pursue an investigation of our election system in the US? :loveya:

I would ask that everyone so inclined write to the Lou Dobbs Show and ask that he continue to investigate all machine voting in this country. The show has just begun a study.

I imagine that the show has already received enough emails expounding upon the "skank-level of bitch" within which Ann resides.

implies she's warm-blooded. :hi:

I haven't yet written to him, but I did just send one off The Miami Herald (good for wrapping fish) about the wonderful plan to make it more difficult to test the infernal machines.

Lou is definitely worthy of the letter, because it seems he wants to learn, and if he's questioning it, then his audience will learn too.

Off to watch Keith! :loveya:

care for Ms. Coulter or our current administration.

Here we go:

"Probably in part because Lou doesn't appear to much
care for Ms. Coulter or our current administration."

And he's a gentleman. Maybe that's why, I dunno.

not unusual

as the Daily Prophet has given that title to another. You-Know-Who gives her too much power and she should always be named so that the remarks she casts may always be tied to her and her "followers" in the future. Those remarks shall live as a testament to her lack of character and inhumanity.

about this one. Suffice it to say, when Ann Coulter speaks, all I ever hear is a long string of non sequiturs and ad hominem. So, it is really impossible to have an interview with her and to glean anything meaningful from the exchange. Since she has come out in the open, full-bore mean-spirited, I think she is fair game for public ridicule.

'interview' is in a VERY small minority

my interpretation of what I could stand to see, without all the fancy trimmings of the OP, is that he has a HUGE, Seven Year Itch-type, boneroo for her

very icky, Tweety-esque manner displayed by Dobbs

but, then, what do I know?

Because I really do not know what you are talking about. I've done a few drive-by posts, leaving the Succubus pic behind, but I am not familiar with the current debates.

he seemed to be coming on to her (that's too strong a characterization, but I was creeped out by how solicitous he was)

as for other reactions, there are way too many threads in which utter outrage was almost completely uniformly expressed at her mendacious, obnoxious, vicious sputa

if I see any linx, I'll repro them here

that way. He is even sweeter to Randi.

The "gentleman" hat is donned with women. He hardly ever talks to them in his angry, disdainful voice (not even when it's a woman who opposes his views on immigration). His tone changes, he is a bit solicitous, more politely respectful even when disagreeing.

my reservations about doing so, I did it anyway.

Tweety is an absolute dimwit in comparison. Half the time I'm pretty sure Tweety isn't even sure of what Tweety is doing.

Thank you for pointing out the very thing that made me think twice about this post, it's as if you read my mind.

I know that we disagree, and I do respect you. I may one day see Dobbs as you do, but in six years It still hasn't happened. Maybe I'm blind. We'll see. :hi:

subtle doesn't get it for most of the slugs who consume this media content, way I see it.

you could be right, but Dobbs doesn't strike me as the type to play it that way, and is usually anything but subtle in his pronouncements, whether he's going after the junta for its obvious predation on the working class, or taking on the immigration conundrum, which, as everyone knows, is his chief prediliction.

many other examples of his tendentiousness abound (Dubai: "They're trying to SILENCE me!!"), but I'm not in the mood to delve any deeper, cause I'm as shallow as they come.
lazy, too, like most of those tax avoiding wetbacks

the thing that infuriates me the MOST about every single interview I've seen with her is that nobody has called her on the obvious lie WRT the Jersey girls'/libs insistence on their "infallible" position: that nobody DARE question their position. that's TOTAL BS, cause they've been excoritated from the very moment they finally realized what a snowjob was being perpetrated, and started to DO something about it. can't believe nobody has called her on that (including every 'leftwing' commentator I've heard/seen/read), and it really angers me. I'm sure somebody's brought it up, but I haven't seen it yet

EDIT: couldn't agree more w/Tweety assessment. at least Dobbs stands for something. that slobbering puswort is beneath contempt. should have seen him today, talking about her with his three toadies.


and thanks for not jumping down my throat, like so many other antsy pants around here (including myself, most of the time)

I wrapped up the OP with that idea.

It would seem to be the first thing an interviewer would question.
And it would be best to test that notion of the Jersey Girls as "Human Shields" with a panel present. The whole point of coulter's premise is to not discuss the issue at all, and that it's the "liberals'" fault that any actual discussion is made to be impossible.

She's saying discussion is impossible, that it simply can't be done.

Ann is something of a pre-emptive strike.

My theory is that they don't want to discuss the details because getting to what happened on 9/11 and before would make a Republican majority or presidency impossible for years to come.

(You probably should have put :sarcasm: next to the offensive "wetback" comment.) I hope Dobbs has never used that slur. I don't recall ever hearing it on his program. And of course, taxes are paid in most instances.

She should always serve as a reminder to discuss that which she attempts to obfuscate,

there is another thread around here that gets that point just right.

I'll go fetch it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1394016

We are not getting the truth about 9/11, and we need a truly independent commission to look into it. probably more than one.

so why should anyone interviewing her even attempt to be?

The only way to deal with Coulter is to either totally ignore her, which won't happen, or to go after her with equal passion.

"You're mean!" Damn straight we are.

We are mean when dealing with the likes of a no talent twit who is making millions being the spokesperson for hate, divisiveness and American totalitarianism.

Ann Coulter gets away with what she does because no one she identifies with really calls her on it. Rahm Emmanuel threw down the gauntlet and demanded that Repugs denounce her. We shall see.

We need to call each and every one of them on it if they don't.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I think anyone who finally nails Ann will do it through the back door. One almost has to be as sick as she is. Or, an improv actor with a background in psychology. Is it so different? :evilgrin:

Maybe Stephen Colbert is up to the challenge?

Having another guest on to give an opposing view and to expose her lies and half truths would prove what I suggest.

She and Dobbs both know that. That is why there was no one to give an opposing view on the show.

In gambling terminology it is known as a stacked deck.

Don

that I think most people have a difficult time dealing with her when face-to-face. Even when in a group. Over the years I've seen her steamroll many a questioner with a practiced brand of serious nuttiness.

light-weight Matt Lauer wasn't even going to approach it, signing off by telling her she's always fun. Perhaps he feared he'd find his children's pet rabbit stewing in a pot if he didn't.

Come to think of it, Bill Maher has done pretty well in countering Coulter. I recall he even called her a fascist in a rather nimble way on one of the very last episodes of his network show.

Dobbs often has one-on-one with authors promoting books.

Michael Moore was one-on-one with Dobbs when promoting a movie.

I do have a criticism for Dobbs in that I believe he may have let his emotions over the demanding and abusive emails affect his journalistic professionalism.

But what happened, happened. He was handed the "mean-spirited left" argument he promoted in the interview mere hours prior to the event.

I may be wrong about Dobbs, I will give you that.

I appreciate hearing your take on it.

more than the other. Be fair. Admit you are admirers of both.

I think there's more evidence to make the case for one assumption over the other.

They are both slime, and trying to tout Dobbs as a "subtle" critic when he panders to and promotes that opportunist psychopath is self-deceptive at best. But trying to elevate that inteview into something other than an utterly depraved promotion of a professional whore, elevates both participants. This may not have been your intention, but it was my reading of the "whole" post.

We have different points of view on the matter.

And I disagree with your spelling of "masturbation", as well. Not that I don't also make mistakes both in my spelling, and in my judgment.

In fact, I almost now misspelled "judgement". :-)

I just don't regard either of those players as anything remotely honorable. I saw it (and I saw it) as two of the same type pleasuring each other. Nothing honest on either side. (And I should use spell check more often.)

Many of your observations were mine also. I said so in another thread and was scolded. It was a well-rehearsed interview and he would not allow it to become an (expected) unintelligible scream-fest. She knew this beforehand and what to expect from him... that he would control the conversation and, in my opinion, he did so rather cleverly. He allowed her to rant with little interruption. She thrives on interruption, and I think this confused her. In the closing shot she looked bewildered as if she was wondering what the hell just happened and if she'd just bared her bottom. She had... and I think Lou carefully guided her panties down around her ankles.

(I just had to sidestep that troubling imagery.:-))

I came away from the interview with the clear realization that Dobbs finds her book to be beneficial to no one who is seriously concerned with the issues our nation is now facing.

I've stayed out of all the debate here on it, but I was left with the same impression you were.

At last someone who can calmly speak about the interview! My husband and I both watched and felt Mr Dobbs held his cool and was overly polite. He seems to do this with most of his very controlversal guests. I may not always agree with him, but I find him one of the best as far as covering the issues.

that made me stop watching. I appreciate hearing your take on the interview though. I didn't watch it and won't watch him again.