PDA

View Full Version : Lou Dobbs... Help




PlaytoWin
12-26-2007, 07:47 PM
Folks,

After watching his show on a regular basis and having recently read his newest book, I cannot figure out why he has not endorsed Ron Paul. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. His book Day of Reckoning is almost identical to the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. If these guys preach it on the airwaves and write multiple books espousing these views, why will they not endorse the one candidate that CLEARLY represents their political ideology? Help because it is driving me crazy!!

ronpaulfan
12-26-2007, 07:48 PM
"A lot of people think like you. I dare not say I'm one of them"

- Chris Matthews

ctb619
12-26-2007, 07:50 PM
Lou Dobbs disagrees with Ron Paul on a lot of issues.

JenaS62
12-26-2007, 07:50 PM
Folks,

After watching his show on a regular basis and having recently read his newest book, I cannot figure out why he has not endorsed Ron Paul. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. His book Day of Reckoning is almost identical to the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. If these guys preach it on the airwaves and write multiple books espousing these views, why will they not endorse the one candidate that CLEARLY represents their political ideology? Help because it is driving me crazy!!


I've wondered the same. And I have heard independents calling in to Lou Dobbs and proudly stating that they have registered as independents and that they are looking for a candidate to support.

IChooseLiberty
12-26-2007, 07:55 PM
I think Lou Dobb's life would become very difficult if he were to do that... He can't endorse RP. Who do you think he works for?

Teenforpaul08
12-26-2007, 07:58 PM
I think Lou Dobb's life would become very difficult if he were to do that... He can't endorse RP. Who do you think he works for?

Time Warner.

wgadget
12-26-2007, 08:00 PM
And I thought he was considering his own presidential run?

garrettwombat
12-26-2007, 08:05 PM
And I thought he was considering his own presidential run?

that was a long time ago, he said he wasnt going to

me3
12-26-2007, 08:31 PM
Folks,

After watching his show on a regular basis and having recently read his newest book, I cannot figure out why he has not endorsed Ron Paul. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. His book Day of Reckoning is almost identical to the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. If these guys preach it on the airwaves and write multiple books espousing these views, why will they not endorse the one candidate that CLEARLY represents their political ideology? Help because it is driving me crazy!!
It's not his place to endorse candidates. Get over it. Your endorsement carries more weight. Stop putting these media personalities on a pedestal. This is a people movement, not a celebrity movement. YOU ARE THE STAR.

Spike
12-26-2007, 08:35 PM
These newscasters are not independent. They show glimpses of independent thought once in a while but they stay in the box for the most part.

Dave Pedersen
12-26-2007, 08:36 PM
It is more effective for people to become convinced of the rightness of an issue and be left free to match it up with Ron Paul on their own. People don't want to be told who to vote for they want to "discover" the right candidate for themselves. Their support then becomes an expression of themselves.

angelatc
12-26-2007, 08:44 PM
Folks,

After watching his show on a regular basis and having recently read his newest book, I cannot figure out why he has not endorsed Ron Paul. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. His book Day of Reckoning is almost identical to the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. If these guys preach it on the airwaves and write multiple books espousing these views, why will they not endorse the one candidate that CLEARLY represents their political ideology? Help because it is driving me crazy!!

Lou Dobbs does not share the same idology. Look at him talk about lead tiys from Communist China. He wants every single toy inspected by the government. He also supports a national ID card.

Nathan Hale
12-26-2007, 09:15 PM
I think Lou Dobb's life would become very difficult if he were to do that... He can't endorse RP. Who do you think he works for?

He won't endorse a candidate for the same reason Buchanan won't, and it has nothing to do with their employer and everything to do with their profession. Both are opinionators in the news media. Endorsing a candidate cripples their impartiality and thus insight into the field in which they are supposed to have the greatest insight. It happens occasionally, but usually when it's obvious (such as with Tucker Carlson) or at the end of the race.

chiplitfam
12-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Good Insight. Cowards they are.

Nathan Hale
12-27-2007, 07:24 PM
Good Insight. Cowards they are.

They're not cowards, they're trying to remain impartial.

richk
12-27-2007, 07:33 PM
They talk the talk , and it ends there. All long as you tune in, they're happy with the status quo. WTF, you really believe any pundit would put principle ahead of money? Doubtful. Why risk it? :(

Hell, just take a look at the Cato Institute. If ANYONE should be endorsing and promoting Paul, it should be them. Fact is, all of them are frauds when it comes to taking a true stand. They ARE cowards, as someone mentioned in a previous post.

Let Paul win a few primaries, and watch in come out in droves. :mad:

haaaylee
12-27-2007, 07:50 PM
he supports national id cards but yells about the NAU? really?

anyways, it's good he doesn't endorse anyone. same with all of them. we want them to endorse ron because we love ron, but we hate when FOX news endorses giuliani every three seconds. or when someone talks about liking huckabee. we throw a fucking fit. it's their job to be impartial, to just deliver facts and not try to make us lean one way or the other. congrats to lou for that. i wish more news anchors were like that.


it's best, like pat does, to just deliver the same message as ron (for the most part) versus throwing out the candidate's name. i'd rather be bombarded with ron's foreign policy stand point than with ron's name. and eventually i'd understand it and figure out that one of those people is running for president.

jd603
12-27-2007, 08:37 PM
Yes, and to dig even deeper, Ted Turner is for a one world government (globalist).




Time Warner.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-27-2007, 08:39 PM
Lou Dobbs is a big protectionist, whereas Ron Paul is gung ho free trade/laissez faire economics.

Nathan Hale
12-28-2007, 08:09 PM
They talk the talk , and it ends there. All long as you tune in, they're happy with the status quo. WTF, you really believe any pundit would put principle ahead of money? Doubtful. Why risk it? :(

it's not about that. Pundits offer opinions all the time, but their opinions are supposed to be offered within the context of analysis. That's why many pundits will come out and say "Ron Paul was awesome at the debate" or "Ron Paul gave a great speech on that issue", but they won't endorse him. Endorsement compromises ones impartiality. there's nothing wrong with this approach.


Hell, just take a look at the Cato Institute. If ANYONE should be endorsing and promoting Paul, it should be them. Fact is, all of them are frauds when it comes to taking a true stand. They ARE cowards, as someone mentioned in a previous post.

Cato can't endorse presidential candidates without changing their tax status.


Let Paul win a few primaries, and watch in come out in droves. :mad:
Chill out. The world doesn't revolve around everyone speaking their mind as loudly as possible (and this restraint is a good thing).

parke
12-28-2007, 08:13 PM
Im a longtime fan of Lou. Bought his book. Believed what he said on his show everyday.

Then he didnt support Ron Paul. So hey LOU!!!

Ive emailed you a bunch of times in the past 8 years or so. You can kiss MY ASS!!!

Ron Paul is the best thing to hit America since its creation. We are lucky to have someone that CAN GET US OUT OF THIS MESS.

Please repeat after me:

-no other candidate will RESTORE OUR RIGHTS
-no other candidate will END THIS WAR
-no other candidate will SAVE OUR DOLLAR

Sorry lou.. Im pissed at you.

videogeek
12-28-2007, 08:42 PM
Dobbs is a big time trade protectionist, practically the antithesis to the Austrian school economics of Ron Paul. They might both be against NAFTA, but instead of being against it to "protect" American jobs like Dobbs, RP is against it because it's one more example of government creating an unjust burden on consenting adults entering into contract. Dobbs is also a huge nanny stater. There's no way he'd endorse a free thinker like RP. It's a good thing, too. IMO, endorsements aren't a good thing for any campaign. There are always just as many people who can't stand the endorser as there are people who will listen to him or her.

Johncjackson
12-28-2007, 09:31 PM
My opinion is that Lou Dobbs is a protectionist-socialist, like a lot of Democrats in the midwest ( or other areas with heavily unionized obsolete jobs/industries). About the only thing they agree on with conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist Republicans is immigration. And only to some extent on that and (hopefully) not for the same reasons.

JMO
12-28-2007, 09:38 PM
Pat Buchanon has said because of his job he won't be endorsing any candidate, so you can quit asking because he won't be doing it unless he quits being a political analyst.

Minuteman2008
12-28-2007, 09:56 PM
Folks,

After watching his show on a regular basis and having recently read his newest book, I cannot figure out why he has not endorsed Ron Paul. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. His book Day of Reckoning is almost identical to the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. If these guys preach it on the airwaves and write multiple books espousing these views, why will they not endorse the one candidate that CLEARLY represents their political ideology? Help because it is driving me crazy!!

I read Day of Reckoning, and have read part of Independents Day (got it for Christmas).

I sort of agree, and sort of disagree.

As far as Pat Buchanan, he agrees completely with Ron Paul on foreign policy, but after that they part ways. Both disagree with WTO, NAFTA etc. but for different reasons apparently. Buchanan sees us dismantling our manufacturing base that helped us win WWII and China using excess trade dollars to buy up infrastructure but Paul apparently only opposes these trade agreements because they aren't free enough. Buchanan calls free trade "faith based" and disastrous for the nation, while I don't think Paul believes that.

Buchanan calls what is happening on our southern border with illegal immigration more important than anything happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Paul doesn't believe in rewarding illegal immigration, but I don't believe he sees the same long term threat that Pat Buchanan does. Buchanan also wants to lower legal immigration to traditional levels, while Paul, I believe, wants to increase it. Buchanan believes we're devolving into a balkanized, multilingual "tower of Babel" while Paul, I believe, does not concern himself with such things.

Buchanan is the ultimate paleoconservative, while Paul has more of a libertarian stance. Which is why I don't believe Buchanan could ever truly endorse Ron Paul, though I believe Paul is at least closer than any other candidates, save Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, to Buchanan than the most.

Dobbs would severely disagree with Ron Paul on trade, I believe. I would think Dobbs is closer to Buchanan on a lot of issues than he is to Ron Paul.

Also, I believe that Paul can't afford to alienate the base of his support, which is libertarians, Democrats, and young people voting for the first time. This group of people don't necessarily have the paleoconservative view on immigration and trade, so I don't see Paul really playing up those attributes. He'll stick to being an anti-war candidate, and that won't attract Dobbs as a supporter necessarily.

Minuteman2008
12-28-2007, 10:03 PM
Dobbs is a big time trade protectionist, practically the antithesis to the Austrian school economics of Ron Paul. They might both be against NAFTA, but instead of being against it to "protect" American jobs like Dobbs, RP is against it because it's one more example of government creating an unjust burden on consenting adults entering into contract. Dobbs is also a huge nanny stater. There's no way he'd endorse a free thinker like RP. It's a good thing, too. IMO, endorsements aren't a good thing for any campaign. There are always just as many people who can't stand the endorser as there are people who will listen to him or her.


If you think Dobbs is a trade protectionist, you need to read Day of Reckoning by Buchanan. He completely dismantles Milton Friedman and supporters as "faith based ideologues" and "flat Earthers". Dobbs isn't even as angry as Buchanan at where the nation is headed (in his opinion).

Buchanan calls neoconservative and free-trade ideology a false god, and says it will destroy the nation (along with unchecked immigration, both legal and illegal). I know a lot of people think Paul and Buchanan are similar, but if what people on this forum post about Ron Paul's veiws are correct, they are POLAR OPPOSITES on nearly everything except foreign policy.

Buchanan is an America First paleoconservative.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian.

I think the two only converge on two major issues, and those are foreign policy and federalism.