Jon Stewart Interviews Lou Dobbs, Reveals More Paranoia

Jon Stewart Interviews Lou Dobbs, Reveals More Paranoia


As many of you know, I’ve been a fan of Dobbs. Yes, he has been leading the far right on issues like immigration and border security, but he opposed the Bush tax cuts, wanted to raise the minimum wage, is pro choice and favors gay marriage. Meanwhile, he values fiscally responsibility and has a pro business attitude. Certainly an independent minded guy if I’ve ever seen one.

However, his recent tango with the birthers movement made his ratings take a nose dive and, well, CNN showed him the door as a result.

So that’s why this interview with Jon Stewart isn’t necessarily puzzling, but it is a bit sad. Just 9 short months into this presidency and Dobbs actually thinks that Obama is continuing Bush’s policies? Sure, there are a few things he hasn’t changed, but it’s hard for me to believe that Dobbs doesn’t appreciate that these things aren’t simply going to happen overnight…especially with two wars and a massive economic crisis happening…especially since Dobbs himself says he’s an incrementalist. (ahem!)

In short, where is this paranoia (that must have fueled Dobbs’ birther flirtation) coming from?

In any event, take a gander…

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

I’ll ask the question that Stewart asks in the interview…do independents think that our country and our standing is that fragile? Because if Bush didn’t destroy it in the last 8 years, why do indies all of a sudden think that Obama’s going to do it by passing health care reform and rebuilding our infrastructure?

What say you?

  • gerryf

    I’ll ask the question that Stewart asks in the interview…do independents think that our country and our standing is that fragile? Because if Bush didn’t destroy it in the last 8 years, why do indies all of a sudden think that Obama’s going to do it by passing health care reform and rebuilding our infrastructure?

    What say you?

    What “indies” think this? We have a small (but larger than it makes me comfortable with) group on the far right that thinks this.

    Those people, the ones I have recently given up arguing with because they cannot be convinced, are simply bat crap crazy.

    Independents look at Obama and see more of the same they saw from Bush: irresponsible spending, kowtowing to Wall Street and big corporations, inept war policies….

    Is Obama Bush? No, but he is hardly the change I was after.

    Middle America believes in a stimulus bill, but not a wasteful one.

    Middle America might have gone along with bailing out the autom industry, but proping it up so we are right back where we started from…not so much.

    Middle America believes in healthcare reform, but not one that pads the pockets of big Pharma and insurance companies. C’mon. 17 percent of our GDP goes to healthcare when other counties have better outcomes with 10 percent, so the plan is to give 20 percent of GDP and offer a piece of crap token public option.

    Middle America wants to be employed.

    Middle America is tired of seeing Wall Street bigwigs reward themselves for swindling Middle America.

    Just because Middle America is getting tired of “more of the same” does not put the independents in the same group as the bat crap crazy birthers that get so much attention.

    Middle America has patience, but that patience is wearing thin….No one expected Obama to fix everything that has gone wrong in the last 30 years, but there has been very little indication that the promised change is ever going to be realized.

  • Simon

    You can see why Obama will lose in 2012. To be sure, not everyone who voted for him bought into this “change” nonsense (I would hope that few are taken in by that banner, “the mantra of the neophiliac who has nothing new to say, and it casts a spell over those who are too young to know how old it is“). But those who did—as a result of considered intellectual fault, or mere unexamined assumptions, or not knowing any better—wanted things that were in the seven to ten range on the scale of “bad ideas.” The change he’s actually delivering is only five to seven on that scale. Consequently, the folks who wanted him to do yet more foolish things are unhappy, and those of us who think that any idea that registers at all on the foolishness scale should not be implemented are not much happier.

    Once elected, you had better do what you promised you would. Those who loved you for your promises will hate you for reneging, and those who hated you for promises will not like you any better.

  • kranky kritter

    Well, Simon, maybe if Obama were running in 2012 against Not Obama, it would be that simple. But I’m willing to bet that despite all the ranting in the world by folks like Gerry, they’d never vote for Mitt Romney or Sara Palin. Or for Ralph Nader again if it meant Romney would win. I agree with Colbert that Obama would pound Palin into the ground like a tent stake. No one sane would place a penny on Obama losing until the GOP emerges with an appealing candidate who presents a sensible positive alternative vision. And a positive alternative vision means more than saying Obama is wrong and saying we’ll lead America away from what we have now. Start describing the positive alternative destination now GOP, or get ready to be a tent stake again.

    Dobbs? Nothing this guy has ever said makes me think he really knows what he’s talking about in a way that connects all the philosophical dots. He’s at best a schizophrenic populist. I think he’s a kook. Have for some time now. He’s a narcissist, while maybe a B student to George Bush’s C student. He probably thinks he can run for President or be some sort of political messiah, even though he has no organizing principle beyond a populist hodge-podge. He can’;t build any sort of majority across his range of opinions. The most likely path for Dobbs is with a year or too of kooky podcasts, and then on into oblivion. Good riddance. Maybe as he head down the tilet he can grab Glenn Beck by the ankle.

    The most interesting thing to me about this interview is the idea that CNN is trying to position itself in the middle. MSNBC swerved left to provide progressives with the same delicious kookery that conservatives have been gobbling up at Fox. This leaves a very big spot in the middle for explaining things sensibly while taking easy pot shots at BOTH Fox and MSNBC. That’s how I hope it evolves. I’d love for CNN to give me a job hosting wingnut kookwatch. It’d be like shooting fish in a barrel as both Stewart and Colbert prove with regularity.

    People who reject anger and simplistic self-righteous explanations need a place to go to get debriefed when exposed to the Fox and MSNBC viruses. CNN can succeed if they truly understand that this is an opportunity and pursue it aggressively. The aggression is the most important part in an infotainment world. They can’t just be quiet, sane, and provide balanced synthesis. they need to spend time showing how kooky the wingnuts are. They need to attack the most inflammatory rhetoric of both wings . Like that guy Stewart showed who suggested that liberals don’t have kids with Downs syndrome.

  • gerryf

    Please, Kranky, don’t presume to say who I might or might not vote for. You haven’t a clue about my voting records beyond a simple thumbnail sketch you can pick up from my posts, which came at the end of 8 years of the worst Presidency in modern times. Picking up my disgust with the GOP that gave us those years does not make you particularly insightful or me particularly a flaming liberal.

    I voted for Obama and the Democrats because we need a clean break from the sink hole that has become the GOP. That does not mean I will never support a Republican (OK, your right, Palin will never get my vote–there is no there, there.)

    Your arrogance truly amazes me sometimes. You could probably spend your first episode of Wingnut kookwatch doing some self analysis.

  • Chris

    I think creating a portfolio of all the characters that post here would be a fun assignment.

    Simon, Obama has said that he may not run in 2012, which correct me if I’m wrong, has any other president said that? Has any incumbent not run for a 2nd term?

    Also, Dobbs ratings didn’t dive as fast as his credibility when he pandered to the birthers.

  • Nick Benjamin

    The most recent I can find who did not run for re-election at least once was Rutherford B. Hayes (aka: the one after Grant). Chester Alan Arthur sought, but failed to get, the Republican nomination in 1884. Before the Civil War several Presidents didn’t run for re-election (aka: the ones right before Lincoln).

    I sincerely doubt Obama would not run for a second term. The only Presidents legally eligible to run for re-election who failed to do so in recent history are Truman and LBJ. Both of them succeeded men who died in office, so technically both were two-terms. Both were also associated with unpopular wars — in 1952 most Americans thought the Korean War was unnecessary, and by 1968 it was becoming increasingly clear that LBJ had no idea how to win in ‘Nam.

    So I doubt Obama would refuse to run again.

  • tim warren

    I remember during last year’s election, CNN had a story that showed a woman in Missouri who was going to vote for Obama because we needed change after eight years of Bush. Then they showed an old clip of the same woman in 2000 saying she was going to vote for Bush because we needed change after eight years of Clinton.

    This year, I think the need-for-change crowd is going into hyperdrive, because they seem to need change more frequently now, kind of like changing TV channels. I don’t know what they expected- Obama is (mostly) doing what he said he was going to do.

  • Preston

    Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed), poor little Birthers.

    Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.

    I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be coming to collect the $20K.

  • Simon

    # Chris Says:

    Simon, Obama has said that he may not run in 2012

    I’ll believe that if I see it.

    has any other president said that? Has any incumbent not run for a 2nd term?

    Sure: Polk, Buchanan, Hayes, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson II. If you count the guys who sought but failed to obtain their party’s nomination to run for a second term, add Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, and Johnson I.

    Also, Dobbs ratings didn’t dive as fast as his credibility when he pandered to the birthers.


  • kranky kritter

    Sorry, Gerry, but the vast majority of blogging involves some sort of presumption. You’re plenty smart enough to understand that. If I make semi-educated guesses about you based on your posts, so what? Knowing what I do know of your views from the thumbnail sketch I’ve constructed of you from your posts, I believe you’re more of a liberal than a moderate, on average, though not on all issues. And flaming from time to time as well.

    Might you support a republican for President under some sort of extraordinary circumstances? Sure. Is it likely? No. Not at all.

    Your arrogance truly amazes me sometimes. You could probably spend your first episode of Wingnut kookwatch doing some self analysis.

    I can live ok with being called arrogant from time to time.Even a kook of sorts. But not a wingnut kook. I’m just too heterogenous for that. FWIW I’m sure I’m not as smart as I think I am. But calling me arrogant is a poor substitute for demonstrating why I am wrong.

    You post felt like a rant to me, so I expressed that opinion. I went on to predict that you’re quite unlikely to vote for a republican presidential candidate in 2012 despite the angry disappointment you expressed in Obama. If that makes me arrogant, then so be it. Pretty sure I hit the bull’s eye there.

    Look, I get it. America just elected a President who campaigned in such a way as to think he was strongly with a pretty liberal perspective. I never thought Obama was nearly as liberal as liberals themselves thought. But still, Obama is was liberal a candidate as could have been elected in 2008 America. Liberals couls possibly have fieled a more liberal candidate, but I doubt they could have elected such a candidate.

    So, liberals did as good as could they could have reasonably hoped by electing Obama. And now he’s not delivering as expected. That’s frustrating, because it leaves many liberals without anything like a good move for their next vote in 2012. I’m just pointing out the dynamic. Why shoot the messenger?

  • Chris

    KK you’re absolutely right on the last two paragraphs, and I feel the same way, and recognized the same thing when voting for him. He isn’t anywhere as close to a liberal as he portrayed himself while campaigning.

    I would vote for the better candidate, but I don’t see the republicans bringing anyone to the table who would be at this point at least. I don’t see them offering anything that hasn’t been tried before.