So Lou Dobbs Is Gone From CNN- Great!!!

Several conservatives groups and folks are remarking on Lou Dobbs leaving CNN.

NRO comments on a another article here regarding that. I guess I do wonder why in that article certain liberal groups are credited with his possible ouster (at least it is hinted at) when there is really no proof of that.

I was never a fan. That perhaps has to do with the time slot he was in. In central time zone he came on right at 5 p.m. I am very much a traditionalist and still think major news networks should treat that 5pm to 6 pm time slot as to a run down of real news without the agenda. That is not to give it to such a OPINIONATED person. Needless to say Dobbs had a very populist and opinionated agenda.

Perhaps though I became irritated with him for again that for things that are not his fault. I was always disturbed because as afriend to some parts of the conservative movement on SOME issues he was largely given a pass on a hell of a lot more.

I found his views on trade often to be odds with a lot of Republican conservative principles. On the immigration issue I disagreed with him strongly.

Many conservatives loved his position on illegal immigration. That was a emotional and complicated issue for sure. But many overlooked his viewpoints on LEGAL immigration. His crusade against even the granting of visas to High Tech workers from such places as India I believe caused a lot of damage. Again a lot of folks gave him a pass.

The fact he is was not properly engaged on a debate on the above issues by the "right" I guess was a major problem for me.

The problem as to the illegal and indeed Legal immigration issue and his motives should have been more forced into the public view. That was that Dobbs was a downright Malthusian.

I consider Mathusian politics to be well sort of extreme and it opposes at times some tenets of the various parts of conservatism.

This view point that be seen when accepted the award from CIS (Center For Immigration Studies).

CIS advocates were a big part of his guests. Usually they were seen on the whole illegal immigration question. However a substantial part of the agenda dealt with Legal immigration. An agenda that had very Mathusian overtones. They advocate that the population of the United States needs to return to what in their view is a perfect number. That is 150 million. A quite radical thought.

I stand by what the Wall Street Journal and their March 15, 2004 editorial by Jason Riley, a senior editorial page writer when he said:

“So determined is conservatism’s nativist wing that it’s even made common cause with radical environmentalists and zero-population-growth fanatics on the leftist fringe. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies may strike right-wing poses in the press, but both groups support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.

Now there is nothing dishonorable about being a Malthusian. However the fact that Malthusians have been given a foot on the door in conservative circles because of perhaps an alliance on one or two issues does not mean their ultimate motives should not be examined.

In 2005 Dobbs accepted from CIS the Eugene Katz Award For Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. Full remarks here.

Too much of the attention on Dobbs focused if he was some sort of racist or xenophobe. I don't believe he was or is that. Sadly that discussion missed the major point of what should have been examined. In his acceptance speech for the award he stated in part:

If we look at our population growth over the course of the past 40 years and do not understand that it has doubled and that based on current trends and that after childbirth and immigration and illegal immigration that this country could reach a population by the end of this century of one billion people. If you don?t understand that, we have further difficulties. Secondly, if we don't understand that we are importing the population growth of other countries, whether it's China or Mexico or any country in the world then we have a difficult time addressing the issue of illegal immigration . . . because all of these impacts are fundamental, all of these issues are fundamental, and they're all interrelated.

What kind of economy will we have? It depends upon growth. To hear both the head of the Chamber of Commerce and the head of the AFL-CIO support amnesty, because they believe it?s important to have that low-cost labor force, not only for organization or employment but to support the Baby Boomer generation, who will be retiring, so that they can pay into the Social Security system.

This is the kind of reasoning that is going on in individual issues and too many of us are failing to look at the broad relationship amongst these issues. That?s what we?re trying to do on our broadcast, that we will remain committed to doing. In a time when we are in great contests for natural resources and for capital, globally, the impact of illegal immigration will be profound over the course of the next decade. For example in the western states, reservoirs? the principal water source, the Colorado River, is running at 50 percent of its historic levels. Yet population growth continues, and demand continues to climb? with no sight of any kind of abatement.

Now I don't wish to debate the data on what Dobbs and CIS is basing this on. That could fill ten blogs posts. Needless to say I think that much of it is wrong.

Still we get some big hints of what is really on Dobbs mind. Thus while the focus on Dobbs has been on his illegal immigration stance this explains some very troubling crusades he has been on as to legal immigration , trade and other issues. Issues again that sadly many conservatives (outside the Wall Street Journal and CATO perhaps) failed to engage him on. The fact that for years CIS and various related groups were given a huge platform on his show had repercussions that are often ignored.

There are hints that Dobbs might run for public office. I welcome that. Then perhaps conservatives can finaly debate him on several crucial issues that they failed to do in the past.