lou dobbs: Page 1
Day Two of the Lou Dobbs Saga continues, with The Nation offering the editorial "Make It Legal" (thenation.com/article/155228/make-it-legal). I'll show below why you can't trust The Nation and how their editorial lies, smears, and promotes bad, anti-American policy.
In the first paragraph they falsely state that Meg Whitman's campaign "has at times been vehemently anti-immigrant" which begs the question which universe they live in. Opposing illegal immigration isn't "anti-immigrant", and moreover Whitman hasn't opposed illegal immigration to a great extent as discussed at the last link. Whitman has tried to ignore immigration, she opposes the new Arizona law and Proposition 187 (see her Spanish-language billboards), and she's bent over backwards to pander to Hispanics. Her two strongest positions are opposing letting illegal aliens into some colleges and taking a "secure the border first, then we'll discuss amnesty" position ("When there are no more illegal immigrants coming across the border then the border is secure. And once we have that then we can talk about what the right thing to do is." here). Neither of those are tough, and the latter contradicts her earlier support for a "path to legalization". No one is going to find Whitman taking a tough stance on illegal immigration, much less being "anti-immigrant" as the Nation claims.
Now Lou Dobbs, the former CNN host who made his name with nightly rants against "illegal aliens" and their "illegal employers," joins Whitman's ranks. It turns out that Dobbs has employed at least five undocumented workers in recent years through his landscaping and horse stable contractors. Like Whitman, who may have received a Social Security no-match letter and knew Diaz was unable to travel outside the country, Dobbs and his champion horse-riding daughter, Hillary, must have been in deep denial. The landscaping and horse grooming trades depend heavily on undocumented workers. One immigrant who tended the gardens at a Dobbs estate said the landscaping contractor who employed him never pushed for a "good Social Security number." Dobbs told his gardener to call him "Luis." Whitman described Diaz as "a friend of our family." Yet there appears to have been a tacit understanding in these friendly relationships: some things would not be discussed.
The above is sleazy innuendo and in a legal sense Dobbs didn't "employ" anyone through anyone else as the Nation states; that appears to be an attempt to mislead people into thinking that Dobbs was the employer when that's not the case. In some cases, those who are contractors are in fact full-time employees and the government can force them to be reclassified as such (see this), but that doesn't apply in this case as at least the landscapers were only on Dobbs' property for short periods and no doubt did work for others. Further, just because someone speaks Spanish doesn't mean they're here illegally as the Nation implies. The last sentence is sleazy mind-reading.
Then, we have an outright lie:
With the investigative report in this issue by Isabel Macdonald, we are not out merely to play a game of gotcha. Of course Whitman and Dobbs are hypocrites: they have called publicly for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, claiming it is necessary to protect American workers and their wages, while privately refusing fair pay and humane treatment to their own immigrant workers, who were too afraid of getting caught in the enforcement net to stand up for their rights. Instead they were left working extra hours off the clock (Whitman's maid) or earning poverty wages (Dobbs's gardeners). But the more important revelation here is that undocumented workers are so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our economy that even two professional immigrant-bashers found it difficult to avoid relying on their labor.
Whitman's housekeeper was in fact her "worker". However, the supposed illegal aliens from the Nation article are not Dobbs' "workers"; the Nation lies two times in the paragraph above. Further, neither Whitman nor Dobbs are "immigrant-bashers", and as discussed above Whitman is weak on the immigration issue. As for the "rights" of the supposed illegal aliens from the article, there's nothing I can see alleging a violation of actual rights; if there were, the Nation would surely have contacted government authorities. In fact, the Nation is seeking to confer extra-legal rights to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
As for hypocrisy, that's a weak charge that's one step up from an ad hominem, and one question raised by the paragraph above is whether the Nation really cares about "protect[ing] American workers and their wages". If there were no illegal aliens in the U.S., wouldn't those workers the Nation discusses be working for higher wages under better conditions? Why isn't The Nation supporting that, and instead they're enabling even more illegal immigration? The Nation won't support immigration enforcement now; can anyone see them supporting enforcement later, as there are even more illegal aliens in the U.S. lowering U.S. wages and working standards? Large numbers of low-skilled U.S. workers are in competition with illegal aliens, and The Nation is taking the side of illegal aliens.
Then, they mislead about what Dobbs wants:
On any given day, we've all probably eaten fruit harvested by undocumented workers or meat they butchered. These workers also make possible the lifestyles enjoyed by wealthy Americans like Dobbs and Whitman, with their estates and grounds and stables. How these millions of workers could be extracted from their jobs and deported without causing massive disruption not only to their lives but to the entire economy defies the imagination. Yet this is what Dobbs demands with his call for ever tougher enforcement.
One might expect The Nation to oppose the wealthy using cheap, illegal labor rather than American workers working for good wages under good conditions. Instead, they're promoting the opposite, just as strongly as corporate tool Tamar Jacoby. As discussed at the last link, "[currently a] meatpacker makes roughly $10 an hour, which is the same wage paid in 1980", due to an influx of cheap and illegal foreign labor. The Nation isn't opposing that: they're supporting and promoting it.
Further, The Nation is lying about Dobbs' position: he's never supported mass deportations, and in January of this year he admitted that he supports amnesty, guest workers, and chain migration. Hasn't The Nation been paying attention? Dobbs is now more on their side than mine.
One way to solve this that neither The Nation nor the current version of Dobbs would like is attrition, where we ramp-up enforcement and reduce benefits to illegal aliens, causing many to leave. Around a million illegal aliens have in fact left the U.S. due to no doubt to the economic downturn, and that number could be increased with attrition. Over time, large numbers of illegal aliens would leave and their jobs filled by American workers working for better wages under better conditions. Since that would take place over time, there would be little disruption and that would also spur development of, for instance, newer and better crop-picking machinery and the like. And, that would also be better policy for sending countries. Many countries are to a certain extent satellites of the U.S. due to their reliance on remittances (money sent home by foreign citizens in the U.S.) Massive immigration to the U.S. turns parts of Mexico into ghost towns at the same time as it enriches their corrupt elite and also deprives Mexico of energetic citizens who might press the Mexican government for reform.
Where is The Nation in all of this? On the side of corrupt employers and corrupt foreign governments.
Despite its populist veneer, the anti-immigration hysteria fomented by Dobbs and his ilk pits American workers against immigrants for the benefit of the corporate class. The United Farm Workers recently called the bluff of those who accuse immigrants of job-stealing with their Take Our Jobs campaign, in which US workers were invited to join them in their backbreaking toil—and found very few takers (aside from Stephen Colbert).
Dobbs didn't before and certainly doesn't now foment such "hysteria". And, those who are helping the "corporate class" are The Nation themselves: their policies would provide the "corporate class" with a ready supply of cheap and most likely illegal labor. It's The Nation that opposes immigration enforcement and that would - even if millions of current illegal aliens are legalized - allow the "corporate class" to encourage the importation of even more illegal labor. The Nation won't stand against the "corporate class" now, and they won't stand against them later. Instead, as they're doing now, they'll help them while trying to hide behind a veneer of pretending to oppose them.
As for the Take Our Jobs campaign, it's not surprising that The Nation would support it as it's an anti-American, pro-abuse plan that ran down American workers as the same time as it promoted abusive working conditions. The Nation has a great deal of trouble being on the right side of anything.
If immigrants had a straightforward path to legalization, they could step out of the shadows of the US economy and stand with American workers to demand decent treatment for all. That might make it slightly more expensive for Lou Dobbs to maintain his multimillion-dollar properties - but it's a price he ought to pay.
1. They're using the living in the shadows canard, as has almost every other corrupt supporter of massive immigration from Barack Obama to George W Bush (and including the aforementioned Tamar Jacoby).
2. Their obsession with Dobbs continues; he appears to have really gotten to them despite the fact that he's now mostly on their same side. And, their last swipe at him is just a sleazy ad hominem: most likely Dobbs could and wouldn't mind paying more for his landscaping and the like. The real issue is the sales job that The Nation is trying to make to the rest of us, promoting as they do above cheap illegal labor picking fruit or processing meat. The Nation is using Dobbs as a scapegoat to promote policies that, once again, would benefit the "corporate class" they claim to oppose.
3. Finally, The Nation is using the immigration wage floor talking point; see the link for a description of what that it and why it's wrong. The Nation would add new competition for millions of low-wage American workers and at the same time spur even more illegal immigration, thereby negatively affecting even more low-wage American workers.
For example, let's say that we follow The Nation's prescription and legalize 10 million illegal aliens. Some segment of them will leave low-wage jobs (such as fruit picking) for higher-wage jobs (such as cashiering). Illegal aliens can only do certain categories of jobs; under The Nation's plan, the newly-legalized could do any job for which they're qualified . That will lower wages for previously higher-wage jobs, driving large numbers of Americans out of work. That will also leave a gap at the very lowest end of the wage scale: fruit pickers and so on. What will happen then? The same thing that's happening now: corrupt businesses will in effect pay off politicians to look the other way on illegal immigration just as they do now. And, The Nation will do then the same thing they do now: provide cover for that by opposing immigration enforcement. The Nation won't support immigration enforcement now; what makes anyone think that The Nation would support enforcement later?
If you think The Nation supports good policies and American workers, think again: they're part of the problem. Don't help them.
And, if anyone disagrees with anything in this post or has any questions, feel free to leave a comment.
 One way around that is the AgJOBS way, which involves a form of indentured servitude: it would keep the newly-legalized on the farm for a few years if they wanted to be able to get on the "path to citizenship". That's the plan that Stephen Colbert supported before Congress, the one that's proposed by "Take Our Jobs". Instead of opposing a form of indentured servitude, The Nation supports it.
Earlier today, The Nation released an article that's been taken by most to claim that Lou Dobbs hired illegal aliens, when in fact that claim is unsupported (see the link for the details). The illegal immigration-supporting establishment has been on the warpath, making false claims in order to push their agenda.
It's been taken by most to say that Dobbs employed or hired illegal aliens, when in fact a close reading shows she doesn't make that claim. In fact, there's no evidence in the article that he actually hired or employed illegal aliens: they were employed by others who did work for Dobbs or with whom Dobbs had a services contract. Thus, anyone who says that Dobbs hired or employed illegal aliens is at least making an unsupported claim and in some cases may be intentionally lying. (This is similar to past false stories about Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo.)
Dobbs denies any such claims here. Further, Dobbs had MacDonald on his radio program earlier today (audio if it becomes available) and she admitted that she has no proof that he hired illegal aliens. Dobbs eviscerated her and showed just how much of a "reporter" she is.
I had a few quick minutes to read it before going on the radio show to comment. But it immediately looked to me like the alleged illegal workers had been hired by a company with which Dobbs had contracted. That is, they had not been hired by Dobbs himself.
This was basically confirmed on the radio show when Macdonald said it isn't clear that Dobbs ever actually hired any of the workers who have told Macdonald that they are "undocumented" but have worked at Dobb's farm.
I made the point that it appears Dobbs has done nothing illegal. In fact, federal law basically prohibits people like you, me and Dobbs from asking workers about their legal status if they have been hired by an outside company.
So, if someone claims that Dobbs hired illegal aliens, send them this link and demand a correction.
The above isn't a defense of Lou Dobbs; see the link. Rather, this is yet another example of how you can't trust the illegal immigration-supporting establishment: they'll say most anything to protect their quest for money and power. They also have a great ability to get stories like this out there, with many willing to play along and few willing to ask questions.
Those who'll benefit from stories like this are corrupt banks, businesses, politicians, and countries. Someone like Isabel MacDonald might think she's "Fighting The Power", when all she's doing is helping "The Power" make more money and obtain more power.
UPDATE: An interview with Dobbs, MacDonald, and Lawrence ODonnell is at http://peekURL.com/v5f1lv4 at which MacDonald says:
I will grant you that I don't have evidence that you directly, knowingly employed any undocumented worker. All I'm saying is that they labored on your property.
She also, of course, accuses him of hypocrisy. It's also clear from the video that they're attacking someone who's more on their side than on mine: Dobbs and MacDonald both generally support comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty.
UPDATE: And, here's how The Nation supports bad, anti-American policy.
In May, 2008, Barack Obama smeared Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, falsely claiming that hate crimes against Hispanics had "doubled" the year before. In fact, they only went up 7.8%. Not only that, but they've decreased as a percentage of the Hispanic population between 1995 and 2006.
Given that, you might not expect Andrea Nill of ThinkProgress to write the following, unless you were familiar with that site and her work. In that case, you - like me - would realize just how truth-challenged both she and the others associated with that site are. Referring to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (perhaps more on that later), she writes (thinkprogress.org/2010/03/03/dobbs-splc-hate-groups):
While campaigning in 2008, Obama himself accused Dobbs of "ginning things up" to such an extent that hate crimes against Latinos soared.
The last sentence links links to the contemporaneous Huffington Post report at huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/
obama-rush-limbaugh-lou-d_n_103315.html which, of course, doesn't even hint at how much Obama was lying.
If Nill had even a smidgen of intellectual honesty she would note that Obama lied. As it is, I strongly suspect that her use of "soared" instead of what Obama said ("doubled") is an outright attempt to deceive her readers but at the same time not raise red flags by repeating something so obviously false.
Senate Democrats have reached out to former CNN anchor and prominent illegal-immigration opponent Lou Dobbs in an effort to build broad bipartisan support for immigration reform.
...Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is spearheading the Democrats’ effort to put together a comprehensive reform bill, met with Dobbs on Wednesday.
"We’re meeting with all different kinds of groups, trying to get everybody together to come out for one bill,” Schumer said.
...Schumer noted that Dobbs, who left CNN in November, is "changing his views on immigration."
What's noticeably missing from the article (and a similar one from The Politico) is any kind of quote or statement from Dobbs. If asked, he'd probably just say he's having a general discussion as he'd do with anyone. And, Charles Schumer might be trying to send the wrong impression about their discussion. However, considering Dobbs' recent seachange, there's a possibility that he might become a spokesman of some kind for some non-extremist amnesty bill. That makes it all the more important to do things that are effective rather than following those who don't really understand the immigration issue or who don't understand how to solve problems or who will turn out, like Dobbs, not to be the person you thought they were. It's easy to imagine, for instance, a site like HotAir capitulating on some sort of comprehensive immigration reform compromise, not to mention other, even worse rightwing bloggers.
Groups have "unprecedented amounts of money" to push amnesty; Dobbs leaving was "critical victory" - 01/11/10
"Especially on the left-of-center side, [groups that will push for amnesty] had unprecedented amounts of money in the past year, and they're organizing the field, coordinating among themselves, they're unrecognizable almost from what they were in 2006 and 2007... The business side hasn't had as much money pumped in and hasn't transformed as much, but it's also at a different level of the game."
"With (Lou Dobbs) finally being called to account, I think that's also sent a message to many of these people... At the end of the day, I think in the last two years that this debate has moved much much further in terms of the American people's understanding."
That, once again, shows the importance of handling the Dobbs matter in a nuanced fashion: he's still the bete noire of those who are far worse than he is, and completely throwing him overboard in a loud public way helps them.
On a more hopeful note:
...(Steven Camarota), research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports stricter immigration limits, said the unity might be a myth. No matter how unified coalition leaders are, he said, they'll face a skeptical public — particularly with a high unemployment rate... He said "opinion leaders" are significantly out of touch with average voters on the immigration issue, which produces a wide but thin coalition pushing Congress to act... "There are a lot of generals but not many soldiers there. That's their fundamental problem: Most Americans don't agree with them," he said.
Disingenuous Lou Dobbs now wants amnesty, guest workers, chain migration ("comprehensive immigration reform") - 01/08/10
Appearing on last night's Bill OReilly show on Fox News, Lou Dobbs made it clear that he does support amnesty, euphemistically called comprehensive immigration reform. Not only that, but he supports guest workers and chain migration. The only question he has is how many would be legalized and how many family members those legalized would be able to bring to the U.S. Since he referenced legalizing 9 million people (3 times 3 million on the video), he wants to legalize the great majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. On those topics, he's even worse than O'Reilly. Partial transcript below, video attached and at peekURL.com/vxcpalc (UPDATE: a longer video is at peekURL.com/v2q76xe ).
Dobbs' earlier statements were somewhat ambiguous, but now it's clear, and the question becomes whether this is something he thought of on his own or whether others changed his mind, such as with the promise of supporting a possible run for office. For those of a conspiratorial nature, this might also be due to threats or the incident where a shot was fired at his house.
And, this is an incredibly bad position to take considering that millions of Americans are out of work and amnesty will probably not be successful (although it can't be ruled out). If he was going to come out in support of the corrupt establishment, why not stay at CNN? Does he want back in to the corrupt establishment's good graces?
If he does run for office I probably won't be supporting him, but at the same time his critics continue to be even worse. So, one has to be careful to not help them when discussing him.
I had no idea of the greater class structure that existed at the time in the urban northeastern United States. That is another one of the blessings I believe I had growing up a poor kid out west.
There aren't twenty million illegal immigrants because of a choice made by the voting electorate of the country. There are twenty million illegal immigrants in this country because a good part of the establishment made a decision to exploit labor.
Every trade agreement that has been written is devastating to the interests of working people. This is not protectionism. This is simple decency and common sense. If that is no longer part of the impulse and the imperative of the elites of this country, what the hell are we becoming? [Note: this site agrees]
Corporate America has a responsibility to its stakeholders, and those stakeholders include the nation that makes it possible. [Note: ditto]
I happen to believe that affirmative action over the course of the past forty years has been an entirely appropriate response, not because of race but because of economics. If that's the only way to get to it, then God bless - let's get to it. [Note: is he high?]
It's all about the cost of labor, isn't it?
The people who said they didn't want government involved in their markets and industries, they were the first people to scream like children when confronted with the economic crisis. [Note: this site strongly agrees; the tea parties are useful idiots for those screaming.]
I'm actually pro-immigrant. There's not a restrictionist bone in my body. [Note: obviously, this site strongly disagrees]
I ask a question, and I am attacked from the extreme Left as a quote-unquote birther. I mean, what the hell is that? When you can create a controversy by asking what seems to me still a perfectly commonsense question? It has been used in the extreme Left to create a toxicity that is just unbelievable. [note: for the facts, see our extensive coverage of the Obama certificate issue]
The partial transcript from ThinkProgress follows; initially I thought they had omitted exculpatory details but as it turns out what they omitted was just as bad as the rest:
Peter Wallsten (formerly of the Los Angeles Times, now with the Wall Street Journal) offers "Dobbs Reaches Out to Latinos, With Politics in Mind" (link), which contains this misleading statement (bolding added):
(Lou Dobbs) is working to repair what a spokesman conceded is a glaring flaw: His reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants. In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
Now, to help illustrate why Wallsten is being misleading, here's what Dobbs said (video here, bolding added):
What I have said from the very beginning... which a lot of people have chosen to ignore: that we need a rational, effective, humane immigration policy in this country... we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants on certain conditions and we need to be able to influence the direction of the conversation right now toward securing the border because until we can control immigration we cannot meaningfully, subtantively alter immigration law because it would have no point if we cannot establish the basis for the control of the flow of people across that border.
That said, this is not a welcome development, and Dobbs appears to be changing his position from what it was earlier, if the following actually represents his position:
Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."
Now, compare that to what Dobbs said in March 2006 (link):
My position on what the Senate is doing is that it's an amnesty program. It is putting at least 11, as many as 20 million people, to the front of the line. We have a backlog of legal immigrants to this country of three million waiting naturalization and visas... It is an unconscionable act that pits the lowest paid two million Hispanic workers in this country against illegal, predominantly Hispanic illegal aliens, as demonstrated in a study by the Pew Hispanic Center. This is unconscionable. It is a sell-out. Something we're used to seeing on the part of this Congress and this administration, frankly. It's a sell-out to corporate interests and illegal employers who should be being punished not given a free pass, because middle class, hardworking men and women and their families are paying the price for this.
That sounds stronger than his comments above, however what he said after that buttresses the claim that he's in the "secure the border first, then an amnesty" school:
ROBERTS: Does the Sensenbrenner bill which would criminalize all undocumented immigrants in this country and also provide for construction of a 700-mile fence along the border, does that meet your criteria for what an immigration bill -- immigration reform bill does should look like?
DOBBS: Well, frankly no, John, it does not, but it is the best attempt and at least moving toward enforcement of our borders and security at our borders.
Look, we can't reform -- let's be really honest about it. We can't reform immigration in this country if we can't control immigration. And we can only control immigration if we control and secure our borders.
President Clinton putting millions of people who are in this country illegally on a path to citizenship as a first condition is simply amnesty. If we are to be a nation of laws, as you say, how can we possibly put forward as a condition precedent the reward of those illegal aliens with citizenship for breaking our laws and crossing our borders?
I have said for some time, and I would urge you to talk to your wife about this particular idea, Mr. Clinton, we cannot reform our immigration laws if we can't control immigration. And we can't control immigration unless we control our borders and our ports. I invite you to consider that syllogism and show me where it's wrong.
Now, this isn't quite as surprising as it may seem. Dobbs has always been a supporter of mass immigration, it's just illegal immigration that he used to complain about — that was better than anyone else in the MSM, for sure, but if you keep following the string you'll end up supporting either mass immigration, regardless of status, or low immigration, likewise regardless of status. Dobbs's (and many others') approach to immigration of "legal, good/illegal, bad" is logically untenable.
The amusing thing is that his "growth" isn't going to help him in any case - the open-borders crowd won't believe him and immigration hawks will dismiss him as just another McCain-style phony maverick.
He's right about the open (or just loose) borders crowd, but I'd suggest a more nuanced point of view for the other group. Dobbs is, obviously, one of the favorite targets of the loose border crowd and as such defending him can be used to discredit groups such as the National Council of La Raza. Whether he would support amnesty for all illegal aliens or whether he'd seek to limit it remains to be seen; he's not at the John McCain level, and that's easily seen by watching the full video.
On the video, he takes Telemundo anchor Maria Celeste to task for lying about Joe Arpaio; she falsely states that Arpaio has "clearly violated the civil rights of undocumented immigrants". That is false since Arpaio hasn't been charged and is just the target of a Department of Justice fishing expedition conducted by someone who appears to be a bit far-left. Dobbs sticks up for Arpaio and says that the DOJ investigation is "kangaroo court antics". He also objects to her spending several minutes on the leprosy story and then the federal incarceration story, basically spouting Southern Poverty Law Center talking points. He also takes her to task for equating "illegal aliens" with "Hispanic" and for assuming that all Hispanics think alike. McCain would never do any of that. On the minus side, at the beginning of the interview he apologizes for not speaking Spanish, mentions "a bridge to the future in which there is legalization" and refers to "a regulated flow of immigration within the control of U.S. authorities", which is highly similar to the safe legal orderly talking point. However, having watched dozens of those willing to sell out the U.S. - such as McCain - I'm not convinced that Dobbs is in that camp; he's just wrong.
The bottom line is that you take the good with the bad. Those who don't support amnesty under any conditions or who would only support it years from now under very strict conditions should support Dobbs as a way to oppose the unsavory loose borders types at the same time as trying to push him away from any amnesty. Not supporting him or trying to discredit him would be a very big mistake and would help some truly unsavory people.
UPDATE: It's important to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Dobbs (such as Krikorian's) and attempts by interested parties to separate him from his base. Some of those interested parties might be affiliated with or supporters of corrupt businesses that profit from illegal activity. Others might be partisan hacks who put the interests of the Republican Party ahead of the interests of the U.S.
Just imagine Menendez’s attack ads against [Dobbs]; he wouldn’t have to venture outside of Media Matters’s clip vault to gather enough material for the entire campaign.
There's a reason why Dobbs' opponents keep bringing up the leprosy story years after he issued a correction: they don't have that much material to work with. It wouldn't be that difficult to turn attacks against the attackers, and show voters that Media Matters for America and Bob Menendez are far-left supporters of massive illegal activity. If they or journalists outrageously lied, that could be used to discredit them. Their position as supporters of massive illegal activity is invalid, and it wouldn't be that difficult to show how invalid it is. If your goal is to help the U.S. by helping to reduce massive illegal activity, that's what you'd do. Some people have different priorities.
At the Washington Independent (parent company funded in part by George Soros and Rockefeller), Dave Weigel offers "Citizen Lou" (washingtonindependent.com/68779/citizen-lou), in which he smears Lou Dobbs and lies about his positions:
What reason is there to believe that Dobbs, a bottom-feeding broadcaster who struggled to draw 800,000 nightly viewers, has a ready pool of voters waiting for him? All I see is a 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll suggesting that a third-party candidate who talked about ending immigration, as Dobbs does, would score 30 percent of the vote. A Dobbs boomlet makes more sense that the truly foolish “Unity 08″ boomlet of 2007, when some retired campaign consultants suggested that some combination of independent-minded politicians should run for office, just because.
1. Weigel says that Dobbs "talk[s] about ending immigration", but Dobbs doesn't do that. If anything, Dobbs is too much of a supporter of legal immigration. Dobbs' position is to oppose illegal immigration and support the legal variety. Weigel is lying.
2. The "Rasmussen Reports poll" in the text goes to this page, which has the full question that generated 30% supporting a third party candidate:
Suppose a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority. Would you vote for the Republican, the Democrat, or the third party candidate?
Supporting the third party candidate in that case doesn't equate to "ending immigration", as Weigel implies. That position doesn't foreclose massive legal immigration or guest workers; it would just involve trying to prevent illegal immigration. Weigel managed to get two lies into one sentence.
3. And, of course, there are the de rigueur smears, with Weigel falsely stating that "Dobbs threatens to run on a platform of know-nothingism" and that he's a "bottom-feeding broadcaster".
Weigel has a serious problem with the truth; see his name's link above for more examples of him lying and misleading.
Speaking with reporters earlier today, Lou Dobbs mentioned as an aside that he was considering a presidential run. Over to low-level establishment hack Glenn Thrush of the Politico who simply reads what's on the card he's been handed (politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/
Dobbs has become a prime target of Hispanic groups for his fire-breathing pronouncements about illegal immigration - including a discredited claim that Mexicans were bringing leprosy across the border.
First, simply supporting enforcement of our immigration laws isn't "fire-breathing". More importantly, Thrush is lying about the circumstances of the leprosy issue. Mexicans and others are indeed bringing leprosy and other diseases across the border, and that's especially true of illegal aliens since they obviously aren't given health screenings. It's absurd that anyone would claim that what's happening isn't happening, but that's what you get from low-grade pseudo-journalists like Thrush. See, for just one example, the report at .
Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza takes to the pages of Alternet to offer "Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue" (alternet.org/story/144089/dobbs'_resignation_was_long_overdue). Somewhat surprisingly, it doesn't seem to contain any outright lies, just smears and misleading statements. For instance, she tries to blame an increase in hate crimes on Dobbs and others:
The rhetoric that Lou and other extreme commentators used surrounding the debate took a harsh turn, so much so that a member of my staff called it a "wave of hate" and said that "this no longer sounds like it's about policy - it sounds like it's about us." ...This is not just an exercise in etiquette. The Latino community knows all too well the effect of extreme and polarizing rhetoric. Over the past five years, the vitriolic debate surrounding immigration has created a toxic climate for our communities. During that time, we have seen a double-digit increase in the number of hate crimes against Latinos and substantial growth in the number of hate groups targeting Latinos.
The number of "hate groups" is based on the opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, not exactly a credible source.
Then, she implies that the NCLR and other illegal immigration-supporting groups are going to go after other hosts:
Yet Dobbs is not alone in purveying extreme rhetoric on the subject of immigration. There are dozens of others on cable television news and radio who draw our ire. Given the free speech issues that we regularly defend, we have attempted to approach this issue with restraint. We have appealed to the journalistic integrity of the cable networks and requested balance. We have worked with advertisers who have a right to ensure that their brands are not associated with such polarizing debate. And we have used the airwaves to identify patterns of distortion and established a website (www.WeCanStopTheHate.org) to call out the worst offenders so that the public can add its voice to the debate.
The actions of the NCLR show clearly that they have no interest in a real debate about these issues.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post offers "Anchor Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN" (link). Let me show some ways that he's still not a reliable source:
Lou Dobbs, the most opinionated and divisive anchor at a cable network that bills itself as a straight-news oasis, resigned from CNN on Wednesday night...
Some of the other CNN personalities - such as Rick Sanchez, Soledad OBrien, and Anderson Cooper - seem to be quite opinionated, and the first two do so publicly. If Kurtz can't see that, perhaps he's a bit like someone who lives next to the train tracks: after a while they get used to the noise. In his case, he thinks of the left-leaning Beltway establishment as "normal" and thinks that those who hold views held by others inside the Beltway aren't opinionated: they're just normal. Kurtz is incapable of understanding that. And, if Dobbs is "divisive" perhaps it's because, unlike CNN's milquetoast personalities, he's willing to rock the boat: "fight the power" as the kids used to say. Dobbs is willing to at least to a certain extent try to monkeywrench attempts by powerful forces - including the major political parties and business interests - to profit from illegal activity. Challenging those who want to profit from illegal activity is a foreign concept to Kurtz.
Lou Dobbs is announcing on CNN right now that he's quitting the network (link), saying:
"Some leaders have been encouraging him to engage in positive problem solving... and to continue to do so in the most direct way possible... At this point I'm considering a number of options..."
Expect illegal immigration profiteers to cheer the news, but they shouldn't do so just yet. CNN's center-left slant and confusion over what is and isn't journalism were a thorn in his side as much as he was a thorn in their side. Those like Rick Sanchez and Soledad OBrien masquerade as journalists, but they rarely live up to the title. Most of the others on the network are largely just establishment hacks who have no interest in challenging politicians on their many lies and misstatements.
Lou Dobbs will probably go to Fox News, raising their already-high ratings and abandoning CNN's abysmal ratings; he probably chose the right time to bid them adieu. Or, perhaps he'll try his hand at politics; in June 2008 he was rumored to be considering running for governor of New Jersey and perhaps seeking public office might give him an even more powerful platform than Fox.
And, as always, most of the criticism of him comes from those who have some financial or electoral stake in illegal immigration; see his name's link up above for a partial list of them. If you'd like the help him out, one of the best things you can do - and something that few other people try to do - is to discredit his opponents. That's the goal of many of the posts at his name's link above, and it doesn't take all that much to write posts pointing out how one of his detractors is lying or misleading and it takes even less to leave a comment on someone's post where they lie or mislead about him. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get people to bestir themselves into doing things that are actually fairly simple but which can be highly effective.
UPDATE: The transcript of his remarks is here.
On his Monday radio show, Lou Dobbs announced that a few weeks ago someone shot at his house while his wife was just 15 feet away. And, that followed a series of threatening phone calls; the state police are currently investigating. Audio of his broadcast is attached, and a partial transcript (via this) is at .
Newt Gingrich has launched a new Spanish-English bilingual website called "The Americano" (theamericano.com). His motivation isn't known; he might be trying to make money, or he might be trying to help himself and the GOP outreach to Hispanics, or both. Whatever the motivation, he's not doing a good turn for the U.S. and he's not working against how the Democrats are able to gain and maintain power.
"Enough is Enough!" anti-Lou Dobbs campaign from Democracia Ahora (DNC link, Obama too?; Bendixen) - 09/18/09
In addition to the Drop Dobbs campaign, another group is starting their own push in an attempt to silence Lou Dobbs. This group has links to the Obama administration and the Democrats that are slightly closer than the other, and given that Obama lied about Lou Dobbs during the election, it would be interesting to know the degree to which there's any coordination.
The campaign is from Democracia Ahora - run by Jorge Mursuli - and is called "Enough is Enough!" (TellCNNEnoughisEnough.com). They commisioned Sergio Bendixen's firm to conduct what amounts to an extraordinarily biased push-poll of 100 Hispanic leaders about Dobbs; it hasn't been released but for an example of their intellectual integrity here's one of the questions from the Politico report by Carol Lee (link):
"Many Hispanics are offended by the news content of Lou Dobbs’ show and regard him as a demagogue who is helping to create a negative image of Hispanics. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?"
Those who took part in the poll - almost assuredly among the 90% who agreed with the preceding question - include Sen. Bob Menendez, Dan Restrepo (a member of President Obama’s National Security Council, who Democracia Ahora says was interviewed while he was a director for the Americas Project at Center for American Progress), and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lucille Roybal Allard.
Communications for "Enough is Enough!" are being handled by another Miami-based firm, Balsera Communications, which is run by Freddy Balsera, who coordinated Hispanic media for the Obama campaign and is co-chair of the Democratic National Committee’s National Hispanic Leadership Council.
Note also this ironic bit:
“We’re asking CNN, the alleged ‘most trusted name in news,’ to really hold Lou Dobbs to the journalistic standards he should be held to,” said Jorge Mursuli, president of Democracia Ahora, who expressed frustration with Dobbs’ reports that immigration contributed to thousands of new reported cases of leprosy and of a ‘superhighway’ from Mexico to Canada.
In April 2008, Barack Obama seemed to confirm the NAFTA superhighway, so maybe Mursuli would like to conduct a campaign against him.
Drop Dobbs: illegal activity-supporting racial power groups and far-left want Lou Dobbs off CNN - 09/17/09
A coalition of illegal immigration-supporting far-left and/or racial power groups has launched a campaign called "Drop Dobbs" to get advertisers to pull their ads from CNN's Lou Dobbs show (dropdobbs.com, mediamatters.org/blog/200909150031): "...The effort aims to let companies know that their continued financial support of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight makes them complicit in the hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that he promotes..."
Campaigns like this - following on the heels of the somewhat successful similar campaign against Glenn Beck - stand a greater chance of success given the fact that Dobbs' ratings aren't as high as they once were. What you can do about this is raise awareness about the groups involved and cut them off from support, both financial and ideological.
For instance, help organize a campaign against bills that would fund the NCLR. Or, do something as simple (but too difficult for some) as leaving comments at blog and news postings by or discussing the groups; those comments should have the goal of discrediting those groups or their supporters.
See the following links to the names of the groups involved for our coverage of each group:
* National Council of La Raza (funds extremists, gave award to someone who'd proposed genocide)
* League of United Latin American Citizens (CA chapter thinks U.S.-Mexico border might be invalid)
* Southern Poverty Law Center (misled about hate crime statistics)
* Media Matters for America
* Frank Sharry
* Reform Immigration for America
* Center for New Community
* Hispanic Institute (see below)
* Dolores Huerta Foundation (promoted demographic hegemony, hatred against Republicans)
* National Hispanic Media Coalition
* National Puerto Rican Coalition
* New Democratic Network
* Netroots Nation (from Dailykos and others)
* Voto Latino
UPDATE: Janet Murguia of the NCLR says, among other things (huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/join-nclr-and-the-drop-do_b_290584.html):
For two years, I have tried working behind the scenes with CNN to bring some fairness to the relentless bias of CNN programming due to Dobbs' show... The Drop Dobbs coalition is compiling a list of those advertisers supporting the Lou Dobbs show and will be reaching out to educate them about this issue. We recognize that many advertisers may be unaware that FAIR has been designated as a hate group, so we are contacting those companies before publicly releasing the list. However, unless and until Dobbs and CNN disassociate themselves from this hate group, we will be asking advertisers to withhold their support...
UPDATE 2: See also the similar group "Enough is Enough!". Communications for that are being handled by a DNC official; it would be interesting to know to what extent if any the Obama administration is involved in either group. Could someone (perhaps Judicial Watch) file some FOIA requests?
The Hispanic Institute's board is at thehispanicinstitute.net/about/boardofdirectors. In addition to one board member who was with the National Association of Realtors, another is quite interesting:
Media Matters lies: Hawaii has not authenticated the certificate on Obama's site (Corsi, Dobbs, FAIR) - 09/16/09
Media Matters for America offers a smorgasbord of smears in "At "hate group" event, Dobbs embraces discredited birther Jerome Corsi" (mediamatters.org/research/200909150042, not bylined):
On his radio show -- broadcast from the anti-immigration organization Federation for American Immigration Reform's (FAIR) "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event -- Lou Dobbs interviewed WorldNetDaily staff reporter Jerome Corsi, who Dobbs described as "a pretty good guy to talk to" about immigration issues... ...On Fox News, Corsi claimed that Obama's presidential campaign "has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website." In fact, the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that the birth certificate posted online by the Obama campaign is "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate" and has called the speculation about Obama's citizenship "pretty ridiculous." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 8/15/08]
The word "confirmed" links to the Politifact article discussed here (#4) in which Hawaii DOH spokeswoman Janice Okubo says the following about the picture from Obama's site that Poitifact emailed to her: "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate". That solves that, right? Except, later in the article Politifact offers this completely contradictory Okubo quote:
Jon Klein, CNN "political researchers" were wrong: Hawaii didn't discard paper records (Dobbs, Farah) - 08/08/09
On July 23, CNN president Jon Klein sent an email to staffers of the Lou Dobbs show saying that he'd asked CNN's "political researchers" to look into the "Birthers" issue and that those "researchers" had determined that Hawaii had discarded their paper birth certificates. He was attempting to show thatBarack Obama can't release his original certificate. The email is reprinted at .
However, the claim from CNN's "political researchers" was false: as Janice Okubo later confirmed , Hawaii had not discarded any paper copies, they were simply archived when that state put their birth records into electronic form. Unfortunately for Lou Dobbs, based on Klein's urging, he repeated the false statement from CNN's "political researchers" on that evening's show .
Klein later backtracked , but he hasn't spoken out about the false claim from CNN's "researchers". Now, Joseph Farah says:
Isn't it time to apologize for your error and to Lou Dobbs for attempting to intimidate him for covering the story? ...And since your basis for not covering the story has been blown to smithereens, isn't it time for you to issue a new edict to your news team to get back on the story?
Alexandra Marks of CSM lies: Hawaiian officials never confirmed the certificate on Obama's site - 08/05/09
Alexandra Marks of the Christian Science Monitor offers "Should CNN attack its own anchor over ‘birther’ flap? /A media watchdog group releases an ad criticizing CNN anchor Lou Dobbs for stoking the 'birther' controversy"  about an ad Media Matters for America is running against Dobbs for him daring to mention the Obama citizenship issue. It includes this:
Officials in Hawaii have confirmed multiple times that the birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign in 2008 is legitimate. Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, has also seen the birth certificate and declared it legitimate.
The problems with that are highly similar to the problems with - surprise! - the problems with the Media Matters page discussed here. As with MMFA, she relies on FactCheck, an organization that isn't very credible.
More importantly, aside from a statement from Janice Okubo that she contradicted on the same page, no Hawaiian official has spoken about the picture of a certification as shown on Obama's site; neither of the statements from Hawaiian Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino said anything about that picture. The first Fukino statement only said Obama had a valid cert on file; the second said he was born in Hawaii and was a natural born citizen.
In other words, Alexandra Marks' "multiple times" never happened; Marks is a liar.
Tamar Jacoby pins immigration "reform" hopes on Obama-induced "reformist mood", bad policy, racialization - 05/07/09
America's favorite immigration "expert", Tamar Jacoby, takes to the pages of the Los Angeles Times with "The immigration debate, again" (link). It contains the usual smears ("there's a danger that populist resentments will curdle into xenophobia", Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo are "anti-immigrant" with "inflamed, angry followers") together with things like this:
Neither the economic downturn nor enhanced enforcement has driven 12 million illegal immigrants to leave the country. Enforcement is still far from effective, either on the border or in the workplace.
That "enhanced enforcement" has been just for show; George W Bush had no intention of reducing the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. She's not being completely misleading about the "enhanced" part due to the second sentence, but she doesn't reveal to her readers her thoughts on whether truly increased enforcement - together with reduced non-emergency benefits - would reduce the numbers. Obviously, she knows that it would, and that's why she doesn't mention it.
CA LULAC: U.S.-Mexico border might not be valid; legalize Mexican illegal aliens; wants international arbitration - 04/21/09
Now, over to Casey Wian on CNN's Lou Dobbs show (transcript link):
WIAN: LULAC claims that 2008 Supreme Court decision in a Texas death penalty case involving a Mexican citizen could render the 1848 border treaty [of Guadalupe Hidalgo] invalid because Congress failed to make the treaty binding on individual states.The national LULAC HQ didn't give CNN a statement; a legal scholar says LULAC's claims are "pretty absurd".
So its California director says, "The government of Mexico should exercise its rights to third-party arbitration and reopen all questions of immigration including the rights of Mexican citizens in the United States and the legitimacy of the border itself."
The group says Mexicans in the United States were treated unfairly after Guadeloupe Hidalgo and should now be given legal status.
JAN TUCKER, LULAC, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER: Mexico didn't get what it bargained for in giving up its land, then why should it be bound by that border? And even if we're not going to revisit the issue of the border per se, shouldn't Mexico have a right to a third party examination?
WIAN: California LULAC suggests Canada, Brazil, Great Britain or France could help renegotiate the border treaty.
When you see an MSM reporter presenting LULAC as a mainstream group, send them a link to this post.
Hannah Dreier of Media Matters for America offers a misleading view of Nancy Pelosi's recent remarks in Dobbs falsely claimed Pelosi said "immigration law enforcement is, quote-unquote, 'un-American" (mediamatters.org/items/200903240035):
Summary: On his radio show, Lou Dobbs asked his guest for his "reaction" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "saying last week that enforcement in the workplace, immigration law enforcement is, quote-unquote, 'un-American.' " In fact, Pelosi criticized as "un-American" immigration raids that separate undocumented parents from their documented children, not "immigration law enforcement."
Perhaps Dobbs should have been more lawyerly in his language, but her cavil is a distinction with not much of a difference. Here's the relevant portion of Pelosi's earlier comments:
How then could America say it’s ok to send parents of children away? What value system is that? I think it’s un-American. I think it’s un-American... ...Who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?
In the first part of the quote, Pelosi is discussing mixed-status families; in the second part, she's apparently trying to restrict it to fugitive/criminal alien enforcement (rather than workplace raids). However, the first part makes the second part moot: workplace raids can result in family separation just as much as other types of raids.
Note that there are somewhere around between three and five million U.S. citizen children with at least one illegal alien parent. And, a good number of current illegal aliens have been here for many years.
That means that any immigration raid has a good chance of resulting in some form of family separation, unless the illegal alien takes their children home with them. Since there's no law or policy mandating that only those without children can be deported and that all those who have children will not be deported, Pelosi is indeed opposing raids in general. In Pelosi's view, pretty much any form of immigration enforcement other than border enforcement is "un-American".
Mexico's Deputy Secretary of Foreign Relations Carlos Rico (ph) said, quote, "this is a message of impunity, it's difficult to understand." He also acknowledged that Mexican officials had lobbied hard to prevent the former Border Patrol agent's release.
UPDATE: There's much more on this in the 1/22 transcript. Various congressmen think there was extensive involvement by the Mexican government in the case; hopefully an investigation into contacts between that government and the Bush administration will be launched.
You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to be opposed to Barack Obama. Here are some of the reasons that almost anyone should oppose him:
Is Barack Obama a strong proponent of the First Amendment? Does he support free speech, even by those who strongly disagree with him? The answer is: not really.
I'll keep track in reverse chronological order (note, of course, that there are other examples throughout the time period):
You could have seen this coming from miles away. The Census Bureau today released their 2007 statistics on poverty and those without health insurance. Also today, Barack Obama lied when he said:
"Another 816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007 — including nearly 500,000 children — bringing the total increase in Americans in poverty under President Bush to 5.7 million... And on Bush’s watch, an additional 7.2 million Americans have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured. This is the failed record of George Bush’s economic policies that Sen. McCain has called ‘great progress."
I'll leave checking the other statistics to you the reader, but over 100,000 of those "816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007" are actually citizens of other countries, including those who are here illegally. They aren't "Americans" as BHO said, they're Mexicans, Brazilians, Norwegian, etc. Just not Americans, and BHO lied yet again.
Who needs accuracy when you've got hope?
The BHO campaign "creatively edited" a quote to make someone look bad. The DNC lied about a related statistic. Obama lied about the 2006 statistics. He followed the NYT's lead and lied about something else. Yet another healthcare lie. He lied about hate crimes doubling. He offered a stock false choice. He lied about Lou Dobbs. And, well, there are even more but I'll save them for a future post.
Freelance writer and Vanity Fair contributor Judy Bachrach offers a smear of Lou Dobbs in "Lou Doubts" (poder360.com/article_detail.php?id_article=549). It's yet another example of the illegal activity-supporting establishment trying to reduce his influence in order to profit from illegal activity in one way or another.
"Incredibly, McCain did not even address the issues of the war in Iraq or his policy on health care. On immigration it was more of the same: secure the borders and no stop to the raids," said Angela Sambrano, an NCLR board member and director of the National Alliance of Latin-American and Caribbean Communities.Whoa, score one for McCain! This one time he was able to differentiate between U.S. citizens and the rest of the world.
...Irene Godinez, 26, of Raleigh, N.C., who leads statewide public policy advocacy for the organization El Pueblo, said she thought "McCain was diplomatic and stressed his priorities like border security, cushioning it by saying the immigrants were 'God's children.'"
But a significant language difference gained Godinez's attention. "I noticed McCain spoke of serving American children while Obama stressed everyone," she said. "This is important for me because our Legislature just passed a law excluding undocumented students from community colleges."
Health care advocate Teresa Quezada, vice president of Mujeres Latinas of Modesto, Calif., took a more critical tone... "McCain said he opposed immigrant bashing, but he stressed 'criminals and drugs' coming across the borders time after time. That's really bashing to me."Obviously, having large numbers of people who think that it's "bashing" to worry about those who don't "just want to work" coming across our borders is not in the U.S.'s best interests.
The article then quotes someone named "Joshua Messiah", before confirming once again that the NCLR wants to push the Fairness Doctrine or similar in order to silence their critics:
Former [NCLR president Raul Yzaguirre] echoed the sentiment. "The issue of the media has to be a big issue for us like education, health care and housing," he said. "We have to confront Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and right-wing radio."Even Frank Sharry admits that the print media is in their corner, aside from Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck most of those on television are some degree of massive/illegal immigration supporters, and the two highest-rated talk radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) aren't exactly strong amnesty opponents. Apparently that's not enough for the NCLR.
He added that electing a Congress to return the public airwaves to serve all the people and not just the huge monopolies is a critical fight. "We have to find the ways to tell our story."
Obama, McCain, Clinton at LULAC convention (illegal immigration supporters; reconquista quote) - 07/07/08
Barack Obama, John McCain, and even Hillary Clinton will all be speaking at this year's convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), an illegal immigration-supporting group that was once patriotic but has since been radicalized. As shown by the attendees discussed below, the convention will be a nexus of those who do not support what's in the best interests of the U.S. For example, here's a 2007 quote from their national treasurer Jaime Martinez, who'll also be appearing at one of their workshops:
Chicago Aldmn Cardenas, Flores introduce anti-"hate speech" resolution; Mexico-linked ICIRR cheers - 06/25/08
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights is linked to the Mexican government, and they have some involvement in a resolution introduced today by two Chicago aldermen (George Cardenas and Manny Flores) condemning "hate speech" (i.e, the facts) supposedly directed at "immigrants" (i.e., illegal aliens) . The resolution also comes out in favor of legalizations of illegal aliens.
Lou Dobbs not running for governor of New Jersey "right now"; Frank Sharry starts fake site; Nicole Gaoutte/LAT promotes - 06/13/08
Lou Dobbs is rumored to be considering running for governor of New Jersey, but in a voice mail message to an NJ newspaper he denied it (link). Note, however, that he said he wasn't "considering anything right now", so that might change.
Anyone can get a blog at Barack Obama's site, and you the reader might even want to get one (or more).