RSS Feed MenuLou Dobbs is saying he might run for president in 2012. As one who worked for Dobbs a decade ago, when he was CEO of the Internet venture Space.com, I wish to point out that his management skills and style were unequal to running a web company with some 100 employees. As president of the United States, he would be a disaster.
A successful American president needs some ability to rise above certain temptations of the office. These include the temptation to put yourself in a bubble, listening only to reverent aides who will tell you what you want to hear, and the temptation to think of the office as being all about you, making it a platform for endless ego gratification.
Dobbs has zero ability to resist such temptations. He was a boss who sought to rule by intimidation; being a famous anchorman in a roomful of young web journalists gave him considerable leverage to do that. At the same time, he became increasingly irritable running a website about outer space, which I attribute not only to the dot com boom deflating (which meant he was not going to become as wealthy as his friend Ted Turner) but also to the fact that he was no longer in the public eye on a daily basis.
It was, in short, all about him, and he made it crystal clear that his employees were as expendable as the fall-away parts of a rocket. My own employment at Space.com ended during a staff meeting in which, after I suggested company management practices could be improved, he promptly told me he would accept my resignation.
Years later, I ran into Lou in a Manhattan office building (we share a periodontist) and we had a pleasant conversation going down in the elevator. He’s not an altogether bad guy. He can be agreeable company, for example over a drink or after getting dental anesthesia. But there should be no mistaking him for someone who would contemplate multiple points of view thoughtfully or cultivate a talented administration of individuals with whom he might have to share some credit for real or imagined achievements.
His TV show of recent years gives ample reason to think the substance as well as the style of a Dobbs administration would be awful. His anti-corporate populism and hostility to free trade would be impediments to the prospects for economic revitalization. His railing against illegal immigrants is overblown, emphasizing us-versus-them emotionalism over serious policy analysis. His receptiveness to fringe conspiracy theories such as the birther business is simply disgraceful.
It’s hard to know whether Dobbs is really serious about contemplating a presidential run. Even if not, it is the sort of thing he’d likely be talking about, just to keep himself in the limelight and ensure a ready audience for whatever shows, books and speeches he might produce. It is also hard to judge whether there is any serious prospect he would win a presidential race, either as an independent or a rogue Democrat or Republican (and speaking of rogue, his sharing a ticket with Sarah Palin has been much discussed).
But it is not hard to judge what kind of president Lou Dobbs would be. His greatest achievement would be to make all our recent presidents and the current one, whatever one thinks of them now, look like paragons of statesmanship.
Note: Unlike a decade ago, when Lou Dobbs made his first abrupt departure from CNN, Ken Silber does not anticipate sending Dobbs a résumé.
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:16 pm
The main problem with the Bush administration was no appreciation of history. If they had stopped and though for a while after 9/11, they would have never invaded Afghanistan the way they did. Instead they would have used air power and special operations to destroy what was then a small band of terrorists.
Why we did a wholesale invasion of that country when the plot was undertaken by Saudis and planned in Germany I will never know. It was a quagmire waiting to happen. And the Russians only pulled out of this same hellhole pretty recently. Obama is going to make the same error I fear.
And to then compound the situation by launching the Iraq adventure, again a little history would have taught the folly of that move. If we genuinely wanted regime change then a simple air assault to weaken the army would have seen an uprising pretty damn soon. The same result will happen anyway.
So we have spent what a trillion and a half. Lost 4000 plus troops, maimed countless others not to mention the dead Iraqis and the displaced. What a mess. So sad.
ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm
which the Sunnis probably go TO WAR with the Iranian backed Shias…..sorry missed key phrase
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:36 pm
BarryS: Instead they would have used air power and special operations to destroy what was then a small band of terrorists.
First of all, it wasn’t a “small band.” The CIA estimates that as many as 30,000 al-Qaeda were trained in Afghan training camps, and many of those were still in Afghanistan on the day of 9-11.
Secondly, I don’t see how you can destroy al-Qaeda inside a country whose government has cut a deal with them and which is actively opposed to our actions. We’ve been trying to destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan, whose military has never been very supportive of our actions. And we haven’t been successful, have we?
Hillary got sufficiently exasperated that when she was in Pakistan, she blurted out the truth: al-Qaeda could be eliminated in Pakistan, if the government and its military really wanted to do it. They don’t. They fear the resulting civil unrest more than they fear us. So they let them operate there, modulo some showpiece “offensives” in which they move into the badlands, kill a few terrorists, and stop.
Do you think the Taliban–who kept referring to Osama bin Laden as their “guest” whom they refused to give up to us–and their troops would have just stood around peaceably while our Special Forces went after al-Qaeda inside their country? What happens the first time the Taliban gives the order to their forces to fire on our troops?
ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:36 pm
……Sinz we should have gone in there, got Bin Laden and as many of his associates as practical……..shot a few hundred Taliban and got out of there…..This is what the British used to do after they got their fingers burned twice….not perfect but much less expensive in blood and treasure….we’re screwed buddy…..much better to recognize it…..regroup and think up a better way to nail these bastards…..which could well mean a short punitive expedition into the Pakistani border lands
palomino70 // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Dobbs running would be a disaster for the GOP. It would be 1992 all over again, with Dobbs taking the place of Perot. Any chance the GOP might have had in 1992 disappeared when Perot entered the race.
Dobbs’ support, like Perot’s, comes disproportionately from older white voters with traditionalist impulses (ie, natural constituents for the Republican Party). If Dobbs siphons these voters away from the GOP, Obama’s reelection looks like a sure thing.
Voters leaning toward Obama, on the other hand, are generally unlikely to find Dobbs and his nativist populist message very appealing.
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Sinz, It’s a screw up either way. We gave so much warning of what we were doing that 90% of the terrorists were over the border anyway. And 3000 is a pretty small number.
If we had done the special opps and bombed the living daylights out of them we would be in a much better position now. Do you really think that short of staying in Afghanistan indefinitely we can stop the Taliban taking over? The country is un governable in a western sense. To stay and try for ever is foolishness.
We should get out and revert to special opps both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are doing it in both countries anyway. The only benefit of our current occupation is to prop up the current corrupt government.
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:28 pm
WOW it’s nice to have a rational reasoned discussion. I guess the children are tucked up in bed!
No swearing, no screaming troll accusations. How wonderful.
ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:28 pm
….I doubt it’s permanent…..would garlic help do you think?
CentristNYer // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Agreed. And not a word all day from Addie. Do you suppose they revoked her computer privileges?
BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm
She probably bad mouthed someone so badly that they gave her a clip round the ear
brandon // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I don’t think Lou Dobbs would have near the appeal of a Ross Perot. His level of support would be closer to what Pat Buchanan got, if that much.
Socrates // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm
What are Dobbs’ qualifications again?
Carney // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:39 am
BarryS, you may be right about Iraq being an inherently unstable and untenable country due to its ethnic and religious divisions. Countries like Canada, Belgium, and even India somehow muddle along despite them, but it was asinine to have drawn up those borders that way. Afghanistan is even worse.
BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:21 am
As you will recall Carney the Brits did the same in India. They forced an unstable fusion which resulted in the independence of Pakistan in 1947. That was never going to work either.
A whole lot of the problems in the world today are the direct cause of empire making. The Brits and French hold a lot of blame and we are well in the mix as well. And we are still doing it.
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:24 am
ottovbs: Sinz we should have gone in there, got Bin Laden and as many of his associates as practical……..shot a few hundred Taliban and got out of there
EXACTLY!!!
But we tried something like that and FAILED.
You got me all wrong. I don’t want to do nation-building in Afghanistan. Time was when we conservatives used to OPPOSE nation-building by armed force.
In November 2001, we had Osama bin Laden in our sights at Tora Bora. But due to some major tactical errors on our part, he escaped.
The escape of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen to Pakistan left us with Afghanistan as a kind of plug, to keep Osama from ever breaking back out of the Pakistan badlands. What’s done is done.
And now Obama is going to rationalize defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan as a way to maintain this plug, so that al-Qaeda can be forced to fight a two-front war between our forces on the Afghan side of the border and the Pak forces in Pakistan.
That’s a viable strategy, but MUCH LESS cost-effective than if we had done the job right in 2001.
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:26 am
ottovbs:
In December 2001, when I heard that Osama bin Laden had escaped, my heart sank.
Because then I knew that instead of a quick and relatively straightforward counterterrorist mission, we were now letting ourselves in for a long, difficult, counterinsurgency struggle as Osama’s forces regrouped.
And on a personal note: That’s when investing in hard assets (gold, oil, etc.) began to look better and better to me.
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:32 am
BarryS: The Brits and French hold a lot of blame and we are well in the mix as well. And we are still doing it.
I don’t accept that we are in the same category as the Brits or French.
America has rarely attempted to redraw borders for its own aggrandizement. Except where our own borders were concerned, we usually worked with national borders as we found them. We granted independence to the Philippines, rather than keeping it indefinitely as a U.S. colony. And we rejected Biden’s “solution” of breaking up Iraq.
The fact that we emerged from World War II as the dominant nation on Earth, and the fact that we were faced with facing down an aggressive USSR which was truly bent on imperialism in the style of the Brits and French, does NOT mean that we were becoming an empire ourselves. We didn’t want colonies. We didn’t try to redraw national borders all over the world. We were simply defending our position as top dog on the planet.
BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:04 am
We are in the mix Sinz. How many overseas bases do we have? Why are we nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan exactly? Were we not heavily involved in the drawing up of the borders of Israel?
Biden’s solution was to accept reality and recognize that there are three distinct countries in Iraq. It’s going to happen eventually.
In my opinion Biden has a very intelligent way of looking at things, he is exactly right on Afghanistan and the next 5 years of that war will prove it.
I accept hat historically the USA has not been an empire builder in the British mold. However it has far too often stuck it’s fingers in where they just don’t belong. Iraq and the Shah comes to mind.
MI-GOPer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:12 am
BarryS calls out, preemptively, “WOW it’s nice to have a rational reasoned discussion. I guess the children are tucked up in bed! No swearing, no screaming troll accusations. How wonderful”
What you really mean to say is that the far Left democrat activist trolls have had a thread almost all to themselves and –well, lookie here– that makes for sane discussion? LOL. No, what it does makes is an echo chamber that only JimmeyJunkyardDawgCarville would find seductive. And the DailyKos achieves every day. You guys are so transparent & facetious you make WH communication hack Robert Gibbs look enlightening by comparison.
Hey BarryS, I don’t recall you from earlier threads… are you another manufactured character in the TrollTribe? The real people here are having problems keeping up with all the new faux-names in the Tribe.
CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:31 am
MI-GOPer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:12 am
“What you really mean to say is that the far Left democrat activist trolls…”
I wondered how long a run we could manage without input from Frum Forum’s Drama Queen In Residence.
Do you think he gets paid for every use of the word “troll”?
CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:34 am
BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:04 am
“Biden’s solution was to accept reality and recognize that there are three distinct countries in Iraq. It’s going to happen eventually. In my opinion Biden has a very intelligent way of looking at things, he is exactly right on Afghanistan and the next 5 years of that war will prove it.”
I couldn’t agree more. Biden was really the only candidate in 2008 (R or D) who had a realistic, credible plan, which is why I was an early supporter.
And you’re right, too, about Iran and the Shah. We’re still seeing the consequences of that today, three decades after his death.
‘Racist-Extortionist’ Lou Dobbs Thinks He Can Become President; Now Reaches Out To Latinos! | PoliticalArticles.NET // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:06 am
[...] | President Dobbs: The First Tell-All Memoir | CNN’s Lou Dobbs – The Minister of ‘Propaganda and Enlightenment’ – [...]
BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:09 am
Mi-GOPer.
I have never responded to one of your posts for good reason. And this is the only one I will ever respond to.
Definition of a troll.
“1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned. ”
Please take a look at the reasoned discussion in this thread. Please observe the total lack of ill will and attacks, please see the worthwhile conversation taking place. Note that not all the participant agree with each other but can still discuss the subject in a sensible manner. Not all are of the same political makeup though you lump everyone together.
Now take a look at your contribution to the discussion. What do you see there. I see the definition of a troll.
You need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Best of FF: Have Libertarians Lost Their Way? | Robert Butler // Dec 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm
[...] I drifted away from Reason, so to speak; I was busy with, among other things, writing aboutouter space for Lou Dobbs but by 2005 Gillespie, then editing the magazine, coaxed me to write some more articles, which I [...]