Dobbs referred to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as a "little darling," a "precious darling," and a "precious fraud"
On his CNN program, Lou Dobbs referred to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as a "little darling" three times and as a "precious darling" and a "precious fraud" while criticizing him over San Francisco's policy regarding undocumented immigrants.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
On the July 7 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs referred to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as a "little darling" three times while criticizing him over San Francisco's policy regarding undocumented immigrants. Dobbs also referred to Newsom as a "precious darling" and said that Newsom "owes the folks of San Francisco, all of us, an apology for his immaturity, his irresponsibility, and for just being such a precious fraud."
Dobbs has repeatedly used the phrase "little darling" or "precious darling" to describe people and organizations:
- On the June 23 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs referred to an environmental group suing to stop the building of a border fence between the United States and Mexico as a group of "little darlings."
- On the June 16 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, discussing a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Dobbs referred to justices in the majority as "little darlings." He also referred to them as "liberal darlings."
- On the June 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Dobbs referred to "the little darlings at The New York Times."
- On the May 28 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs referred to "so-called mainstream journalists" as "little darlings."
- On the April 24 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, after a report on
contaminated doses of the prescription drug heparin imported from China,
Dobbs said: "Well, what are the little darlings going to do about
it?" Dobbs added:
I mean, we've heard this story year after year after year. Eighty-one people have died as a result of those heparin contaminants, and we have this kabuki dance that goes on in Washington. We've got retired official after retired official. Why aren't people being fired? Why aren't resources being added to the FDA and to other agencies who have regulatory responsibilities? And why in the world is anyone seriously taking self-regulation as some sort of reasonable approach when lives are at stake?
From the July 7 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: And the idea that this mayor, this -- a man I've referred to as a "little darling" because he's so doggone precious, Gavin Newsom, thinking somehow that a illegal alien is somehow free of responsibility for paying off human smugglers, that drug dealers are somehow free of responsibility for breaking our laws and devastating lives throughout this country. It is incomprehensible that a community and a city as wonderful as San Francisco could support that kind of just utterly intellectually fraudulent and irresponsible action on the part of any public official. It's extraordinary.
CASEY WIAN (CNN correspondent): Even in San Francisco, they're questioning this policy, this decision. The San Francisco Chronicle, the hometown paper there, was the one who broke this story first, Lou.
DOBBS: Our congratulations and commendation to the Chronicle for outstanding journalism. Thank you. Appreciate your terrific reporting as always, Casey. Casey Wian.
Well, Gavin Newsom, the good mayor, finally forced to set things straight concerning the absurd sanctuary policy. Newsom, of course, has launched a number of attacks against me as well for opposing San Francisco's sanctuary city status and because he doesn't like the fact apparently that I support the rule of law. Listen to what the mayor, the precious darling, had to say about me, a short while back.
NEWSOM [video clip]: We have been very concerned in the last year and a half or two years with the renewed vigor by the federal government and ICE to adopt more aggressive strategies for immigration raids. We are very concerned about a lot of the language, the incendiary language, that has been used in the last number of years, both in Congress and on right-wing radio and on cable TV, where careers are literally being saved and salvaged like Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Well, obviously, it's Mayor Newsom who's focused on his career. And it is a career that apparently needs some salvaging since he is so irresponsible and immature as to carry out intelligent and principled public policy.
So, the man I can't really refer to in much of any other expression rather than just little darling. I could use other language, but he just strikes me as a little darling, Mayor Newsom does. He, in my judgment, owes the folks of San Francisco, all of us, an apology for his immaturity, his irresponsibility, and for just being such a precious fraud. It doesn't really work, Mayor Newsom. You can forget about it. It worked for a while in San Francisco, but I believe your time is up.
That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight and the question: "Do you believe Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco should publicly apologize for endangering the safety of U.S. citizens by shielding criminal illegal aliens?" Yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
Don't you love Dobbs' loaded questions? ('do you think someone who burned the flag and gave peace to our enemies and pain to our citizens should be criticized for it?')
Dobbs loaded language is also blatantly homophobic. "Little darlings?" "Precious?" I'm surprised he wasn't doing it in a swish accent.
There are more references on the internet of his use of these phrases....such as on Jan. 14th. 2008, below. I had no idea how much he uses these terms. It has a very snippy, insulting edge to it.
CNN Democratic Presidential Contest Turns Ugly:
"Dobbs: This is all getting very precious right now in my humble estimation, Jessica. The reality is the culinary workers' union is comprised by some estimate as many as 45 percent illegal aliens working in hospitality, leisure, landscaping there in Las Vegas.
"Dobbs: There is no question about the issue that is foremost on their minds. What is being done, given everything else, to ensure the integrity of this election, these caucuses in Las Vegas? ": Again, precious, precious language but rather than wait, if I may, Jessica, why don't we find out what they're going to do to ensure that those caucus goers have a legitimate standing. In other words, are in fact U.S. citizens exercising their right as citizens to vote?"
" Dobbs: Well, everybody can vote on that Democratic ballot, as you say, and the fact is, Hillary Clinton's name is the only one on it. You've got -- if the other candidates saying please don't do that, of course. They're the ones, the precious darlings who pulled their names from that ballot. Why in -- what motivation would there be for anyone to put up with a candidate who wouldn't honor the state of Michigan and its residents' problems and they are painful problems by going along with these partisan games, both parties playing them, to the disadvantage of Michigan and its residents?"
"Dobbs: Wait a minute, Roland. We're getting too precious here. Why shouldn't the man be able to shovel just as hard and fast as everybody else?"
CASEY WIAN (CNN correspondent): Even in San Francisco, they're questioning this policy, this decision. The San Francisco Chronicle, the hometown paper there, was the one who broke this story first, Lou.
I love the "even." The Chronicle has always been a right-wing rag! They're hardly objective.
Dobbs use of "precious" and "little darlings" is clearly homophobic.
Either that or he is trying out for Smeagal the Gollum in Lord of the Rings.
His use.......over use...of the wording is creepy, and unprofessional.
But who is he starting to look like, my prescious?
Even though I'm certainly the last person on the face of the Earth that would ever be a troll here, I did kind of wonder why this was here. But then again, Media Matters for America does also cover outrageous or inflammatory statements made by Republicans and/or conservatives in the media. Lou Dobbs has a history of perhaps not being one hundred percent accurate in reporting certain things on his program, or for making certain statements which may seem strange or something else. As M.A. has documented, Dobbs has a history of saying "precious, fraud and darling" repeatedly, so there is a pattern. Obviously, it is not necessary for him to use those words and/or expressions. It's sort of like Don Imus; it's not just one thing, it's the cumulative effect of many things over a significant period of time. If you have a previous history which doesn't really help you, then you might have a problem when it comes to being called out for something that perhaps you don't need to be called out for, although in the case of Don Imus, he certainly should have been called out at the very least for his remarks about the Rutger's Women's Basketball team. Anyway, the past history of Lou Dobbs, as documented here, doesn't really help him.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
It's homophobic, clearly.
And he's also accusing "illegal aliens" of being drug dealers and violent criminals.
He is definitely conflating undocumented immigrants and those involved in drug trade. As a resident of San Francisco (and someone who very proudly voted for Newsom not once, but twice), I find it offensive that someone such as Dobbs, who really has no idea what the hell is going on here in SF, is demanding an apology from a mayor who clearly has his priorities in place.
F*ck you, Lou.
Is he trying to call Newsom a "fag" without actually saying it? How professional of him. I love how Dobbs spouts these condescending grade-school insults as he's taking Newson to task for allegedly "immature" behavior.
And that poll question is so biased it's comical. Stephen Colbert couldn't have come up with more ridiculously phrased question.
Is he trying to call Newsom a "fag" without actually saying it?
That's how I took it...or at least ridiculing him for being a "pretty boy".
And he is quite the pretty boy...and a pretty boy who was at the forefront at giving the 15% of gay folks in San Francisco the right to marry. I believe that's the true issue here...
Lou is using undocumented workers, and the fact that Newsom doesn't believe in raiding someone's home for "illegals" as a smokescreen to accuse Newsom of being a "fag".
Lou, you don't live in SF, so how do our city policies here affect you? They don't, you jackass. Actually, Lou, you owe Newsom and apology.
WITH indeed.
From his CNN bio:
"Dobbs has won nearly every major award for television journalism. "
Do they give out an award for most precious name calling?
Poor Gavin Newsome.
Sorry Tommy, but from here, Gavin's looking mighty fine and his stand on gay marriage is greatly appreciated for those of us who don't feel threaten by gay marriage.
Lou Dobbs is a pathetic candidate to fight the "so called" fight on illegal immigration. Where the h*ll has Dobbs been? It's not like illegal immigration is new, it's been going on for years and illegal immigrants have been coming to this country for years. Where was Dobbs back in 1986? His stance on illegal seems like a gimmick for television. If he spoke out against illegal immigration from the beginning, his opinion would hold weight. Now he's just another blowhard trying to garner an audience which will in turn, pay him more money. So when Dobbs calls Gavin Newsom "little darlings" I say bit me Lou. You wish someone would call you "little darling" and I say calling Newsom "little darlings" is par for the course in your pathetic small world.
I've watched Dobbs pound on the "Democratic congress" while never opening his freaking mouth during the Republican controlled government. If Dobbs is too dumb to realize that a majority number in Congress does not grant you actual control I've gotta ask WTF was CNN thinking hiring you crazy a** as a "economic correspondence".
By the way Lou, was the guy who raked the sh*t out of your daughter's horses stall legal or illegal, and did you really give a sh*t?
At the heart of the immigration debate is economics. It's about perpetuating the right of employers to pay slave wages while putting the blame of low wages on an easily despised, abstract notion of "the other."
Pearl,
Newsome's stance on gay marriage is not the topic here, for the record I agree with on that......this is about the illegal immigration welcome mat he has basically heaped on the citizens of his city, with ramifications throughout the state.
Actually, Tommy, you should ask yourself, WHY ARE YOU HERE.
Really, for you to bring up Newsom in regards to something other than what the thread is about is nothing new for you.
Yes, Gavin had an affair. Yes, he is guilty of philandering. Score one for us on the left. We've got some catching up to do, what with all of the philandering and child molestation so rampant on your side of the aisle. At least Gavin was publicly truthful about the affair - admitted to having it. Your reps lie about having a "wide stance" or something utterly stupid like that.
You have nothing of value to say about the thread in question, so you whine, WITH? Then you bring up something totally unrelated. Typical Tommy.
You're disgraceful, Tommy.
Get over yourself, I have already spoke of the damage this incompetent mayor has done to SF with his open border illegal immigration policy....his philandering is just indicative of his character, voters can decide for themselves if that matters or not.
Newsome is a disgrace.
It's about a journalist commenting about an elected official, what is hard about that Governor?
Not sure I understand the question. As for Dobbs, he's not a journalist when he resorts to name calling.
Let me just ask you a simple question:
When Dobbs resorts to calling the individual subject of his reports names, do you think his journalist credentials are negatively impacted?I don't think it's any feather in his journalistic cap, No. But he is a commentator, he is not a reporter. Commentators voice their opinions all the time and sometimes use language or descriptors that are not exactly professional, this is one of those times, I don't argue that.
But as I said, I don't particularly care about Lou Dobbs, he is a cable pundit, a private citizen, he doesn't vote on public policy or speak for anyone but himself. I am far more concerned with public officials and their behavior, Newsome is derelict in this issue, in my opinion, so I have no respect for him for reasons I have alreadly explained.
Newsflash - commentators can be journalists Governor, I am not going to argue job descriptions with you to satisfy your need for a 100 post diatribe. Dobbs is not an objective reporter, he is a commentator who gives his opinions on newsworthy topics of the day. He is like O'Reilly, or Olbermann, of Matthews, or Maddow......they are journalists and commentators.
If you can't understand the difference, then work on it.
He is not a TV anchor in the conventional sense like Gibson or Couric, he anchors his own commentary show, not the same. Why are you quibbling over this Governor? Everyone agrees that Dobbs' comments were unprofessional, except that I am not as bothered by them as you are as I have explained. You are so entrenched in semantic debates you lose focus.
Focus.
It's not a necessary distinction. You're getting yourself buried in a question that has no bearing on the ultimate point.
"Commentators voice their opinions all the time and sometimes use language or descriptors that are not exactly professional, this is one of those times, I don't argue that."
There's your golden opportunity. Tommy starts off with "why is this here", then admits that Dobbs' behavior here is unprofessional. Obviously he answered his own "WITH" question, which is the point of the exchange.
Gov,
talk show hosts (tv journalists) do it on both sides, when they disagree with the views of the individual they're disparaging. It doesn't necessarily make their disagreement any less valid. Recall that the partisan hack (tv journalist) on msnbc pulls the same act when he goes after those with whom he disagrees.
Get over myself? Really?
If that's all you've got, you've really hit bottom, Tommy.
The thread isn't about Newsom's philandering. It's about Lou Dobbs and his 'journalism'. You engaged in a personal attack against Newsom (calling him inane) and you seemingly support such personal attacks by someone who refers to himself as a journalist (Lou Dobbs). Dobbs didn't even mention his problem with Newsom's stance on the issue; nor did he give another perspective to the issue at hand - he just stooped to personal attacks. It's right-wing punditocracy at it's finest and at the same time, worst. They conflate issues, bring nothing to the discussion, make personal attacks. And you, Tommy, wonder why this is here. You're beyond help.
So, are you going to bring something of substance to the conversation, or are you going to continue to troll with your 'whaaaah, why is this here' nonsense? Freakin' crybaby.
Newsome's open door policy for illegal immigrants is what this thread, and Dobbs' comments, are about. I am sorry if he offended your precious mayor, or if I just did as well.......he deserves no better.
And considering the vitriol and hatred that spews from many on this website towards those they disagree with politically, your lecture on name-calling is about as laughable as it is hypocritical. So yes, get over yourself.
It's idiocy...
Parody would imply that there's some sort of thought process involved with his post...which obviously isn't the case.
Understandably so....
I was assuming you were being sarcastic - and I figured you already knew s/he was an idiot.
No, if that was the case I would have said:
"So if someone calls your mother a whore, you can't say anything about that because of 'free speech', is that right?"
If it wasn't a parody, that argument can be considered to be made here.
I dunno about Dobbs sounding homophobic... he's obviously used the phrase "little darlings" on all sorts of different people. And, frankly, it's Dobbs who sounds more like a drag queen here... I mean, who exactly uses phrases like "little darlings"or "precious darlings" in everyday conversation except maybe your Great Aunt Nettie, a Stonewall era aging drag queen named Petunia Sparkles, Gollum (as another poster pointed out), or a mouth-breathing child molester played by Wilford Brimley on a Lifetime Network movie of the week?
It does, however, lead to what shall henceforth be Lou Dobb's constant nickname until his retirement, whenever that is:
Lou "Precious Darling" Dobbs. It does kind of have a ring to it, doesn't it?
I agree. Dobbs uses the word "darling" as much as Zsa Zsa Gabor or Carol Channing.
I don't even want to begin to think of what must be hanging in his closet.
If you think that the two Border Patrol officers are in jail for doing their job, then you need a new 'thinker'.
They used deadly force when there was no reason to do so.
They knew they had screwed up, so they went back and cleaned up the crime scene to make it tougher to uncover their crime. Someone spilled the beans so they didn't escape the well-deserved punishment. If they had thought that it was a justified shooting, why did they never mention it, and make extensive efforts to avoid disclosing it?
I don't want my country's Border Patrol agents violating the law to keep our borders secure. I'm funny like that. I don't want our government violating the 4th amendment and spying on people, or violating the Geneva Conventions and torturing people. I trust that US Attorneys who prosecute Border Agents are following the law, and I don't try to second-guess jury decisions. These guys were indicted because they broke several laws and were convicted because there was no reasonable doubt about it!
The guy tried to surrender. They proceeded to physically assault him, and he ran away in fear. They knew he was unarmed and they shot at him 15 times! When they were shotting at him they didn't know that he had drugs in his van or that he was an illegal alien. All they knew was that after they tried to him him with the butt of a shotgun when he tried to surrender, he ran away.
According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/Sutton%20statement%20re%20compean%20and%20ramos%20conviction.pdf
Like I said, you clearly need a new 'thinker' if you think that an adequate rebuttal of what I said is to claim that I "watch to (sic) much TV!" What my thinker tells me is that you couldn't rebut what I said so you said the above.
A jury of 12 peers listened to all the evidence and found these guys guilty of 11 out of 12 charges. They shot an unarmed man and then covered up the crime because they knew it was a crime.
You want to excuse their behavior because, for many on the right, the ends justify the means. Fair-minded people don't think that way.
Well, maybe you should begin with those who own/run smoke shops and liquor stores and pharmacies. They're drug dealers too.
Are you really that damn stupid?
No, and I'm not calling you names either - just asking a question:
Are you really that damn stupid? Drugs are drugs. Some are legal, some are not. Your blanket assertion that drug dealers deserve to be shot in the back of the head is ludicrous on it's face.
"I think it is to bad they did not shoot him in the back of the head. I hate drug dealers."
Where are you distinguishing between "him" and "drug dealers" in general here?
Stop parsing my words damit.
It's a perfectly legitimate question. The only basis you seem to have for wishing he was shot in the back of the head was the fact that he was a drug dealer, therefore it would seem you share the same opinion for all drug dealers.
If you spoke hastily, then retract it. But don't pretend you meant something different without backing it up. That's clearly disingenuous.
You dipstick cons tout the rule of law as your bread and butter in the name of hating brown people, but you sure as shit cast aside rule of law when it comes to holding your ideologic brethren accountable for hate crimes.
How you feel about drug dealers has nothing to do with my point.
It's not okay for cops or border patrol agents to violate our nation's laws.
It's actually worse for people in positions of authority like cops and border agents to violate the law - they're tasked with upholding the law.
People like you who think the ends justify the means are disgusting! I hope I never have the misadventure to interact with you in person.
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila Pleads Guilty to Drug Smuggling Charges
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/elpaso041808.html
So what that he's a convicted drug smuggler?
When the law of the land becomes enforcing the death penalty before the trial, before any evidence is even provided (the border patrol agents hadn't even seen inside his van, so they didn't know why he was trying to evade them), then you'll have a point.
Until then, you're worse than a vigilante. And that's a pretty horrific thing to be.
You have to understand that the typical conservatives view of justice is not linear. Drug dealers should be shot in the head according to the logic, but that fact as to whether they actually are a drug dealer is actually determined through due process. This is a basic protection to keep the police from making assumptions or determinations that are not fair or unsupportable to most reasonable people.
If conservatives had their way, cops would have the unlimited power of judge, jury and executioner. A blank check to kill anyone they want as long as they can justify it to themselves. I suppose that is alright as long as you never have the misfortune of disagreeing with one or doing something that may even be legal, but does not meet a policeman/judge/executioner's approval. Can you imagine living in a conservative Utopia like that?
I'm an avid suporter of media matters, but don't understand why they are so down on Lou Dobbs.
Yeah, like we expect soneone who calls himself "Sambo" to be sensitive to ethnic slurs...
I'll have to agree with you on this point. I don't remember Dobbs saying a damn word about Giuliani and his policies towards undocumented aliens...
Maybe one of the right-wing apologists will have a link or something to prove us wrong?
Do you believe Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco should publicly apologize for endangering the safety of U.S. citizens by shielding criminal illegal aliens?"
Or, put another way, have you stopped beating your wife?
" WITH indeed. "
" Admittedly, it's a condescending jab at Newsome, not very respectful either. But Gavin's a big boy, he can take it. And as I said, I don't particularly care what he personally is called since I have no respect for him as a mayor, or a person. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that this article shouldn't be here because you have no respect for Gavin as a Mayor or a person . I certainly hope your not that concieted that you actually think this is about your personal feelings against the guy . MMFA is not built around your likes or dislikes .
This is not the Tommy show ..........Although I admit that for someone who seems to question WITH all the time you must spend hours on this site . It is hard to find a thread without you making it all about you .
Twosome Newsome deserves any and all criticism put forth. He has turned what was once a beutiful city into a cesspool for the elite, homeless, and criminals. He needs to get tough on criminal activity, period.
ChristopherCoward has NO idea what he's talking about. I'm not a member of the 'elite', I'm not a criminal, and I'm not homeless. But I'm a proud resident of the beautiful city of San Francisco. Newsom has been a good mayor.
I find it quite interesting that so many people want to comment on Newsom's tenure as mayor here, but they have no idea what he's done, what his policies are, and where his priorities lie.
I have a feeling that these right-wing assclowns listen to and believe Michael Savage and what the Savage Wiener says about San Francisco. This is a wonderful, beautiful, loving city - even to the point of putting up with a disgusting resident, Michael Savage.
Of course, we do have our problems. Any city would, especially when you have 850,000 people living in a 49 square mile area. But at least our mayor gives enough of a sh!t about these issues - and even has a game plan to resolve them.
Ask a Republican for ideas - you'll hear nothing but the chirping of crickets.
"Ask a Republican for ideas - you'll hear nothing but the chirping of crickets."
Now that's not fair. I'm sure they'd say something about cutting taxes and/or privatizing.
I am very aware of his policies and the policies of his piers
I have my disagreements with fisherman's wharf on a few issues, but generally his piers have pretty sound policies.
LOL...too funny Col. I was going to mention his issue with 'pier' vs. 'peer', but I thought, "ah, what the hell, leave it alone..."
I have grown up . . .
Another lie.
"...but you are free to be offended by my words, I could care less".
So, there is a chance that you could care less if I am offended by your words? Where do I get to the point that you couldn't care less?
Idiot.
Being I do not know you, I could care less if I offend you with my views on Twosome Newsome and the City by the Bay.
Damn you're thick headed. I was making fun of your use of the phrase 'I could care less', which means that there is some room for you to care less about something, i.e. something is, for example, unimportant to you, but it's not the most unimportant.
OTOH, 'I couldn't care less', means that it's so unimportant to you that you could not care any less than how you currently care. See the difference?
" a cesspool for the elite, homeless, and criminals. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not familiar with San Francisco politics or Gavin Newsome .
I am curious however . How did he create a cesspool for the homeless ? And who are the elite that you are talking about ?
I am familiar with San Francisco politics. I am a resident here and I follow politics closely.
I'd also like to see this cesspool, elitism.
I see the homelessness. Anyone from any bigger city has no right to chastise the homelessness in SF, as bigger cities have larger homeless populations as well.
So, unless you live in Patchwork Junction, you have no room to talk.
Hey Common you like live music? You go see bands in the City? I perform up there quite a bit. Maybe we will have a brew together one day and not even know it.
Cheers
Oh, so you enjoy visiting, performing, and probably making some cash in our "elitist", "homeless"-ridden "cesspool" of a city?
Nice.
As for me, I tend to stay away from what I consider to be "cesspools".
precious
Sorry to burst your bubble, but my feelings weren't hurt. I was just, again, having some fun at your expense. If you're going to be dense, you shouldn't play word games with others - especially linguists.
Of course they are, if they're logical, and don't consist of hoping border agents kill someone before he is convicted of a crime.
But if your differing opinions are bigotry, racism and lies, why should they be tolerated.
You do not know me from Adam.
Who's parsing now? Either you respect the rule of law or you think that the rules can be suspended for certain people. If you think people should be shot instead of tried, where is that respect?
It has nothing to do with your everyday life. You can display that attitude and still conform to the law yourself.