MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Fox Business Network Host Lou Dobbs says members of the Republicans Party will have to stop fighting among themselves and focus on the core values of the GOP to win back the U.S. Senate this year.

Photo courtesy Fox Business Network

‘Upheaval,’ the latest book from Fox News Host Lou Dobbs, was released on Tuesday.

“The core values of the Republican Party are to create prosperity, to build the private sector, to be prudent and responsible with fiscal policy and to stand up for traditional American values,” Dobbs said on Tuesday’s MetroNews “Talkline.”

He was a guest on the show to talk about the release of his new book, “Upheaval.”

Dobbs said the leaders of the Republican Party should be embracing the Tea Party.

“The greatest positive influence on the Republican Party in the last six, seven years has been the Tea Party in 2010,” he said.  “So what do they do?  The Republican leadership can’t stand that kind of unruly spirit and energy, so they’re trying to go to war with the Tea Party.”

He said party leaders must abandon that pursuit and, instead, focus on developing a clear message and carrying that message into the 2014 midterm elections.  Dobbs said wedge issues, like gay marriage and abortion, should be avoided in the coming months.

“Focus on the things that matter and the things that matter are building infrastructure in this country, building small business and seeing them represented more in Washington than U.S. multinationals,” said Dobbs.

Dobbs joined the Fox Business Network in 2010 and currently hosts “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Prior to moving to FBN, Dobbs served as chief economic correspondent, managing editor and executive vice president for CNN.  He hosted “Moneyline” which premiered in 1980 and later became “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

bubble graphic

53

bubble graphic

Comments

  • scott

    while everyone focuses on party values, who will focus on American values?

  • The Hunter

    The war on women is a fake war. While I do support abortion I am not bashing anyone who is trying to be honorable and save a life. I respect their view on it. I refuse to say war on women it is a false narrative.

    Gay marriage let the public vote on it.

    • Aaron

      Given that the United States is not a democracy and ban against same sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, what good would that do?

      • The bookman

        Until you sit on the SCOTUS, they take up a case where that is the issue, you manage to convince four other jurists of a similar opinion, and you write the majority opinion stating that fact, your statement regarding gay marriage and the 14th amendment is merely your opinion of one citizen of the USA. They may in fact do that very thing in the future, but please stop acting as though it has been decided and that the rest of us missed the memo!

        • The bookman

          And we have gone round and round and come to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment has never been used in any court ruling by SCOTUS in regard to marriage definition, yet periodically you slip in that fraudulent statement that they have!

          • Aaron

            You're hanging your hat on the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't defined marriage yet but they have used the 14th Amendment to rule on the institution of marriage.

            From Wikipedia...

            he U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
            Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
            “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
            The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
            “ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
            Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
            The Virginia law violated a 1948 Supreme Court decision in which the court found in Perez v Sharp that that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice.
            In US v. Windsor, the court found that same sex couples have the same right to federal benefits as heterosexual couples.
            Those cases, along with others prove that marriage is not a state issue but for some reason you think unless and until the Supreme Court rules on the case that it’s not the law of the land and that’s simply not true. Once a federal judge rules on an issue, precedent is set and other courts, by law must follow that precedent unless they can find pertinent case law or decisions that conflict with a ruling and even then, the ruling stands pending either a stay until a higher court either rules or a Writ of Certiorari is denied, normally by the highest court available. If the writ is denied, the decision by the highest court stands.

            Currently, that decision was issued by a federal judge in Utah in December that Utah’s voter passed definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates rights to due process and equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th US Court of Appeals will rule at some point and then the case will go to the Supreme Court, at which point they will make the only logical decision they can regarding the issue of same sex marriage; they will uphold the Utah decision that finds prohibiting the right to marriage based on gender, as with race, is a violation of 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

            You can disagree all you want Mr. Bookman but those are the facts and you are wrong.

            Still.

        • Aaron

          My opinion is backed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

          • Mike

            Society has no more of a vested interest in preventing incestuous relationships that cannot produce children than gay relationships. Please explain why it has a vested interest in preventing incestuous relationships that can't produce children. One way or the other the government is making a judgement on what relationships are going to be promoted and what ones aren't.

          • Aaron

            As I said before, society has a vested interest in preventing incestuous relationships. You can try to ad hoc the argument if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

          • Mike

            If a court finds that they are entitled to equal protection absolutely they can.

          • Aaron

            Can an infertile male/female couple enter into the contract of marriage?

          • Mike

            In other words, why don't two infertile cousins deserve the same legal protections as a gay couple?

          • Mike

            Aaron you ignore the key part of my statement, which relates to cousins who are not fertile.

          • Aaron

            The contract of marriage in the eyes of the government is between 2 individuals, not 3 or more. As to the cousins marrying, genetic defects have resulted from incestuous relationships thus there is a health concern that take precedence.

            I will also mention that you cannot enter into the marriage contract with 2 different individuals separately but simultaneously which takes care of bigamy. An individual under the age of 18 cannot consent to enter into the contract that the reason pedophilia is not an options and animals cannot enter into any sort of contract which prevents bestiality.

            Two individuals can enter into the marriage contract though, it recognized by the government which bestows numerous laws and privileges on the couple that single individuals do not enjoy. As such, to deny entrance into the contract of marriage based on gender is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States as was recently ruled in Utah.

            It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court either upholds the ruling or decides themselves but either way, it really is that simple.

          • Mike

            Aaron:
            I'd like you to enlighten us on why gay marriage can be forced on everyone but not polygamy? A case is actually pending now in Utah on the issue. Why shouldn't families with multiple wives (or husbands) have the same legal protections as gay couples? Why should infertile cousins or an infertile brother and sister be prohibited from marrying?

          • Aaron

            And here I thought you were a smart man. You know we've had this discussion and I've proved you wrong. The federal courts have made numerous rulings on the institution of marriage.

          • The bookman

            And that is Your Opinion, as evidenced by the Current jurisdiction of marriage determination being a state by state decision!

  • C. F. T.

    The greatest threat to both the Dem. and Rep. parties is an 3rd. party regardless of name. The 3rd. party need only be unified to attract enough voters to be a force in elections. Devide and you will conquer which both the Dem. and Rep. parties have done so well vs. any and all efforts to establish an 3rd. (IE - Independant, Tea, etc.) party, has given we the people an inept, devicive, entrenched, ineffective, morally bankrupt, declining world power, etc. government.
    We the people, need to unite behind an political party that will bring forth and implement an policy platform based upon the principals of this countries founding fathers.

  • LFarmer

    If you do not support the right of gay people to get married the same way straight people can, then you are homophobic. Period. If you quote the Declaration of Independence regarding all men being created equal and having the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....but want to deny gays the liberty of being married, the pursuit of happiness that marriage fulfills, and the economic advantages of marriage because of your personal beliefs ....then your'e a hypocrite. Or an idiot. Either way you are a homophobe. Whether intentionally or not, you are supporting denying certain Americans certain rights simply and only because they are gay. It's not a political issue to support or not support. It's unconstitutional on its face.
    I agree that freedom of religion is different than freedom from religion. I don't see many liberals getting mad when people are practicing their religions in church, or saying prayers at dinner in restaurants. There is nothing wrong with that. If the government planned to build a 100 foot tall statue of jesus holding the ten commandments with tax payer money...obviously not ok. Same with gay marriage. You can hate homosexuals and all things related to homosexuals all you want. That is your right. But for the government to treat people differently under the law is not ok. It's not constitutional.
    Aaron is spot on that many people are leaving the republican party and tea party because of this our way or the highway hypocrisy. 2XLPatriot is the perfect example. You claim to understand the freedoms we are blessed with from the DOI and the Constitution, but then let your personal beliefs(that gay marriage is wrong) dictate your stance on whether gay marriage should be legal. People would have so much more respect for republicans these days if they would just swallow their pride and eliminate this hypocrisy. Give it a try. "I agree that constitutionally gay people should have the right to marry, and should be treated equally as every other American, and should enjoy the same benefits as traditional married couples do legally, however, personally I think being gay is sinful or wrong or whatever". It is a shame that today any republican that dares make that fair and logical conclusion is cast out of the good ol'e boy graces.

    • 2XLPatriot

      I used homophobia and racism as examples of liberal social stances. Show me where I said gays should not marry. And for future reference, homophobia implies a fear of gay people. I have friends who are gay and get along well with them. We respect each others views and don't allow them to combine with any social interactions. You jumped right on the homophobia wagon and labeled me without comprehending what I had written. Hypocirte indeed.

      • LFarmer

        2XLPatriot, you said "If one does not support gay marriage or the killing of unborn children, we are somehow homophobic or waging a war on women according to liberals."
        Whos is we?? I took the "we" as to mean you and the others who don't support gay marriage and abortion. The "killing unborn children" comment of yours pretty much sealed the deal on your views. If I was wrong, I apologize. But any reasonable person would read your comment and conclude that you do not support gay marriage or abortion.
        I in no way jumped on any homophobia wagon. Homophobia is not a liberal stance.
        Homophobia is defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals." It is not just a phobia or fear of gay people. Not supporting the legal rights of gay people to get married is discrimination plain and simple. You quoted the DOI. All men are created equal etc. etc. If you are really a patriot and support the USA and its laws, then you need to support the RIGHT of gay people to get married....which is different than AGREEING with the morality of homosexuals. In no way is that hypocritical. Hate gays and gay marriage all you want. It doesn't make you a homophobe until you fail to support the right of gay people to marry the same as straight people.

        • 2XLPatriot

          You are just a fury of unicorn farts and fairy dust. I don't need to "support" or agree with any social issues to be a patriot. I am a 12 year Veteran of the U.S. Army and an RN taking care of Veterans so, don't label me because I'm not marching in the streets waving a rainbow flag. My career in healthcare and my upbringing has taught me that all human life is precious hence, why I'm not an ardent supporter of killing babies. Furthermore, it is none of mine nor your business what people do in the privacy of their homes and therefore, not a political agenda that I'm going to shove down the throats of people and demand that they support it because it's "UnAmerican otherwise. Label me how you choose. Your opinion of me is as insignificant as the lint in my underwear.

          • 2XLPatriot

            Aaron, if you had any idea of what patriotism and taking an oath meant, you wouldn't have even asked such a ridiculous question. Your opinion ranks right up there with LFarmers. (See the last sentence in my reply to him.)

          • Aaron

            If I'm not mistaken patriot, if you're a 12 year veteran, didn't you take and oath to defend the Constitution?

      • JoJo

        2XL, was your response to my post? If it was where did I label you anything? If it wasn't, never mind.

        • 2XLPatriot

          No JoJo. It was a response to LFarmer.

    • wvguy

      Calling some one homophobic because they don't believe in Gay marriage is like calling some one a racist because they don't agree with Obama policies.

      • JoJo

        Gay marriage involves human beings. Disagreeing with policies doesn't.

    • Cynara

      Absolutely! I'm fine with people believing that gays and abortion doctors and people who use birth control and whoever are all sinners and going straight to hell. That's their right. When they try to turn those beliefs into laws and impose them on the rest of us to take away our rights, then we part company.

    • The Hunter

      You do know what state you are in right?

  • Cynara

    Amen to the comments already made. The GOP wants government out of our lives, but they certainly seem to want it in our beds.

    I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal, and I too initially supported the Tea Party when it was about lower taxes and fiscal responsibility instead of being about preventing people's choices in private matters. Right now there's no major party which represents my values. The Republican party need to welcome people like me back in, or we need to get together and find a way to have a viable third party. Perhaps we could start with the Libertarian or the New Whig parties.

    • The Hunter

      I would rather have government in my bed than in my pocket book.

      • Cynara

        I would rather have it in neither.

  • LFarmer

    Although it was likely incidental, it's nice to see a republican admit that gay marriage and abortion don't matter in politics. The issues should not be avoided....they should be dropped. I'm so sick of the "small government and less regulation" party constantly forcing these issues into the spotlight and forcing their values down our throats.

    • The Hunter

      I would have to agree just drop those issues.

  • Aaron

    “…and to stand up for traditional American values”

    I would have agreed with you Lou right up to that point. The problem with that statement and in embracing the Tea Party is that they demand you toe their party line on social issues regardless of how you feel about such stuff. For instance, if you are a fiscal conservative who has no problem with gay marriage, support a women’s choice or understand that this nation WAS NOT created as a Christian nation, then Republicans want nothing to do with you.

    I was part of the TEA Party movement when the issue was fiscal but when it became the far right wing of the Republican Party, I said no thank you. What I found was that members of the TEA Party did not want to ““Focus on the things that matter and the things that matter are building infrastructure in this country, building small business and seeing them represented more in Washington than U.S. multinationals” but instead wanted to make sure issues like gay marriage front and center.

    • 2XLPatriot

      And that is unlike liberals how? If one does not support gay marriage or the killing of unborn children, we are somehow homophobic or waging a war on women according to liberals. If we disagree with the POTUS, we are racist. This country WAS founded on Christian principles and values. The Declaration of Independence opens with this;
      "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
      " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
      One should really understand history as it is written instead of some self formed ideology before making comments about something they really do not understand, Aaron. Freedom "of" Religion does not guarantee Freedom "from" religion. Seperation of church and state means that government will not endorse or force religion on the people. It does not mean that you can be free of any exposure to religion in your everyday life because, we still have the right to practice and display our beliefs. Too bad if you happen to see someone praying to or speaking of God in public. If you don't agree with it, turn your head.

      • Jason412

        2XLPatriot - Ah yes, all men created equally as endowed by their Creator. Except black men, who are only 3/5 of a white man, at least that's what the Three-Fifth's Compromise of 1783 would have you believe.

      • Cynara

        I understand that many of the founders were Deists, and the Creator they speak of may not correspond to the Christian God.

        • The Hunter

          Name the Deist.

          • Aaron

            They were. The vote was taken to the public and the single issue they chose was the Constitution and a nation based on laws, not religious beliefs.

            It truly is a wonderful document. Give it a read sometime.

          • The bookman

            Many during that time considered Deism and Atheism as one in the same...they must have been single issue voters too!!

          • Aaron

            I don't think anyone said they were atheist. What I said was that they did not create the United States of American on Christian principals. That is a fact no amount of revisionist history can change.

          • The bookman

            Deism during that time was closely related to Christianity, and there were different degrees to which people practiced their "religion." Thomas Jefferson was definitely a pure Deist, as most likely was Benjamin Franklin. Monroe could have been a Deist, as his writings indicate Deist vocabulary. Washington could be found at the other end the Deist Spectrum from Jefferson. To say "they are Deists" is like saying "they are Christians." There are many and were many different gradations of each. Either way, they all believed in a creator, God, but were disillusioned with organized religion and Man's interpretation of scripture or scripture itself. And following on the footsteps of The Church of England, who could blame them for their Enlightened choice? Religious freedom was so pervasive in the creation of the primary documents of this country due to the religious persecution that necessitated its founding. But make no mistake, these were men who believed in a higher god, not atheists, but men of principle.

          • Aaron

            Of the 70 or so individuals commonly referred to as founding fathers, estimates place as many as half of them as dietest, including George Washington, James Monroe, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Of the ones did consider themselves Christians, even they wanted no interaction between religion and government.

            Sorry dude but those are the facts but please don't take my word for it, do the research yourself.

      • Aaron

        I understand the religion issue very well, thank you very much. Yes, you have a right to stand in the square, practicing and displaying your beliefs. I agree that while Jesus certainly condemned public prayers and displaying your 'alms' before man instead of God, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from acting as the Pharisees of old. In fact, nothing in my initial comments stated otherwise. I'm sorry you were confused.

        • The bookman

          If the Tea Party in coordination with the core Republican Party can get us fiscal conservatism as dominant policy in this country, then I could care less about their social agenda in the short term. There is no mandate for social conservatives as those winds are headwinds for them. There are no moral victories anymore politically, the stakes are too high with Obama in the White House for another term, and time is running out on our ability to ever do anything substantive about our fiscal demise! Dobbs is right. Stop the bickering, open the door, let the Tea Party in, stake out a winning strategy, and win the Senate. Single issue differences are always going to happen...build a consensus on what you agree on, the fiscal issues, and live to fight the rest when you gave shown Harry Reid the Minority seat!

          • Aaron

            I can't help but note though Mr. Bookman that while you claim we should put social issues aside as Mr. Dobbs suggest, you refuse to accept the facts regarding the institution of marriage.

            I've been to Republican meetings and I've had this discussion with people who feel the same way you do. What I've found is that even though others say they want to leave the social issues at home, none have thus far.

            Why should I expect it will be any difference now when on an online forum, you can't even accept simple facts?

          • Aaron

            Perhaps I should apologize as I do not know your politics. For the record, I will state that I am not a Republican and likely will never be.

            Years back, when the Democratic Party left me and I registered as an Independent, I had a couple of friends try to get me involved in the Republican Party and run for a local office because of my fiscal views.

            I went to 2.5 meetings and after trying to discuss fiscal issues only to have a conversation from social media regarding this very topic, I got fed up and left.

            Since then, I study the issues and base my opinion on what the Constitution says and how I believe it should be interpreted by the law, not by what someone else thinks.

            For the record, I do liberals and their out of control spending are ruining this country but they have help from the right. They just spend it in different places.

            The thing is, when you try to discuss it with either side, the majority will go to the wedge issues to avoid fiscal responsibility.

            Mr. Dobbs states we need to ignore those issues but you can't go to a Republican meeting without "God, guns or gays" quickly becoming the topic of conversation. I know, I tried.

            At any rate, I shouldn't have called you a fundie. My apologies.

          • Aaron

            It seems to me that with your insistence that marriage is a state issue despite the numerous federal cases, you need look no further than a mirror Mr. Bookman.

          • The bookman

            I will when I meet one! Who are the fundies?

          • Aaron

            Tell that to the fundies...

  • RogerD

    One can only hope that the WV Republicans are listening to this wisdom.