Howard Kurtz interviewed Dobbs on Reliable Sources. Transcript follows…

HOWARD KURTZ, “WASHINGTON POST”: Lou Dobbs, welcome.

LOU DOBBS, CNN HOST, “LOU DOBBS TONIGHT”: Good to be with you, Howard.

KURTZ: Have you become a crusader on this issue of immigration?

DOBBS: I’m certainly an advocate for truth in the debate, and there are very clear, non-partisan, non-ideological realities that are being absolutely obfuscated by both ends of the political spectrum in this debate on illegal immigration and border security. It’s truly a remarkable situation at this time in our history.

KURTZ: You told the “New York Times” this week, quote, “There’s nothing fair and balanced about me, because there’s nothing fair and balanced about the truth.

DOBBS: Right.

KURTZ: But shouldn’t a cable news anchor be fair?

DOBBS: Well, a cable news anchor should be fair always; fair and balanced as a piece of rhetoric about what we’re doing here, I don’t know. That’s up to each individual cable news anchor, as you put it. On “LOU DOBBS TONIGHT” — my broadcast, my viewers — my audience expects me to come at them with the unvarnished reality and the truth, irrespective of how the chips fall in the political spectrum. We do that.

Howard, you know that I’m as quick to criticize President Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton, as anyone else. It just doesn’t, frankly, matter to me where the partisan views fall on a given subject. My interests are primarily working men and women in this country, the middle class and the national interest. And that’s where —

KURTZ: Well when you use a word like truth, what gives you a monopoly on the truth, especially on a sensitive issue —

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa!! I didn’t say I had a monopoly — come on, you sound like you’re doing tabloid journalism, Howard.

KURTZ: There’s nothing —

DOBBS: I never said I had a monopoly —

DOBBS: According to you — “nothing fair and balanced about the truth.”

DOBBS: Wait a minute, Howard. I never said I had a — excuse me — I’m quoting you; you said, What gives me a monopoly on the truth? I never said “monopoly on the truth,” Howard, you’re a better journalist than that. Now you can get to whatever I have said, and I’ll be glad to respond.

KURTZ: Well, when you say, “There’s nothing fair and balanced about the truth,” that raises for me, on an issue like this, where there are so many competing views and there is so much passion about border security and dealing with illegal immigrants who are already here, that suggests to you that there is one version that one can come up with that would approximate the truth.

DOBBS: As a matter of fact, I think that indeed there is. If you do not accept the idea that one of the roles of any journalist is to get to the truth, then you and I are going to diverge on what the role of any journalist is.

First, there are facts that are absolutely immutable and irrefutable, whether it be in the illegal immigration debate or whether it be on border security. The facts are — these are the truth, irrespective of whether you’re Republican or Democrat — we have a porous border to the north and the south of us. Our ports are absolutely porous; only 5 percent of the cargo coming into this country is inspected.

My god, Howard! What kind of partisan view do you want? That is truth. Now what that does, in terms of your ideological view is up to you. But don’t suggest to me that truth is always fair and balanced, because it is not. In point of fact, most of the he-says, she-says journalists working in this craft today, both print and electronic, are using it as what I would call a monstrous cop-out and an inability to carry out their responsibility to find the facts.

Who in the — let me turn the question, a bit, Howard, if I may: Who the hell said there were only two versions of the truth, a Republican view and a Democratic view.

KURTZ: No, there are probably six, seven, eight different version for people with different views and opinions and constituencies and all that.

DOBBS: I’m not interested — are you interested in six or seven views, or are you interested in the truth? Because that’s what I’m interested in; that’s what my viewers are interested in.

KURTZ: Let me ask you —

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) — go ahead; I’m sorry.

KURTZ: Let me ask you about some of the criticism in the press, which I know you’re familiar with.

DOBBS: Sure.

KURTZ: A “New York Times” piece this week said, “Critics deride him as anti-immigrant, racist and biased.” “Washington Post” columnist Michael Kinsley on Friday said you “used to be a mild-mannered anchor,” and now you’ve “become a raving populist xenophobe.” I want you to respond to that.

DOBBS: First, the “New York Times” article is, in the judgment of most, I think, entirely complimentary of what we are doing. The reference to critics is not the view of the “New York Times,” but rather critics. The suggestion by Michael Kinsley that I’m a raving populist xenophobe — I’d love to see how he could support that.

I’m actually, in point of fact, Howard, just as we can get to the truth, I’m actually pro-immigrant. I am pro legal immigration. I have great respect for the people who make up the preponderance of the illegal alien population in our country — that is, Mexican migrant workers.

I mean, that’s an insane statement by Michael Kinsley, who is a man who is a master of opinion journalism, as he tries to deride it. The fact is, on certain issues, I am an advocate. I’m an advocate for the truth. And I’m sorry that doesn’t suit Mr. Kinsley and some others. But I don’t think that that was a correct construction of the “New York Times” that you just made.

KURTZ: Let me play a clip from your show. This past week, you were talking to Janet Murguia, who is from the National Council of La Raza. And here’s how part of that exchange went.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: I don’t think that we should have any flag flying in this country except the flag of the United States. And let me tell you something else, since we’re talking about double standards — and I think you’re right about people who would believe that. But let’s be clear: I don’t think there should be a St. Patrick’s Day, I don’t care who you are.

KURTZ: When you say things like that, you seem to provide an opening for your detractors.

DOBBS: I don’t care about my detractors. The fact is, and the point I was making, Howard, is that the United States has become a multi-cultural society with a political correct orthodoxy, emanating, by the way, from both extremes of the political spectrum.

My point being: What in the world is the big deal about St Patrick’s Day, or Columbus Day? The days that are important to me are those days where we celebrate our commonalities, our similarities. This is the most diverse society on Earth, and as soon as any news anchor or host wants to talk about something riveting to the audience, they want to sensationalize the issue of race.

Do you know, most Americans are the most sensitive, open people in the world. I mean, this — name one society that is more diverse than ours, ethnically, religiously, racially. Please! I cannot tolerate the pandering of ethno-centric groups or special interests, whether it be corporate American or labor unions, the Democratic party or the Republican. We’re Americans! And I’m sorry that doesn’t set into everyone’s convenient view of the world, but there it is.

KURTZ: Your ratings, Lou, are up about 28 percent in the last two-and-a-half years. do you see any connection between your aggressive stance on this and other issues and success at the box office?

DOBBS: I think that’s a great question, Howard. You know, whereas most of your viewers may not — but certainly all of mine do — that I’ve been covering really exciting issues like international trade, the economy, outsourcing of jobs and illegal immigration for years. Now suddenly that the United States Senate is focussed on this and the president is using his whatever political capital he has to push forward a guest-worker amnesty program, it’s as if we came to this issue in the last two weeks.

You know we’ve been reporting on broken borders for literally years.

KURTZ: And given your strong views, which you have enumerated and elaborated on here today, should CNN viewers believe they are going to get all sides of these issues on your program?

DOBBS: As a matter of fact, I think you will find that there have been far more advocates of open borders and illegal immigration on my broadcasts that there have been opponents. And my broadcast, as you put it, is not a typical CNN broadcast, certainly, nor is it a typical broadcast that you would find on any news network. We at the outset say this broadcast is about news, debate and opinion. And we believe that enriches the content of what we are providing to our viewers, and obviously they agree with us.

So I frankly just don’t see the issue, other than, there’s an orthodoxy that compels Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives and others, and there is an orthodoxy that compels many journalists to view the world in one way. I take absolutely nothing away from those who are committed to their so-called objectivity, but so long as we put “so-called” objectivity, because you and I both know it’s unattainable. And I make no pretense of where we stand.

And I don’t come to these — my opinions or my positions lightly. After years of analysis, after thorough study of these issues and a complete filtration of ideological and partisan influences. I mean, it’s just — it’s irrelevant.

KURTZ: All right. It’s a great debate. I hope we’ll be able to continue it another time.

Lou Dobbs —

DOBBS: Any time.

KURTZ: — thank you very much for joining us.

DOBBS: Good to be with you, Howard.