I have no problem with Lalas criticizing US Soccer nor with his overt homerism. In fact, I would rather have my commentators for US games be blatantly biased.
The problem I have with his criticism is most of the times when pressed, he would make platitudes about attitude/desire, but have no real ideas for positive changes to be made either with team tactics or soccer development in the country. Which makes sense, because as a player he had the touch of an elephant, the vision of Mr Magoo and only performed due to effort - essentially a less talented Jeff Agoos. Thus he comes off as nothing but a drunk DKR fan yelling "get him".
Harkes, Wynalda and Balboa were all from '94 and have all criticized US Soccer with legitimate ideas on how we change tactics, player roles and how we go about in youth development/recruitment. I may not agree with them on everything, but there is substance. For all his faults as a coach, Klinsmann fought to add more youth to the side and was outspoken about Americans running back home to the safety of the MLS at the first sign of difficulties in Europe. He was also good in his TV spots on previous WCs as well.
My problem with Lalas is that he is given a platform to make real commentary, but doesn't have the substance to back it up. There are others with legitimate ideas that don't get the same chance. I think that chance solely stems from the fact that he had a recognizable goatee/name and therefore will have perceived market value for Fox to the non-soccer fan. If he were just there to play the Fiore role, he would be just fine.