Dobson Admits Doubt -- Focus Founder Questioning Early Endorsement of Miers

Rocky Mountain News ^ | M.E. Sprengelmeyer

[hinterlander]

WASHINGTON - An anguished James Dobson prayed Wednesday for a sign from God, telling his Christian radio listeners he was questioning his early endorsement of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, is one of the most prominent religious conservatives to back Miers, citing his trust in President Bush and a confidential briefing he received about her from the White House.

But in his regular radio broadcast Wednesday, Dobson prayed he was not making a mistake.

"Lord, you know I don't have the wisdom to make this decision," Dobson said. "You know that what I feel now and what I think is right may be dead wrong."

He added that he worried that his position "could do something to hurt the cause of Christ, and I'd rather sacrifice my life than do that."

Dobson's "agonized heart," as he called it, is a sign of continuing turmoil in the religious conservative movement over the selection of Miers, a longtime confidante of Bush who has never been a judge and therefore has no paper trail detailing her views.

Many evangelicals, including Dobson, see the pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as critical because O'Connor was viewed as a swing vote on contentious issues like abortion.

For more than 30 years, Dobson has waged a crusade to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion. He said he believes Miers is against abortion, based on talks with her longtime friends and other information.

He also confirmed reports that he received a special briefing from Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, but still will not discuss the talks in detail.

"When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know - that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation (that) I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said in a broadcast with co-host John Fuller.

"And John, if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget it. The blood of those babies who will die will be on my hands to a degree. Lord, if I am right, confirm it, and if I am wrong, chastise me and I will repent of it and come before these microphones."

In a press conference Tuesday, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, demanded that the White House give senators whatever information it gave Dobson.

He's not the only one who wants to know the secret.

Dobson said his phone has been ringing off the hook from congressional allies and fellow conservatives seeking reassurance heading into Miers' upcoming confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Some are wary because Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, suggested her name to the president, and because of other hints that have emerged from her record.

Although she contributed funds to President Bush's election, she also has given to Democrats, including Al Gore in 1988.

When she ran for Dallas City Council in 1989, she signed a questionnaire for a gay rights group saying she supported equal civil rights for lesbians and gays. But she also said she was not seeking the group's endorsement and that she opposed a repeal of a law banning sodomy.

On Wednesday, conservative columnist George Will said if 100 capable legal analysts each listed 100 people worthy of being nominated, "Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."

And the Web site of the Dobson- founded Family Research Council showed a question mark alongside Miers' picture.

Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers were taking a wait-and-see approach to Miers.

"I just don't know her," Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Wednesday. "I'm not going to jump out there and say this is a wonderful choice."

Dobson, who heads one of the largest Christian media empires, said he doesn't want to overestimate his own influence, although countless national media outlets already have quoted him as being in Miers' corner.

[clawrence3]

It may "seem" that way to you, but if it results in Roe v. Wade being overturned before November 7, 2006, will this momentary bother? That's at least ONE positive way to slice it.

[RTINSC]

I agree. I believe Reid never thought in a million years Bush would pick Miers. Reid, like many of us, knows little of Miers but - W knows a great deal about her. Reid put himself in an awkward position and I think he will vote NO when push comes to shove.

[LS]

Can we talk reality, or do you want to live in fantasy land forever?

1) Miers is THE pick. She will not step down, and Bush will not "withdraw" her nomination. Get used to it.

2) The Dems don't have the ammo to defeat her.

3) ONLY Republicans can stop her from being confirmed. If they do that, there will be no "proven originalist,"---EVER. Do you get this? It is NOT a choice of "Miers or Janice Rogers Brown." It is Miers or Miers.

And if so-called conservatives help torpedo this nominee, you can forget getting ANYONE to the right of Chuck Schumer on the court again.

[Cautor]

"A "dark horse" doesn't necessarily have to be dark in color. The word "dark" here can also means "secret" — the trainer of the horse keeps the potential of the horse a secret. Everyone ELSE is kept in the dark about the capability of the horse. Any questions?"

I'll give it one last shot and then you can have the final word. It's really easy, but you can't seem to grasp it.

Let's start with the origin of the term. You have a horse that runs in races (that's what the horse does and is known for). The horse wins all the time and all the folks in the stands know it. Every time they see the horse, they say I'm betting on that horse, it's a sure winner. Well, there are nefarious folks who would like to make money by betting on a horse with long odds. But they don't want to take a risk on a horse with an unproven record that has long odds. They want a horse with a proven record that has long odds. Such horses just don't exist. So the nefarious folks decide to play a trick. They take a horse that's a proven winner, and which everyone would recognize and, well they change his appearance (they darken his coat) to fool the people into thinking he's some unknown horse with long odds.

So you would contend that Miers (the dark horse) is a known winner that everyone recognizes as such. But to fool us, he has her disguised so we don't recognize her as the winner you say she is. Well, you're right about one thing: she has long odds of being a winner. And since she has no track record as a judge, not even Bush knows how she will turn out. He thinks he knows because she's an old crony of his. His argument and yours boils down to this: TRUST ME.

I'm not willing to trust him. I trusted his dad when he said "read my lips." I no longer trust this man because he promised me a judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and he gives us a Friend of Bush who is a perfect stealth candidate. And he failed to confront the Senate bullies called RINOs and Democraps. QED.

[LS]

Hank, why do you even waste your time here? Why don't you inhabit the "perfect" Libertarian boards? Because you are in la-la land, where only "perfect" people are acceptable, and where no politician ever has to attract the votes of anyone but the ultra, ultra-right.

It gets old. If you ever bother to read history, you'd see that at ALL times, the great shifts in the country came about by VERY small margins of committed people; that there are ALWAYS cores of senators and congressmen who want to avoid the "extremes" on anything because they are too comfortable. But that doesn't mean that change doesn't happen. It does mean there is a political reality that has to be taken into account.

[LS]

You are absolutely right here. Lenin took Russia with a cadre of 20,000 committed commies, out of a nation of 160 million. The problem is that the cadre of committed conservatives in the Senate is about 15, with about 30 "sorta conservatives" and 10 "occasionally, once in a while conservatives." Reality says that sending up a "perfect" conservative nominee with a track record would be utterly useless.

[LS]

Personally, Dobson's endorsement of her was the deal maker for me. To each his own. For every person a Dobson or Falwell "loses," one is gained (or more).

[Enchante]

We don't have 55 seats in the Senate, there are easily 7-8 RINOs who cannot be counted upon to support the 'constitutional' option. Without that, any Luttig-Brown-Jones-McConnell type nominee faces a very uncertain if not hopeless prospect. A lot of people seem to prefer going down in flames on this - without a filibuster-proof majority Bush judged that this was the best nominee who could be assured of confirmation (if Republicans don't tear the Senate caucus apart first). I'd rather see Miers now and take the gamble on trying to smash a filibuster on Bush's 3rd nomination (which is a near-certainty before the end of his term) than gamble now and have the RINOs cave to the 'Rats..........

[F16Fighter]

"Oooga-booga-BOO! Toss some chicken bones and let us all know what you see, JD."

One of your more moronic posts, Hank.

[CA Conservative]

I always get the willies when a preacher is "Dr." instead of "Rev." or "Fr." - weirdness often abounds as a result.

In this case, he really is a doctor - a clinical psychologist and former professor of pediatric medicine.

[joem15]

The Constitution of The United States of America is not a difficult document to understand. It was designed that way. The Founders kept it very simple. Unfortunately there are sitting Justices on the Supreme court who don't understand the Constitution and even look to foreign law for their decisions. These Justices, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy,and others are turning the Supreme Court of the US into a legal boutique that suits their fancy.

Everybody on the Right,it seems,is grinding their teeth over Harriet Meirs. Where the hell were these stalwarts when Ruth Bader Ginsgurg sailed through the Senate unopposed?

Ruth Bader Ginsgurg and David Souter are cruel jokes played on the American people. If this were "Fantasy Supreme Court" I would take 2 Harriet Meirs in place of Ruth Bader Ginsgurg and David Souter.

Thank you GWB you made an historic move.

[FreeRep]

James Dobson, are you a wispy reed twisting in the wind? " O ye of little faith?"

[Theodore R.]

Is Dobson a minister or a psychologist?

[Theodore R.]

Reverend Falwell did oppose Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination, which was pushed by Kenneth W. Starr in 1981.

[get'emall]

Huh? What does that have to do with accountability for carefully-considered bad decisions?

[Bush gal in LA]

I don't know either. ..........I just got back from an event where Sean Hannity was speaking, here in LA and he surprised all of us here in the audience when he said'' I want to welcome my good friend Mark Levin.'' The Great one''. He was wonderful! He said we conservatives should not blame Bush if this woman doesn't turn out to be a good pick. We should blame that IDIOT McCaine and his ''Gang of 14 dummies''. He went on to say they have crippled Bush and tied his hands by preventing the Nuclear option. He was fantastic! Also on the ticket was Gloria Allred. YUK! I am with you about praying for our Supreme Court! Conservatives have hung together and worked too hard all these years , for this nomination to turn out to be a turkey! It just can't happen!

[ontos-on]

Those "I know something you don't know" radio statements were very very foolish.

[Al Simmons]

Dr. Dobson is not an ordained minister. He IS a licensed psychologist, however.

[Hank Rearden]

One of your more moronic posts, Hank.

Why? Of what relevence are Dobson's hallucinations to the process of a Supreme Court appointment?

[Hank Rearden]

He said we conservatives should not blame Bush if this woman doesn't turn out to be a good pick. We should blame that IDIOT McCaine and his ''Gang of 14 dummies''.

They're already lining up the excuses for this gigantic mistake made by Bush. He picked her, not McLame. The latest in a long line of Bush letdowns.