Replies

"Why am I not surprised that Dr. Dobson is a target to you?"

I don't know why you're not surprised.

Dr. Dobson assured everyone that he had double secret info on Miers and that she'd be just fine. Now that she's withdrawn, he has double secret info that she's not.

My question for Dr. Dobson is: Why did you give that assurance before you knew anything about her? You were blowing smoke up your followers' legs.

Rove saw him as an easily lead puppet and he did as he was told, and then his followers said "WTF?" when they did their own research, and he realized he also should have done his own homework in the first place.

I just hope he's learned his lesson.

You tagline indicates you're dead wrong about the most important and obvious issues in the universe, so I suppose it can't be a surprise that you caricature Dobson wrongly.

Dobson's initial statement, on October 3, was far from an unqualified endorsement:

"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception.
"On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy. All we can say now is that Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court.
"We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."

And then within days, the good doctor was admitting that he wasn't absolutely assured about her, in keeping with what he'd already said. Within a week, he pretty fully explained both the reasons for and limitations of his qualified approval.

So now you know how offbase your smarmy little slander of this good man was, you'll be retracting and apologizing, right? Because all you care about is facts and truth, right? You don't have issues with Dobson or what he represents, do you?

Ri-i-i-ight.

Dan