Dobson: What Rove Said About Miers (other FEMALE candidates on short list supposedly withdrew)

Time ^ | 10/11/05 | MIKE ALLEN

[Ol' Sparky]

Dobson: What Rove Said About Miers

In his radio program, the Focus on the Family founder reveals what reassured him about the Supreme Court nominee

By MIKE ALLEN

Posted Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005

Trying to reassure his flock about the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, James C. Dobson set off a firestorm last week when he said that Karl Rove had told him some things he "probably shouldn't know" that led him to believe Miers "will be a good justice." With the Right on a rampage over what some saw as a betrayal, Dobson spoke of "things that I'm privy to that I can't describe because of confidentiality." Had Dobson received an assurance from Rove that Miers, now the White House counsel, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Democrats suspected so, and said they would call Dobson as a witness at her confirmation hearing, which is likely to begin late this month or in early November.

Facing increasing criticism, Dobson announced he would come clean on his Wednesday radio program. In a transcript of the show recorded Tuesday, he says Rove has given him permission to make public their conversation, which occurred two days before Bush's announcement. In brief: Rove assured him Miers was a strong Evangelical Christian—and that some other female candidates supported by the Right had withdrawn their names from consideration.

According to Dobson, Rove said the President "was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman." Rove added that Miers "was at the top of the short list of names under consideration," but that others had withdrawn from consideration. "Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about, were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over," Dobson says. "What Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

It's hard to overstate the power of Dobson's voice among social conservatives, making him a real life raft for the White House at a time when many in the movement have greeted the pick with skepticism, disdain and outright opposition. A licensed psychologist and former professor of pediatrics, Dobson is perhaps best known in the secular world for his 3-million-seller "Dare to Discipline." His official biography says he has "consulted with President George Bush on family related matters." Focus on the Family says he is heard on 2,000 radio stations in the U.S., and is heard by more than 200 million people around the world every day.

Dobson says on Wednesday's "Focus on the Family" broadcast the information from Rove that reassured him was "what we all know now: that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life." Even so, Dobson says, “Rove didn't tell me anything about the way Harriet Miers would vote on cases that may come before the Supreme Court. We did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the court."

Miers still has strong public backing from the White House. On Tuesday, the President and the First Lady teamed up for a vigorous defense of Miers in a live interview with Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today" show at a Habitat for Humanity site in Louisiana, with Laura Bush saying that the nominee is "very deliberate and thoughtful, and will bring dignity to wherever she goes." Republicans say there is no chance Bush will yank the Miers nomination of his own accord. But some influential Republicans said there is a small chance she will survey the flak ahead and decide to withdraw on her own.

[joesbucks]

You bring up a good point. Yes, Jesus did seem to aggrevate certain things. But then again, Dobson isn't Jesus.

It will be interesting if to see if what Dobson says over the next few days matches what he may be required to say if called before the Senate and be under oath.

One local Christian talk show host in my area expressed great concern that he may be requried to testify under oath. He took great pains to show trepedation to the phrase "under oath". I thought good Christians were basically under oath anyhow.

[Cboldt]

However, appropos of the current discussion, when President Bush hinted that Miers would vote the way he would like, he was painting his own word picture of someone who would vote lockstep regardless of principle. Whether he meant to or not.

His rhetoric is an appeal to trust. It isn't substantive. President Bush is an executive politician, not a jurist.

I've tinkering with what I think could be a litmus test to justify trust (or understand the ramifications) in President Bush's "strict constructionist" promise. The term "strict constuctionist" is braod sweeping, and tends to paint a iew that conservatives find attractive. We want what -WE- see as strict constructionists.

Would President Bush say that Gonzales is a strict constructionist? We have a record on Gonzales. So, while we can't probe the record of Miers, we might be able to get a handle on how flexible or rigid the term "strict constructionist" plays out from President Bush's rhetoric.

Gonzales is easily shown to be a judical activist, BTW. He and Own were on opposite sides of the parental notification case in Texas - the case literally turns on the interpretation of "strict constructionist." Either Owen is a strict constuctionsit, or Gonzales is, but it is not logical that they both be.

The sophists will argue that the court let the law stand, no legislation from the bench. Or that the court didn't strike down the law, so there was no judicial activism. I say read the case and draw your own conclusion. By the spophists definition, the FLorida Supreme Court was not activist in the 2000 election. But in fact, it was. And so was the Texas Supreme Court in parental notification.

[Cboldt]

Gore was trying to paint that word picture rather than recite a true Bush quote.

I see a pretty direct assertion of direct quote ... "Governor Bush has declared ..."

Then-candidate Bush gave lots of campaign speeches, it is odd that they are not popping up as transcripts or direct quotes near the top of a google search.

Al Gore: "And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

[.30Carbine]

But then again, Dobson isn't Jesus.

I submit to you Matthew 10:24-34 -

"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

[Pukin Dog]

Looks like some folks owe you a bit of an apology, Dog. Looks to me like your vanity the other day was pretty much right on.

I'm not holding my breath.

[G.Mason]

Firstly, thanks for the urls to peruse.

Secondly ... Re: "One can safely assume the George Bush's political rhetoric has been fairly steady regarding the proper function of judges in our government. George Bush considers Gonzales to be a strict constructionist. That should give an open-minded thinking person reason for closer scrutiny of the pick, in advance."

This should be of no surprise to anyone who follows politics. I need not remind you that the choice for 2000 was between Gore and GWB. I will say no more.

For 2004 the choice was between Kerry and GWB. Again I will say no more.

Candidate Bush was, in fact, quite clear in his campaigns and his actions after being elected, both for governor and president, that he was not a "conservative" in the mold many here are subscribing.

He is, as you dutifully point out a politician and as such reacts as a politician. To somehow imagine that President Bush has or will morph into a Eugene McCarthy is beyond naievity.

" He is a politician - and in the end, his actions have political ramifications."

Again, that is true. However the reality is that this country is operated in the arena of politics and all of it; the WOT, the borders, SCOTUS, the circut courts, the McCain rebellion, the RHINO Congress, etc. etc., all have "ramifications".

I, personally am not enamored by the Harriet Miers selection. (not that that matters to anyone but myself) Personally I don't see selecting a woman, in fact there are no designated seats, as such, on the Supreme Court, whether by gender, or by philosophy, yet that drum keeps beating.

Also I understand the disappointment of the "conservatives". What I don't understand is why many cannot see the many faceted reasons why Ms Miers was nominated and are seemingly against the Senate hearings. I would suggest the "half a loaf is better than none" syndrome is in effect.

BTW ... Thank you for your civility in this matter.

[TaxRelief]

"What Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

This is the "natural selection" part of the process.

[white trash redneck]

It has occurred to me that the Miers nomination, and its Dobson gambit, might be a plan by the WH to get Gonzales nominated to the SC. If W had nominated Gonzales outright, there would have been a hue and cry from conservatives. However, if he nominates Miers as one of only a few willing to be subjected to a RAT confirmation inquisistion, and then she withdraws, he may then be able to nominate Gonzales with the justification that he had no other credible alternative.

I hope that the Republicans are playing close attention to the way that the RATs play the nomination confirmation game, and make certain to give any RAT president nominee a painful, public 5-finger rectal exam during confirmation hearings. However, if the past is any indication, our side will simply roll over for RAT nominees.

[tennmountainman]

And you don't know that she is...and thats where the concern lies.
Scalia and Thomas were tested nominee's before they were confirmed. And they have lived up to hopes of millions of Americans. Miers is 60 years old and has no opinion about anything.

[flashbunny]

That's because the hearings are meaningless at this point.

If the hearings actually revealed anything important about a candidate's philosophy, you might have a point. But the dog and pony show that is essentially a PR show for committtee members reveals almost nothing about the candidate and everything about how the senators want their constituents back home to see them.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Would you have a link to a verifiable source that references that quote?"

I haven't checked it "all the way back to Bush", but statements to that effect have appeared in multiple media postings here at FR, and at "reputable blogs" like Powerline.

Now, I know that the SAM (stone age media) often gets it wrong, but multiple "trustworthy" bloggers have also used it, and they are usually more careful with their facts.

[G.Mason]

Thanks for getting back.

Cboldt posted that Gore said the following at the debate in October 3, 2003 ... "Al Gore: "And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas""

... which is HERE

I, and others, have been unable to come up with any valid reference to President Bush having said that.

I am certain we all would like facts to be presented, here on Free Republic, and in the interest of being fair, we should have the "factual" truth.

Again, I do not insinuate anyone is being untruthful, only that we can find no direct link to GWB stating that he, in fact, stated that.

[AntiGuv]

Umm, yeah. But the 'disturbance' Jesus refers to is not disturbance just for the hell of it. It's a disturbance of overturning the religious order or for some other grand purpose other than self-absorbed whining..

[.30Carbine]

Re: your tagline -

(Until the age of 46, Miers was a hard-core Dem.)

That's the Power of Jesus Christ, right there, man!
(I've experienced the same transformation!)

And your comment, "This is the 'natural selection' part of the process."

LOL!

[.30Carbine]

You make a great point.

[.30Carbine]

Umm, yeah. But the 'disturbance' Jesus refers to is not disturbance just for the hell of it. It's a disturbance of overturning the religious order or for some other grand purpose other than self-absorbed whining..

If you think Dr. Dobson is taking all this heat, and has since before I was born, "just for the hell of it," then you are not seeing clearly. If you think restoring the order of the Constitution to the Supreme Court of the United States is not a "grand purpose," again, you are not seeing clearly.

Jesus said, "If your eye is good your whole body will be filled with light."
Luke 11:34

He meant that the way you look at things, or people, says a lot about you, not them.

Jesus also said, "Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."
Luke 6:45

You accuse Dr. Dobson of "self-absorbed whining." I ask you what that accusation is based on? What Dr. Dobson has suffered - simply for trying to help families and America and believers and those who need to hear the truth - would certainly not be the result of 'self-absorbed' thinking. He's on the front lines of the fight
- for the restoration of America, one nation under God
- for the stability of the family and reconciliation among people groups
- for the lives of millions of unborn babies who are being slaughtered by the thousands in America this day
- and he's fighting for the hearts and minds and souls of men who live in the darkness of lies and perversion and sin and need the delieverance that is held out only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As to "whining," that's what those who sit on the sidelines (and let others take the real attacks) do. You're either a whiner or a worker, not both. The person who does the work is too busy to whine.

Heroes put their own reputation, their own time and treasure, their own lives on the line for those they love. Dr. James Dobson loves his nation and her people. He loves his God, Jesus Christ, and serves Him with a stamina and selflessness many of us will never attain. That's how my eyes see it.

[LS]

After listening to Rush today, and the woman caller who said she felt like the conservatives were betraying her, I am actually coming around to the anti-Miers position. Rush's arguments made sense.

I would, however, be very surprised if the Right manages to kill the Miers nomination that we could then get an even "more proven" conservative on the Court. It's possible, but not likely in my opinion. So I guess the question is, do we sink Miers and possibly lose the seat for good, or support her and hope she turns out to match what everone "says" about her?

My concern is that once blood is in the water, the Left will then have a strategy to show the Right that NO nominee is "good enough," and thus, rather than taking away the RINO votes, actually kill us on the other end.

Still, the thought of a person on the Court who would support Kelo or affirmative action is, as you say, enought o give me the willers, too.

Bottom line: I'm reserving judgment until the hearings, and if I don't hear a Roberts-type answer ("if the constitution is for the little guy, I'm for the little guy"), then for what it's worth, my support is gone.

[LS]

That was absolutely NOT the case with the Roberts hearings. We learned more about his judicial philosophy in one 44 second clip than in 50 written opinions.

[Cboldt]

I would, however, be very surprised if the Right manages to kill the Miers nomination that we could then get an even "more proven" conservative on the Court. It's possible, but not likely in my opinion.

If judical conservatism can't win on the merits (be overt), then it is DOA.

My concern is that once blood is in the water, the Left will then have a strategy to show the Right that NO nominee is "good enough," and thus, rather than taking away the RINO votes, actually kill us on the other end.

This nomination put the blood in the water, my friend. The GOP showed weakness, and now is trying to cover its ass.