Posted on 10/07/2005 1:34:08 PM PDT by 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.
This is an anti-Miers spin article.
It doesn't take 55 seats.
It doesn't take 60 seats.
It takes 102 (political) testicles. Are you sure that they would be there to break a filibuster and enforce the constitutional for, say, Janice Rogers Brown?
"What an arabist statement. Please, tell me what is a 'palestinian'?"
I am not your teacher. If you do not know what a Palestinian is, there are many sources availble on the internet that can assist you. Responding with fatuous remarks like "arabist statement" reflects poorly on you and shows lack of maturity.
As I said, I am well aware of the origins - let me try one last time - "Dark horse" is an expression which is frequently used in political contexts. When you say that a candidate is a dark horse, for instance, what you mean is that although the individual was an unknown before the election, he / she succeeded in winning the election. It is believed that Benjamin Disraeli was the first person to use this expression.
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?
Yes. It is not the only issue. Unfortunately that little piece of judicial activism called Roe v. Wade has totally politicized the Court.
C'mon James D...the pick was disrespecful to conservatives, the court and even to the lowly liberal.
Signs from God are not good enough on this one.
So, John Roberts also refused to turn over those same documents and he turned out "automatically guilty", hounded and eventually "convicted in the media"? Oh, no - that's right - he is currently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I think I understand Washington politics just fine, thank you very much.
Only Ginsburg and Breyer have been nominated by the 'rats.
This problem has been brought on by bad Republican decisions.
Harry Reid (last time I checked, he was registered Democrat) basically endorsed her and will have one hard time explaining a "no" vote once HE GAVE HER NAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!
When the cops accidentally shoot an innocent bystander during a bank robbery, do you blame the criminal or the cops?
Reid will probably vote NO. Democrats have no conscience.
The Reagan Library relented.
But it was Bush who refused to turn over the Reagan era documents, not Roberts.
The difference here is that was the Reagan White House.
The Democrats are going to make a whole different ballgame out of the George W. Bush White House documents. Especially when they start accusing the White House of trying to cover-up crimes.
Reid's "no" vote on this hands the GOP a gift larger than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . . Miss Lewinsky."
Whatever - as I said, don't expect me to address your points if you won't return the courtesy.
I think Reid put his foot in his mouth when he suggested Miers to Bush.
Thanks for posting this. Look, any way you slice this, this is bad. Dobson seems to be crumbling here. The conservative concerns are definitely growing - not diminishing.
One thing that really bothers me about this is that it seems Bush was more concerned about getting advisement from liberals and RINOS than conservatives. That hurts. We spend time, money - all we have for him, and this is what we get - a lot of fog.
I'm not against Miers, but I'm not convinced I should be for her either. I just don't know. Please, God, save the court.
Like... Yeah, I know who he is, but it won't mean squat to the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.