Skip to comments.Dobson: What Rove Said About Miers (other FEMALE candidates on short list supposedly withdrew)
Posted on 10/12/2005 12:05:33 AM PDT by 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assured him Miers was a strong Evangelical Christianand that some other female candidates supported by the Right had withdrawn their names from consideration.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 Rove added that Miers "was at the top of the short list of names under consideration," but that others had withdrawn from consideration.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.
Playing the affirmative action game for political gain is absolutely no reason to sacrifice principle and renege on a the promise to appointed a known conservative justice.
This nomination needs to be withdrawn and a known originalist of any gender, race or ethnicity needs to be nominated in her place.
I'd like to see that "promise" sourced. A "known" conservative? Known to who? I don't believe Bush ever said that.
Just so you know, an embarassing Bush retreat here will likely weaken his Presidency to the point of irrelvancy.
All this ranting merely strengthens the Left.
Flame away, but I have no doubt of it. The DU'ers are laughing their a**s off.
But that takes someone who wants to expose their entire life to inspection and nit picking by the likes of Teddy Kennedy, with no gain - No job in the end, and forever known as a court reject.
Pretty big request.
It's particularly odd that this was leaked by previously tight lipped staffers to two different bloggers on the same day that Rove "gave permission" to Dobson to reveal this part of their supposed conversation. I don't know if I buy it. I definetly don't buy the insinuation that not ONE of the several highly qualified and known conservative women turned down the nomination. Nut even if we assume this to me true, there are so many more known originalists from which he could choose - some minority and some (Gasp!) white males. At the very least, if we assume this is true, it proves that Bush is willing to play affirmative action games with our country's future.
IMHO, Dobson isn't exactly helping the situation any. In fact, he just seems to aggravate things every time he talks about it.
Dem's and the gang of 7 traitors have so poisoned the process that no one wants to go through it. It's sad but it should also be used as a hammer over the head of the gang of 7.
You sound a lot like Rush...
Al Gore: "And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence ThomasThere are many references to then candidate George Bush asserting that he would nominate Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Al Gore may be a liar, but he did't lie about that.
"And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade."
The promise was again asserted in 2004. If you know of a repositiry for Bush stump speeches, I'll find a direct quoote for you from one or more of those.
The legal opinions of Scalia and Thomas were well known in the year 2000. Known to anybody who is able to read and understand their writings.
Surely you can't have missed a call for action in the volumes of criticism.
Nominate a known conservative jurist, and watch the RATS drop the laughing.
Only if his *retreat* doesn't involve replacing Miers with a nominee conservatives will not rally around.
Nothing you just posted said Bush would appoint a "known" anybody to the Supreme Court. It said he would appoint justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. The only thing most people "know" about Miers is that they "know" very little about her. But while she isn't "known" to most Americans, she may very well be cut from the same ideological mold as Thomas and Scalia. And nobody on this site "knows" for sure that she is not.
Sell your snake oil to somebody gullible. I'm not buying it.
It's outrageous that Bush is getting away with this. Do you REALLY think that this was the most qualified person he could find? And now we have laura bush suggesting that those who criticize his choice are sexist. Do we all follow "trust me" because he is the leader or are there bigger issues involved. The best thing that could happen to the party is to clean out the bush operatives.
i hate to rain on your parade, buttttttttttttt. its the entire nation who is inculcated with affirmative action, nor just this president. i criticize bush when i think he needs it, but you know the court has assigned seats, or you should know that. im not approving, im merely stating reality. put blame where it lies, on the leftist/ commies/socialists, not on bush.
No one is asking you to "buy" anything. I simply asked for a source for what is obviously a false statement attributed incorrectly to George Bush. You can't provide a source, but don't feel bad. No one else can either. He never made such a statement.
I haven't read this entire thread, but basically this is the same "inside" info we got from Pukin Dog the other day.
People withdrew because they didn't want to face the scrutiny to themselves or their families and who can blame them.
"MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume -- you're pro-life.
BUSH: I am pro-life.
MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?
BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench.
People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me.
I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench.
I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas."
There's the money quote. Maybe it's time we donated to a fund that would investigate Democrat senators and newspeople. They want to play this vicious game of tearing down Republicans and there is no cost to them. Lets's make them pay a price as well.
That's why they remain so effective even in the minority. If Republicans had more "lockstep compliance," we could have set off the nuclear option in June and we wouldn't be having this particular discussion.
The process was already poisoned. Probably lots of people didn't want to go through it before McCain and his Merry Moderates made failure of a credentialed conservative pretty much inevitable. To go through that process has been ugly for a while; to go through it for nothing in the end isn't more appealing.
The fact that this list was limited to women only sounds rather sexist and elitist on it's face. Where does the RNC come down on this one? Find the microphone Ken! Blackbird.
That is because Karl Rove has decided to take back the reigns on this fiasco. It has been all over the boards that Rove had almost nothing to do with the Miers pick. It was something Andy Card "cooked up" and to say he mishandled this is the understatement of the year.
Rove is trying to bring some adult supervision back into this, but it may be too late.
To: samantha; Texas Songwriter; k2blader; freepatriot32; Stellar Dendrite; flashbunny; Hank Rearden; ...
The Democrat Underground has been lurking all over these threads...
We can only hope.
Maybe those lemmings will finally get it into their thick skulls that there are people who are willing to stand up for their innermost political convictions, instead of bowing to political expediency and unquestioningly accepting the perceived wisdom of people who we have no reason to trust, based upon their prior actions.
I hope they are lurking.
Maybe a few of them will have an epiphany and realize how ridiculous it is to be part of a cult of personality.
Perhaps they'll realize what a foolhardy decision it was to countenance the subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and grotesque abuse of power by the Clinton administration.
Maybe they'll think twice before falling in lockstep behind a charismatic leader, who may-or may not-have your best interests in mind.
I sure as hell hope they're lurking!
Let them see what it means to stand up for your principles, instead of being a mindless sycophant of one political leader.
190 posted on 10/11/2005 6:28:01 PM EDT by Do not dub me shapka broham
Oh great... now we got people who don't want to go through the rigors of hearings.
I would agree in that on the surface this appears to be a sexist nomination.
Dobson corroborates your version of events.
Well made point. And i agree.
Some people are so proud of being part of a herd of cats they don't realize that it never actually gets them anywhere.
It all depends on the meaning of "known conservative". What Bush DID say was that he intended to appoint Supreme Court justices "... in the mold of Scalia and Thomas...". Now, Scalia and Thomas ARE considered "conservative", so in effect, Bush DID promise to appoint "known conservatives".
I frankly do NOT believe that, at least in the case of Janice Rogers Brown. Since she just went through exactly that over her appointment to the appelate level of the court, why should going through the process again faze her??? In her case it is "been there, done that".
Could I suggest that if you want to do this picking of judges try getting elected President. If people who are republican are watching Will,Kristol and Frum trash a good person then the member of any profession they will know that taking a post in the Bush administration is not worth the price - you two posters would exact.
...especially read paragragh 3....sound familiar? :)
This article contains a direct quote from President Bush promising to appoint "strict constructionists":
But in the debates Al Gore made up the quote, "in the mold of Scalia . . . " out of whole cloth. Bush never said it. At least I haven't been able to find it.
I certainly hope you are more proficient in the world of politics than you are on animal herds.
Would you be so kind as to quote the source of that?
The day I can truthfully claim to have accomplished a hundredth of the good Dobson has done, is the day I can die with a broad grin on my face.
Especially given the way the weak kneed Republicrats handled the Democratic Party memos -fired the staff aids
and helped suppress the content -- I see no reason to expect the Republicans to grow juevos and ever stand for anything-they've been playing queerguns with the Democrats far too long.
I think his meaning depends on that saying that used to crop up here a lot: "Herding Democrats is liking herding sheep; herding Republicans is like herding cats." Sometimes added: "Herding Libertarians is unheard of!" He understands all too well what herding cats is like.
These are the realities to deal with.