About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Dobson cited "confidential" information as his basis for supporting Miers

October 05, 2005 7:51 pm ET

image

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

On the October 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Focus on the Family radio program, James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, cited "confidential" information that he had been "privy to" in explaining "why, at this moment ... I believe George Bush has made an outstanding selection" in his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Referring to "confidential conversations and contacts" and claiming that he had "talked at length to people that know her," Dobson vouched that Miers is a "deeply committed Christian." Earlier in the broadcast, Dobson warned about the consequences of making a mistake with this nomination, stating that "millions of babies" were at stake "[i]f this nominee is the wrong person," apparently referring to the issue of abortion.

From the October 5 broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio program:

DOBSON: And so, just all in all, I am asking now for the prayers of God's people, not that I would be victorious in any kind of debate or conflict -- who cares? -- but asking that I would not make a mistake here, because there is so much in the balance, John [Fuller, co-host]. There's no way to put it into words. The burden of this decision about this nominee weighs me down in ways that I don't recall experiencing before. Because if I make a mistake here, and others make a mistake, what we're talking about are babies. We're talking about millions of babies. If this nominee is the wrong person, I mean, for 20 or 30 years it will reverberate and will change this nation forever. I recognize the gravity of that, and I am saying to our listeners now what I have said to the Lord, and Shirley [Dobson's wife] and I prayed about this early this morning. I said, "Lord, you know that I've had a policy all of my adult life, when it came to a point of decision, to pray this prayer. Lord, you know I don't have the wisdom to make this decision. You know that what I feel now and what I think is right may be dead wrong. You know that I could get out of your will and do something to hurt the cause of Christ, and I would rather sacrifice my life than do that. And I think I know what you want me to say in regard to this nominee. I think I have your mind. But I'm not sure." You can never be sure. You don't know 'til that justice is on the court and begins making decisions and handing down rulings. You don't know what power will do to that individual when they grant it. Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And so, you know, we don't know not only where an individual is today, but where they will be two, three, four, five, 10, 15 years from now. So, it is a momentous decision, and apparently God has put me in a role of at least expressing my view, and that does influence people, or some people, and I just want to make sure that I do it right. So I've been saying, "Lord, if I'm wrong here, or even if I'm right, get the message through to me. I am listening to you. I will do anything you want. If this is not the person you want on that Supreme Court, all you have to do is tell me so. And do it through any means you want to -- through the Scripture, through friends, through my pastor, through things that people write or say or call to this ministry. Let me know exactly what you want me to do, and I will follow that. In the meantime, I'm doing what I think is right, and I just ask you to second-guess me, because I don't have the intelligence or the wisdom to know what is right in every situation, and certainly not this one." So I'm blatantly asking for the prayers of our friends out there, at this point particularly.

[...]

Well, some have called me today, some whose names our listeners would recognize -- not only members of Congress, but Christian leaders and others -- and saying, "You know, you have taken a stand here. You have made some comments about Harriet Miers, and we want to know what that's based on." So I think maybe I ought to take the rest of the broadcast today, or at least a portion of it, to tell our listeners the rationale. Now, I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that, you know, I'm privy to that I can't describe because of confidentiality. And there are some things I can't go into.

JOHN FULLER (co-host): [Fox News anchor] Brit Hume tried to take you task on a number of those issues.

DOBSON: Everybody has. The New York Times called and asked me to tell them more, and I can only say so much, and then after that I'll say, "Those are confidential conversations and contacts, and I can't go very far in that direction." And I won't. I won't violate that. But with that in mind, let me try to explain why, at this moment, and we'll know more when the hearings are held -- I hope -- why I believe George Bush has made an outstanding selection of Harriet Miers. You won't hear a lot of this in the media, but it is there. For one thing, she is a deeply committed Christian. She has been a believer in Jesus Christ since the late 1970s. I know the individual who led her to the Lord. I know the church that she goes to. I know it's very conservative church. I know that she is a tithe-paying member of that church. I know that she has deep convictions about things. And I have talked at length to people that know her and have known her for a long time. Some of them have been a close personal friend of hers for 25 years. And I trust these people because I know them. I know who they are, and I know their character, and I know what they stand for, and I know their love for the Lord. And they have said to me, "This is a good woman who will do the right thing when the chips are down. She will not be a disappointment, and you cannot go wrong by seeing her in one of the most powerful positions in this country" -- that being the justice who replaces Sandra Day O'Connor on the court. I've heard that over and over from people who are not giving me hearsay. They are saying, "This is my personal friend. I know what she cares about." And I believe -- George Bush cannot say that, and Harriet Miers cannot say that, and maybe I shouldn't say that, but I know it to be true. And that is part of why I have confidence, because I have confidence in those individuals.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by atheist (October 06, 2005 1:10 am ET)
         

      oh the hypocrisy ! 70% of abortions are had by christian women. notice that dobson and the rest of the american taliban never mention that fact. if they are right and god hates abortions, isn't it odd that so many christian women would need a law of man to stop them, rather than a law of god ?

      hmmmmmmm, maybe they aren't so believing after all .........

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (October 06, 2005 1:41 am ET)
         

      How many "confidential" sources are there in this administration spew out whatever garbage they want unchecked. At this point, I am becoming more surprised when there is not some anonymous source. I am even more surprised when the source does not come forth with information favoring the position of the admistration. It is laughable. If truth is "the wellspring of Democracy", this well is poisoned, our Democracy is dead.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle abrading64predisposition (October 06, 2005 2:23 am ET)
         

      "Uh, this was posted on the right side of the page, under "More Clips" — I do not believe any media bias/misinformation was alleged.

      It will just be quite interesting to see whether the Senate is granted access to the same inside info that SpongeDob has."

      -Geoff

      HAHAHAHAHA.....yeah, what America have YOU been living in for the last 5 years? Sorry, the Senate can't pull in the fringe freak vote like spongedob, so they don't have a "right to know"......ya know?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by lefty99 (October 06, 2005 2:25 am ET)
         

      "oh the hypocrisy ! 70% of abortions are had by christian women. notice that dobson and the rest of the american taliban never mention that fact. if they are right and god hates abortions, isn't it odd that so many christian women would need a law of man to stop them, rather than a law of god ?"--by atheist

      70% are "christian?" Where did you dig that stat up? On the smoking gun website? That's just plain dumb. Besides, what is your criteria for being "christian?" You are using a baseless, made up stat to support your bashing of christians.

      On another note, why would Dobson lie about what he has seen? What does he have to gain? He's not running for congress or anything. As to the "theocracy" statement...give me a break.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (October 06, 2005 10:17 am ET)
           

        Who's having abortions (religion)?

        Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

        [link to www.abortionno.org]

        By the way I am a Christian so I don't have a horse in this race, but facts are facts.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (October 06, 2005 10:22 am ET)
           

        "...why would Dobson lie about what he has seen?"

        Why do birds fly? Why do fish swim? Why do the waves crash on the beach?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (October 06, 2005 10:39 am ET)
           

        As to the "theocracy" statement...give me a break.

        the·oc·ra·cy

        n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

        1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

        Do you seriously doubt that Dobson and many of the fundamentalists in this country are working toward this goal? Are you really that naive?

        A government or nation "ruled by religious authority" is a wet dream to these folks. It's EXACTLY what they want and what they are working toward.

        Believe it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (October 06, 2005 2:15 pm ET)
             

          You're right. As we speak, they're setting up a theocracy in Iraq as a trial run.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by claudo (October 06, 2005 7:20 am ET)
         

      Don't know about the 70% Christian statistic but given the high percentage of Christias in the US, one could infer that it is probably true. Do know that the extreme Christian right wing is very influential in US politics all the way to the White House. There have been, and continue to be, numerous attempts (in mostly red states) to curtail gay and abortion rights. The Christian right wants Roe v Wade to be overturned. If all this doesn't suggest an attempt to establishe a theocracy (govenment based on enforced religious principals of one religious group)then Lefty99 is either uninformed or naive. That Dobson and his ilk are in the Bush inner circle is very disturbing to those of us who do not share their theology.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carramba (October 06, 2005 7:51 am ET)
           

        by claudo - Thursday October 6, 2005 07:20:51 AM EST

        I believe that many of those that you view as theocrats because we want to overturn Roe and have a different view on gay rights are more motivated by constitutional purity, as am I. I disagree with Roe v Wade, but not because I believe that a woman doesn't have the right to control her own body, but because I believe the right constitutionally speaking does not exist. If I am indeed correct, then it would become a state issue, and I would probably support that basic right to an abortion in my state. As far a gay rights, frankly I believe there is more constitutional grounds for their argument than Roe. As far as your theocracy comment, scare tactics and demonizing those that hold a different view is really transparent and cheap.

        I saw the comment by Dobson where he said that he had information that he was not prepared to share and I cringed thinking of some of the comments that I would surely see here! I have not been disappointed!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jdcolv (October 06, 2005 11:09 am ET)
             

          “I disagree with Roe v Wade, but not because I believe that a woman doesn't have the right to control her own body, but because I believe the right constitutionally speaking does not exist. … . As far as your theocracy comment, scare tactics and demonizing those that hold a different view is really transparent and cheap." by carramba

          And I believe that constitutionally speaking, neither the federal nor the state governments have the right to interfere with how a woman chooses to control her own body based on a highly subjective theocratic viewpoint of when life begins.

          I would also suggest that if you are objective, you will have to admit that those who wish to interfere with a woman’s right to control her own body use scare tactics and demonize those who hold a different view. Were you including them in your characterization as being “transparent and cheap?”

          Report Abuse
        • Author by ModerateOne (October 06, 2005 12:07 pm ET)
             

          Talk about CLUELESS!!!!!

          As it stands, "Row" guarantees that nobody other than the person involved has any say either way.

          So it is a matter of FACT that any change would be an IMPOSITION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF ON OTHERS and therefore the precise definition of a THEOCRATIC RULING!!!

          Try thinking for yourself instead of pasting RNC taking points please!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by irene (October 06, 2005 7:22 am ET)
         

      My, the man does run on, doesn't he?

      I really would like to know if Dobson's "confidential" information is one of the things he thinks has been revealed to him by God. I've read some of the man's books, and he makes me nervous. Admittedly not as nervous as Pat Robertson; one of his books implies that Star Wars is Satan's propaganda campaign. But still.

      Irene

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (October 06, 2005 4:42 pm ET)
           

        You never know. Cheney could have told him that if he helped the administration with the Miers confirmation, overturning Roe v Wade would be a cakewalk.

        Why should he only lie to the military?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 06, 2005 9:25 am ET)
         

      I've already predicted this in another thread, but, since it's probably been deleted I'll repeat it here. As Miers meets privately with conservatives, I expect them to come out in support. I think she is privately assuring them that she will vote their way when the time comes. After all, she considers Bush the "most brilliant man she's ever met". I don't think we have to worry about too much diliberative thought from this woman.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ModerateOne (October 06, 2005 12:19 pm ET)
           

        I nearly fell apart when I heard that quote!!!

        Had to be one of those Orwellian things where brilliant really means clueless!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by deeznuts (October 06, 2005 9:42 am ET)
         

      I have it on good authority from a "confidential source" that Dobson wears women's underwear.

      See how that works?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 06, 2005 10:26 am ET)
         

      I think we all know Dobson's views on social issues. Would he support her if he had any doubt how she intends to vote? Does anyone really think he wants an open-minded, objective jurist on the Court who will carefully deliberate the issues? Please.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (October 06, 2005 1:44 pm ET)
         

      James, this is God.

      Yes God.

      James, I have some information for you.

      What is it, God?

      Well James, it's about Harriet Miers, but I'd like you to keep it confidential.   Okay?

      Yes God.

      Promise?

      Yes God.

      If anyone asks, just say "I've had some private conversations."   Okay?

      Yes God.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 06, 2005 1:56 pm ET)
           

        Or it could have been something like this....

        "Hello?"

        "Jimmy? This is Karl."

        "Hey, Karl, how's your mom n' them?"

        "Fine, fine. Hey, I need your help on this Miers thing."

        "Okay, what have you got?"

        "I can personally assure you that, if you support her nomination, she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, and Lawrence v. Texas. Also, she will vote in favor of the President on any matter - ANY matter- which may come before the court."

        "Sounds good; you can count on me, Karl."

        "I knew I could, Jimmy."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Roy Demeo (October 07, 2005 9:03 am ET)
             

          God said to Abraham, kill me a son, Abe said, God, you must be puttin me on. God said, Abe. Abe said, What? God said, you can do what ya wanna Abe but, the next time you see me coming you better run. Abe said, where do you want this killing done? God said, out on HighWay 61.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by the iconoclast (October 06, 2005 4:12 pm ET)
           

        Maybe I am wrong, but don't people who hear voices take some kind of medicine? I would love to know what Jimmy's monthly pharmacy bill is.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by lefty99 (October 06, 2005 4:23 pm ET)
         

      This forum is just dumb. You have taken a bland conversation with Dobson and turned him into some wacko bent on taking away everyone's rights. Whether you like him or not, you are the ones who look like wackos when you start posting this kind of garbage about anyone. I do not agree with Bill O'Reilly on everything, but he was right about this website. Everyone seems bent on being destructive. I have not seen a SINGLE positive conversation in these forums. This is a site with a clear liberal agenda, looking to bash the current administration. This is why most of us in "middle America" vote for republicans. This bomb-throwning is all the Dems seem to be able to do. Have fun stewing in your anger.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 06, 2005 4:57 pm ET)
           

        Sorry to inform you, but Dobson Is a "wacko". He may not want to take away "everyone's rights"; but he does believe that the Bible trumps the Constitution. In my book that makes him very dangerous.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (October 06, 2005 6:27 pm ET)
           

        lefty99,

        Yeah, that's it - just keep sitting there in middle America with your tinfoil hat pulled down to your chin and keep complaining that no one has anything important to say on this site while you characterize them using Bill O'Reilly slurs.

        I just hope you wake up before it's too late, before the Duhhbya/Dobson zombies turn this country into a theocracy and before public schools are replaced by madrasas with crosses.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by sflady (October 07, 2005 5:01 pm ET)
         

      I'm very worried that Dobson, a private citizen, is being given "information" that the rest of us private citizens are not privy to. Why is Dobson any different from any of us?

      Report Abuse