Last week, I contacted every friend I know on the Hill, asking them to raise a fuss about James Dobson’s role in the Harriet Miers nomination. Dobson received a briefing on Miers directly from Karl Rove and then told Fox News, “I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here.” Dobson also told the NYT, “Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about.” He told his national radio audience that he’s been “privy” to “confidential” information.
I asked Dems to do something — send a letter, call a press conference, issue a statement, anything. Every Dem staffer I know told me to be patient. Instead of sending angry letters to Andy Card, they said they wanted to hold onto this one for the confirmation hearings.
Now, apparently, interest is rising to the surface. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) got the ball rolling on CBS’s Face the Nation.
“I believe that we ought to call James Dobson as a witness at the Senate Judiciary hearing and find out what kind of assurances he has received. If those assurances are good enough for James Dobson, then all of America ought to hear them. […]
“I believe my Democratic colleagues will go along and we will have James Dobson as a witness. Additionally, I think Karl Rove ought to let the public know what kind of assurances he gave James Dobson. This is not a game of wink and whisper. This is serious business.”
Making matters even more interesting, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said largely the same thing on ABC’s This Week.
“If there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that’s a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people. […]
“If Pat Leahy doesn’t call him, Arlen Specter may. I want to know what all the facts are. I’m very fact-oriented, and if Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn’t know or something that I ought to know, I’m going to find out.”
I know I harped on this all of last week, but I continue to think this controversy has real potential.
Imagine, just as a hypothetical, that President John Kerry had nominated someone for the Supreme Court with a paper trail that was practically non-existent. Kerry sent his top aide to chat with Michael Moore about the nomination, who then promptly got out word to MoveOn.org that the would-be justice will be great for liberals everywhere. Asked about what he knew, Moore told the national media, “The White House told me secret stuff; I can’t tell you.”
In truth, this comparison is unfair. On his worst day, Moore isn’t in Dobson’s league and MoveOn.org isn’t Focus on the Family. But in terms of political bogeymen, this will have to do.
If this happened, do you think it might be an area of interest for Republicans? That Moore would likely be called to chat, under oath, with lawmakers at confirmation hearings? That this would be used as Example A of a Kerry administration’s inappropriate connections to (and over reliance on) what Republicans might consider the “radical left”?
The Dobson story is not only similar, it’s worse. Keep an eye on this because it’s going to be an undercurrent for Dems as the process unfolds.