Dobson promises to tell all — on the air

October 11, 2005

As the what-did-Rove-tell-Dobson-about-Miers controversy works its way towards a second week, and the Focus on the Family chief is poised to get himself subpoenaed to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what “confidential” information he knows about this nomination, Dobson claims to be ready to set the record straight. At least, that is, on his terms.

Dr. James Dobson will devote his Wednesday and Thursday Focus on the Family radio programs to answering critics who have dogged him over comments he made last week concerning Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. […]

During the taping of Wednesday’s broadcast, Dobson said his critics would get answers, but “Sen. Schumer and his colleagues are just going to have to wait until Wednesday.”

“Dr. Dobson is being deluged by requests from national media to talk about Harriet Miers and talk about what Karl Rove told him,” said Focus on the Family Senior Vice President for Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery. “He’ll be explaining that to everybody.”

Oh that Dobson, he’s such a tease.

I obviously don’t know what Dobson is going to say, but this strikes me as having all the elements of a publicity stunt, meant to do little more than get attention for his radio show.

After Dobson received a personal briefing on Miers by Rove last week, he told the NYT, “Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about.” Dobson also told his national radio audience that he’s been “privy” to “confidential” information. Is Dobson now prepared to say that the information wasn’t so confidential after all? Or will he somehow suggest he’s been given a “waiver” to disclose the details of his private conversations with Rove?

This is silly. Dobson received some back-room assurances from Rove about Miers’ right-wing bona fides. When the political world realized how inappropriate that was, Dobson became coy and started enjoying the attention. I thought Dobson might actually be worried about being summoned to the Judiciary Committee to testify, but now I’m convinced this clown wants to milk the story for all it’s worth.

I have to admit, though, Dobson’s stunt is a pretty good one. Like a lot of people, I’m inclined to tune in tomorrow.

One of the better no-win situations for Dobson, I would say. Assuming he doesn’t lie through his teeth on the radio in the first place. Karl could easily have stroked his ego with not-very-important-or-factual ‘insider’ information just to keep him from opposing the nomination, which would further reveal Dobson as the fool many have always thought him to be. Or if it was some real stuff then both Dobson and Rove might end up in very deep water with the Senate.

Either way, he’s still an idiot when dealing with anyone outside his own benumbed followers or fellow wingnut conspirators.

  • jesus, so to speak, you think the fact that schumer is jewish had something to do with why dobson singled him out “to have to wait?” those damn uppity Jews, always wanting answers….

  • Max Blumenthal over at Ariana’s site suggests that Dobson was lying from the start about his inside information because he “had” to support her to remain credible with his flock.

    He’s sucked a lot of money out of people this last 18 months or so promising to fix the Supreme Court. If he admitted Miers was such a big question mark, he’d be admitting failure. So instead – it was Mission Accomplished all the way…thekeez

  • While I think the publicity stunt possibility is a very plausible one, consider that there is no law against lying on the air (as opposed to lying on the record in testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

    And whatever it is Rove told him, Dobson is most definitely very motivated to conceal the truth.

  • The latest I hear is that Scooter Libby has said there was never any reason for Dobson to take the heat; Scooter claims to have given him a letter long ago that Dobson should have known was sincere and voluntary releasing him from his “confidentiality.”

  • I don’t understand what the big deal is here? Dobson has a significant influence over a large bloc of conservatives who vote according to their consciences rather than by party loyalty. It is not surprising therefore, that Rove, a political strategist, would seek to garner the support of Dobson for Bush’s nomination, particularly since Miers’ conservative credentials are a big question mark. One doesn’t have to think hard to imagine what Rove might have told him or more likely, reassured him. You’ll be gravely dissapointed if you’re hoping for some kind of scandal here.

  • The scandal is not the substance; the scandal is that the White House provided allegedly “confidential” information to a political supporter that has not been provided to the Senate, or the general public. I’m not naive; I assume such things happen all the time. In this case, however, Dobson was arrogant enough to play that card and bring it into the open. That makes it fair game to jump all over. If someone with no “need to know” like Dobson gets inside information relevant to Miers’ qualifications, the Senate (and by extension the public it represents) has every right to know the same information.

  • What if Rove had simply reassured Dobson of Miers’ sincere religious beliefs? That is something she wouldn’t want to emphasize in public (for obvious reasons) but it is also no secret. With few exceptions, politicians won’t express strong convictions about anything in public unless it would be politically beneficial. Assuming this is true, then what do Miers’ religious beliefs have to do with her qualifications?

  • What do you want to bet that whatever Dobson says on his radio show this week to get out from under this will be all the republicans will require? Me? I’ll bet ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Right. Of course, Specter does have a grudge… It’s all going to depend on how Dobson tries to weasel out of what he said. This could be very interesting.

  • Derek –

    Even if you are correct, building this up to be a big thing is a no-lose for us. One of two things is true. Either (1) Rove did tell Dobson something more significant than what is generally public, which looks very bad for the White House and should offend the Senate Judiciary Committee greatly or (2) you are right and it is just a reassurance she is sufficiently Christian for the right (so much for no religious tests).

    But IF it is Option 2, then Dobson looks like a self-aggrandizing (some might say “lying”) schmuck for his coy “I know things I probably shouldn’t know” and “I’m not at liberty to tell you” bit.

    So from our perspective, either Rove looks sneaky and underhanded, or Dobson looks untrustworthy and pompous. Whats not to like?

  • I’ve heard enough Dobson over the years. Listen for me, CB, and report the ridiculous.

    Donya

    • Comments are closed.