home

Questioning Dobson

by TChris

Karl Rove talked to James Dobson about Harriet Miers before her nomination was announced. Dobson has been telling his followers, with a wink and a nudge, that he has the inside skinny on Miers (information he "probably shouldn't know"). Dobson won't reveal his source or the precise content of his intelligence. At least, he won't reveal it without a subpoena. The New York Times reports,

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and several Democrats on the committee said Sunday that they were considering calling the evangelical conservative James C. Dobson to testify on what he has been told about Harriet E. Miers, the president's Supreme Court nominee.

Dobson isn't entitled to have double-secret information about Miers. Specter has it right:

Mr. Specter added, "If there are back-room assurances and if there are back-room deals and 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."

< Denver's First Snowstorm Arrives | Imagining Bush Without Rove >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    are you quite certain that god didn't call mr. dobson, and have a heart to heart with him about ms. miers? dobson is another in a long line of "fundamentalist" twits in this country's history. the main difference between him and cotton mather is that nuclear weapons hadn't been invented in the 17th century. aside from that, i suspect, if given the opportunity, dobson would happily go about the land, trying people for witchcraft. dunking stool, anyone?

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    Lemme guess: She's secretly totally hates gays and loves fetuses.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    The only assurance Dobson needs is to know whether her allegiance is to the Constitution or to the Bible.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    I call people like Dobson religious charlatans, because they give Christians like me a bad name. These charlatans are spewing out rhetoric that is so removed from the Word of God, I donít see how the Bush christians donít see it. Godís word speaks of ďfreedom from sinĒ not political freedom like Bush and his minions like to say. They hint that God supports the invasion of Iraq. When God told his people to go to war, they won decisively and immediately!! The religious charlatans have convinced the Bush christians that a tenet in Godís Church is to hang a slab with the Ten Commandments written on it on the walls of courthouses. God tells his people to put the Ten Commandments in a box where they canít see them or read them. Jesus does not tell Pilate to hang the Ten Commandments in his court. The Ten Commandments are written on our HEARTS. Somehow these charlatans have convinced Bush christians that it is moral to fixate on, dislike, work against, rile against, and raise money against a group people they deem sinners. This group they deem as sinners are "gays". God tells us to worry about our own sin and not the sin of others. All sin is equal in the eyes of God. The charlatans have convinced the Bush christians that making abortion illegal will stop it. Of course it wonít. It will just move abortion to back alleys like before. We as individuals canít stop abortions, so what is our moral response to women who are driven by desperation to get an abortion? Keep it legal and sanitary. The women will have to answer to God for their actions, and we will have to answer to God it we forced them into the hands of butchers.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#11)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    aren't communications between a person and a member of the clergy confidential?
    Dobson isn't a clergyman.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Wouldn't be interesting if dobson claimed Immunity as Roves confessor!

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    So any private conversation you ever have is open to subpoena if you get nominated to a court position? And TChris thinks the right wants to violate our right to privacy.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Here's the real question, James, and I think you know it: Has Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court made private assurances that, a priori, she will rule a particular way on certain cases coming before her rather than objectively assessing the evidence in the case and ruling on the merits? Whether making such assurances is a breach of the law is something I'm not qualified to answer. But if it is, then yes, subpoenas may be called for to expose what could be a conspiracy to subvert justice at the highest level.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    debbiehamil writes: We as individuals canít stop abortions, so what is our moral response to women who are driven by desperation to get an abortion? Keep it legal and sanitary. The women will have to answer to God for their actions, and we will have to answer to God it we forced them into the hands of butchers. It's rare these days to hear a professed follower of christianity verbalize logical, caring, respectful, clearly reasoned thoughts on a subject that much too often generates mindless, unthinking knee-jerk attempts at bludgeoning into submission anyone who expresses support for exactly the ideas you'e supported here. You could just as easily, wihout changing the meaning of your statements, substituted the word "conscience" for the word "God". Perhaps there is no difference. There is always room for meeting of minds when people truly "think" about the things they say and the positions they assume. Pleased to meet you.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Hmmmm, aren't communications between a person and a member of the clergy confidential? Sounds like a stance this crew would invoke.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    I believe that Dobson (who represents the Radical Christian Right) has given Bush his blessing regarding Miers and that is the reason Bush will not pull this nomination -- no matter what Republican senators say (and they will all vote for her in the end) and other Radical Right preachers and other professional Christians say. They may just be upset that Bush et al did not ask for *their* blessing.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#12)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    If this involves any classified information, given what's already happened with the Philipines spy debacle, then the fat will really be in the fire for sure. The most 'secretive White House ever' is leaking like a submarine with a screen door...and may suffer the same fate of one so equipped.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#13)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Priviledge does not apply to co-conspirators. And James- what right is there to become a supreme court justice? Miers does not have to answer any questions. She cannot be compelled to answer. And no one can be compelled to vote for her either

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    tristero writes:
    Whether making such assurances is a breach of the law is something I'm not qualified to answer
    I'm not either, but the answer is "Not." And I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. et al - Lots of high moral ground been siezed here. debbiehamil writes:
    Keep it legal and sanitary. The women will have to answer to God for their actions, and we will have to answer to God it we forced them into the hands of butchers.
    But if it is murder, won't those who help have to also answer for their sins? And how much "help" will be required? If we stand and watch, or just support the right to abortion, what is our status? Tough questions, eh? BTW - I have often stated that I am pro-choice. But I am against abortion. So I guess I am in the "stand and watch" group. debbiehamil writes:
    Jesus does not tell Pilate to hang the Ten Commandments in his court.
    Can you tell us how you know this? I mean does Jesus call you up directly, or does he send an angel???? et al - After reading debbie, and the approval of what she "knows" by a large group of you, I really can't see a big difference between Dobson and yourselves. Ed - The protestant side doesn't use "private" confession. i.e. A priest on the other side of the screen.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, I am sorry that I offended you. I did not mean to come across as telling people what to think. I merely wanted to make the point that Dobson sets himself up as a man of God when his tenets are clearly not in Godís word. Oops, I mean I have not found them in Godís word. I also could not find where in Godís Word does it say we should ďhateĒ gays or any others, we should worry about our own sins. Dobson is a businessman, and he makes millions spewing lies about liberals and democrats. The reason I am upset with people like Dobson is his followers believe everything he says, they vote, and we are stuck with presidents like Bush.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    How many Imams did the Bush administration consult?

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    debbiehamil writes:
    Jesus does not tell Pilate to hang the Ten Commandments in his court.
    Can you tell us how you know this? I mean does Jesus call you up directly, or does he send an angel????
    PPJ, she knows it by reading the Bible literally, which is the only method approved by the Dobson religious charlatans whose positions she is disputing. And it does not take tortuous textual exegesis to arrive at her conclusions either. So you cannot ridicule her argument without at the same time dismissing the entire foundation claimed for the fundamentalist Christian positions that she opposes.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    Cymro - She knows what she believes, just as Dobson knows what he believes. I see no real difference between either of the two, given that they both are telling us what Jesus would do. I'll read my own Bible, thank you. It is a Jacksonian thing to do. Jl - You got me. The answer is??

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    If Bush swears that he never had a conversation about abortion with Miers, but Karl Rove told Dobson where Miers stands on the issue, you're damned right Congress has a right to know.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    debbiehamil-I'm totally with you on the Dobson Christian right wing connection. You didn't offend me at all. I hear you loud and clear when you say it should come from the heart. All those right wing Republican Christians disgust me. I've said it on this blog many times, at the risk of great ridicule, I believe in Jesus Christ but I can't call myself a Christian. People like Dobson are destroying Jesus's name.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    I'll read my own Bible, thank you. It is a Jacksonian thing to do.
    PPJ -- Thanks for providing that link. It was very revealing. If the intent of your comment was to align yourself with that article's description of the Jacksonian mindset, it certainly would explain many of the views I have seen you espouse in other posts. It also explains other situations in which I have encountered American attitudes that seemed to me (as a Briton and a believer in the sojourners interpretation of the Bible) to be very closed-minded, selfish, and unworthy of the label "Christian," as I understand it. Now, instead of simply being left wondering "What is wrong with these people!?", at least I have a label for their views, supported by a very well written explanation of how they think. But that doesn't make their views any easier to tolerate.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    debbiehamil - You didn't offend me. I merely disagree with some of your comments, which you have the right to make and I have the right to disagree. BTW - I considered myself a social liberal, but a hawk on defense. Read the Jacksinoan link. Cymro - I hope you read the entire article. I think it is perhaps the best explanation of US politics that I have ever read, and yes, I agree with a great deal of it, although, for practical reasons in the world we now live in, I favor a much stronger federal government, and such things as natiionalized health care. But not because it is the "Christian" thing to do, but because without it we suppress business founding and the economy. It is silly for us to send billions overseas to countries such as Egypt when we have obvious needs at home.
    A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public.


    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    BTW - Cyrmo wrote:
    But that doesn't make their views any easier to tolerate.
    Tolerance is a virture we all could use more of. Especially, in my view, the Left side in Europe and the US.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    Yes, the intolerance displayed by those far left radicals who go in the 'sheep's clothing' of calling themselves social liberals is really quite shocking.
    ankle Your lack of understanding of this situation is exceeded only by the uniqueness of your name. Posted by Jim at November 14, 2003 11:35 PM
    Link TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    DA: ..calling themselves social liberals is really quite shocking. The glue boards I use to catch rodents are fun. They squeal when their feet get stuck. Best free entertainment I've had in a long time. ;-)

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    DA: "I tell the truth about 'em, and they think that's Hell!". It probably is! Do you think glue boards with pictures and the slogan "Give 'em Hell!" on them would go over as well as t-shirts and bumper stickers for the 2006 elections? ;-)

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    Cymro: Now, instead of simply being left wondering "What is wrong with these people!?", at least I have a label for their views, supported by a very well written explanation of how they think. But that doesn't make their views any easier to tolerate. PPJ: Tolerance is a virture we all could use more of. Especially, in my view, the Left side in Europe and the US.
    But I do tolerate them, in the sense that I do only that which is legal to oppose such views. So the only harm incurred is that inflicted on my own stomach. I suppose I should have written " ... that doesn't make their views any easier to stomach." Can you find a way to twist that statement? Is there some lesson I need to learn about the stomachs of the Left?

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    The difference between me and the religious right is that I believe everybody should have the right to believe in whatever faith they want to believe in. No one faith should be more visible or more powerful than another. That means no Ten Commandments carved in stone at court houses, unless of course, every other other faith is represented with some sort of monument right beside the Ten Commandments.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Darkly - Thanks for linking us back to some of my better comments. I mean that is a colorful statement that was also accurate. Edger - You and Darkly make quite a team. Cheerleader 1 and 2. BTW - Who you going to find in the Demo/Left ranks to be able to talk about the truth without the Repubs running their comments in their Left ear? "Accurate but true," eh? Cymro - Actually that was a compliment in recognition that you were being tolerant. Oh well, the good men do lies with their bones while their evil deeds live on.. or something like that William S wrote...

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    gwg, You are not so alone in holding this point of view. There are plenty of Christians who would agree, but they are not the ones who are trying to run the country and railroad everyone into adopting their particular narrow-minded and exclusive beliefs. I guess they don't need to interpret everything in the Bible literally, or they would have to pay attention to the admonition to "Render unto Ceasar". Interesting that PPJ (above) felt the need to teach me about the Left's need for more tolerance, when there is so much religious intolerance on the Right.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    gentlyweepingguitar wrote:
    The difference between me and the religious right is that I believe everybody should have the right to believe in whatever faith they want to believe in.
    Can you show me some proof of that statement? I have seen no evidence that the so-called religious right wants to take away your rights to believe in any faith you choose. In fact, it is the Left who wants to deny the religious Right from being able to have public prayer, displays, etc. BTW - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Nothing there about "freedpm from religion."

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Cymro - Actually that was a compliment in recognition that you were being tolerant. Oh! In that case, PPJ, I accept it as such and apologize for over-reacting. But I don't agree with your characterization of the Left as more intolerant; that is a sweeping generalization that seems to me be contradicted by the evidence, and even by the Jacksonian mindset you admire. Two of the central conclusions of the Jacksonian manifesto you showed me were the difficulty Jacksonians have changing their minds, and their reluctance to accept people who are different from them. These character traits do not naturally lead to tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

    Re: Questioning Dobson (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    When it comes to faith, there is no proof, other than answered prayers. It's a very personal thing. I can only speak for myself, but from my experience, church going folks are amongst the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen in my life. The God I know is the one who has been there for me, every time when no human being could or would or cared. For me, if I were ever in the position to have to go to court, I'd be praying to God to make it work out in my favor. If I got to court and saw the Ten Commandments carved in stone, outside the courthouse, I would feel the cards were stacked against me. The same hypocrites who I used to go to church with are in charge, here, is what I would think. I'm never going to win. How can I explain this better? I know the difference between human beings and God. When I'm at court, I expect to deal with human beings and human frailty, when I'm in the spirit world, I'm dealing with God. If I go to court and I have to fight humans claiming that God is with them, I will know they are lying because God is on my side.