![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdJames Dobson went on his main Focus on the Family broadcast today for the first of two shows on Harriet Miers this week. What's more interesting is less the official transcript of the show, where he talks directly about what Rove told him, but the 10 minutes of show they didn't include in the official transcription.
I have filled in the missing pieces below the official transcription. The portion covered by the official was essentially 100% accurate; there were a couple of trivial errors that changed no meaning.
The extra 10 minutes are a conversation with former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. In the early portion of that conversation, I didn't go back to fill in missed clauses, because they weren't important. (For me to get every word, I have to play each paragraph an average of four times, and my RSI doesn't like that much typing anyway.) Later on, it got more specifically relevant, and I put my wrists through that anyway. Why should be obvious.
From my standpoint, this is the most important section of the non-transcribed broadcast time:
From: Citizen Link <citizenlink@family.org>
Date: October 12, 2005 3:40:38 AM PDT
Subject: CITIZENLINK ALERT - Transcript of Dr. Dobson's Comments on Harriet Miers
**CITIZENLINK ALERT**
Dr. Dobson Explains What He Knows About Harriet Miers
The following is a transcript of Focus on the Family
Chairman Dr. James Dobson's comments from today's
broadcast, in which he discusses what the White House told
him about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
OPENING VOICE TRACK:
John Fuller: It's Wednesday. I'm John Fuller and you're
tuned to Focus on the Family with psychologist and
author, Dr. James Dobson. And Doctor, what a crazy
week you've had!
BODY:
JCD: Well, John, if our listeners and friends have been
monitoring the news on radio and television and the
Internet and if they have been listening to other talk
shows in the past week, then they know well, that I have
been a topic of conversation from the nation's Capitol to
the tiniest burg and farming community. And the issue
that's propelled this unprecedented interest in something
that I've said is my conversation with Deputy White House
Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, that occurred on October 1st,
just a few days ago. And that was the day before
President Bush made his decision to nominate White House
Counsel, Harriet Miers, to be the next Justice of the
Supreme Court.
Now, as you know and as I'm sure many of our listeners
know, there are members of the judiciary committee who are
running from one talk show to another, threatening to
subpoena me to find out what occurred in that conversation
with Karl Rove. And I am going to make their job easier
(Laughter), because in the next few minutes, I'm gonna
tell them what I would say to them if I were sitting
before the judiciary committee. And this is the essence
of what transpired between the Deputy Chief of Staff of
the White House and me. So, is that clear?
John: Well, I think that is. And for our listeners, you
wouldn't believe all that's going on here at Focus, as so
many of the mainstream media -- most of the mainstream
media--is contacting us. They, like those Senators, want
to know, "What does Dr. Dobson know? What did he talk
about? Tell us, please."
JCD: Well, John, I think it's time that I did that.
John: Okay, before you do though, it probably would be
helpful for our listeners to understand why you can talk
about that now and previously you couldn't.
JCD: Yeah, I haven't been willing to. The reason is
because Karl Rove has now given me permission to go public
with our conversation. And I'm gonna say a little more
about that in a minute.
John: OK. Well, fill us in then on what happened.
JCD: Well, let me go back through the sequence of events
and . . . and explain what happened. The President
announced his decision on Monday morning, October 3rd,
that Harriet Miers was his selection and the debate was
on. And a few hours after that, many conservative
Christian leaders were involved in a conference call,
wherein some of those men and women were expressing great
disillusionment with President Bush's decision and there
was a lot of anger over his failure to select someone with
a proven track record in the courts. And I came in a
little bit late and I caught just a bit of that angst and
then I shared my opinion, that Harriet Miers might well be
more in keeping with our views than they might think and
that I did believe that she was a far better choice than
many of my colleagues were saying and that they obviously
believed.
Well, my reasons for supporting her were twofold, John.
First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial
philosophy which was consistent with the promises that
President Bush had made when he was campaigning. Now he
told the voters last year that he would select people to
be on the Court who would interpret the law rather than
create it and judges who would not make social policy from
the bench. Most of all, the President promised to appoint
people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their
powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr.
Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that
Harriet Miers fit that description and that the President
knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.
Then he suggested that I might want to validate that
opinion by talking to people in Texas who knew Miers
personally and he gave me the names of some individuals
that I could call. And I quickly followed up on that
conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge
in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice,
Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known
Harriet Miers for more than 25 years. And so, we talked
to him and we talked to some others who are acquainted
with Ms. Miers.
So, I shared my findings with my colleagues, not only what
I just mentioned, but other calls I made. I talked to
Chuck Colson, my great friend, who is a constitutional
attorney--
John: Uh-hm, uh-hm.
JCD: -- and talked to him four times. He helped me kind
of assimilate the information that we had garnered, but I
would not say much about the phone call from Karl Rove,
even though I'm very close to many of the people who are
on the telephone. Why would I not do that? Because it
was a confidential conversation and I've had a
long-standing policy of not going out and revealing things
that are said to me in confidence. That may come from my
training as a psychologist, where you hear all kinds of
things that you can't go out and talk about.
John: Sure.
JCD: And I feel very strongly about that. And frankly, I
think it's a mistake and maybe even an ethical problem for
people to do that -- to go out and brag about being a
player on the national scene, maybe to make themselves to
look important. You know, I just wish that didn't happen
like it does and I certainly didn't want to be part of it.
So, I wouldn't reveal any of the details about the call,
although I did say to these pro-family leaders, which has
been widely quoted, that Karl had told me something that I
probably shouldn't know. And you know, it really wasn't
all that tantalizing, but I still couldn't talk about it.
And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday,
the day before the President made his decision, I knew
that Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list of
names under consideration, and as you know, that
information hadn't been released yet, and everyone in
Washington and many people around the country wanted to
know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is
not something I wanted to reveal.
But we also talked about something else, and I think this
is the first time this has been disclosed. 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. Well,
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.
So, even today, many conservatives and many of 'em friends
of mine, are being interviewed on talk shows and national
television programs. And they're saying, "Why didn't the
President appoint so-and-so? He or she would have been
great. They had a wonderful judicial record. They would
have been the kind of person we've been hoping and working
and praying for to be on the Court." Well, it very well
may be that those individuals didn't want to be appointed.
John: For understandable reasons, because the grilling
that they get in that confirmation process is just brutal.
JCD: Well, that, it's true. The Democrats have so politicized
that process that it's become an ordeal and many people
just don't want to go through that. And I'm not sure I
blame them. So, Karl Rove shared some of that with me.
He also made it clear that the President was looking for
a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace
Justice O'Connor. And you can imagine what that did to
the short list. That cut it . . . I haven't looked at
who I think might have been on that short list, because
Karl didn't tell me who was not willing to be considered.
But that many have cut it by 80 percent right there. But
I was not gonna be the one to reveal this. I knew that
people would eventually be aware of some of that
information, but I didn't think I had the right to say it.
And so, I made my comment.
Now there's. . . there's something else I'll say in a
moment that I was referring to. But let me just say that
some of my friends that I was talking to that day and
thought I was speaking in confidence, went straight to the
media and. . . and shared what I had said or what I had
not said. And that's where the firestorm began. You
know, "What did Dobson know and when did he know it?"
Now let me go back to the statement that there were some
things from my conversation with Karl Rove that I couldn't
talk about. And of course, the media has keyed on that
statement. I had no idea that was going to be released to
the media, but there it is.
[Ed. Note: he said this on multiple news shows, and his own
show, so this makes no sense.]
So, what was it that I couldn't talk about? The answer
has everything to do with timing. It's very important to
remember that when I first made that statement about
knowing things that I shouldn't know, and shared that with
my colleagues the day that the President made his
announcement, maybe two or three hours after his press
conference.
And then, that very night, I went on the Brit Hume program
-- the FOX News program -- and. . . and talked about the
President's nomination. And then, the following day --
Tuesday -- I recorded a statement for FOF, which was heard
on Wednesday. And that is the last time that I said that
I had information that was confidential and that I really
couldn't talk about.
Why? Because what I was told by Karl Rove had been
confirmed and reported from other sources by that time.
What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I
couldn't reveal? Well, it's 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. In other
words, there is a characterization of her that was given
to me before the President had actually made this
decision. I could not talk about that on Monday. I
couldn't talk about it on Tuesday. In fact, Brit Hume
said, "What church does she go to?" And I said, "I don't
think it's up to me to reveal that." Do you remember my
saying that?
John: I do, yes.
JCD: What I meant was, I couldn't get into this. But by
Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, all this information
began to come out and it was no longer sensitive. I
didn't have the right to be the one that revealed it and
that's what I was referring to.
John: Well, I'd also guess, Doctor, that the answer you
gave here about the contents of that conversation and why
you couldn't divulge some of those matters, won't satisfy
the senators on the judiciary committee, who were looking
for some red meat.
JCD: Well, John, I have no doubt that what I've just said
will be a great disappointment to Senator Schumer and
Senator Salazar and Senator Biden and Senator Durban and
Senator Leahy and Senator Lautenberg and some of the other
liberal Democrats, because Karl 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. I did
not ask that question. You know, to be honest, I would
have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v.
Wade. But even if Karl had known the answer to that and
I'm certain that he didn't, because the President himself
said he didn't know, Karl would not have told me that.
That's the most incendiary information that's out there
and it was never part of our discussion.
One thing is clear. We know emphatically that Justices
Souter and Kennedy and Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens
have made up their mind about Roe v. Wade, by politicizing
their decrees on that issue and others. They have usurped
the right of the people to govern themselves and they've
imposed a radical agenda on this country. And John, as
long as I'm talking about that, let me say one other
thing.
More recently, they have been drawing some of their
conclusions, not from the Constitution and not from
precedent and not from the American people, but from
public opinion in Western Europe. You know, that's one of
the most outrageous developments in the history of the
Court. American public opinion is ignored and so are
previous Court decisions or precedent. And frequently,
the Constitution itself is bypassed. And instead they
favor the views of people who have no commitment to our
freedoms and our traditions that the Founding Fathers gave
us.
So, I want the President to appoint someone who will go to
the original intent of the Constitution and tell us what
the founding fathers meant. If we don't like what they
wrote, there's a process to change it. But the way it
works now, every time the Court meets, it can be more or
less a constitutional convention, where five or more
justices reinterpret the meaning of that precious
document.
Now Karl Rove didn't tell me all of that, but what he
said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict
constructionist, which is why the President likes her.
And you know, I've never met her; I don't have any
personal communication with her. I've never received a
letter or a phone call from her or any firsthand
knowledge, but I do believe President Bush is serious when
he says this is the kind of person I'm looking for and
Harriet Miers is such a person.
Nevertheless, what the Democrats have concluded in their
wildest speculation is that Mr. Rove laid out for me a
detailed promise that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe
v. Wade and revealed all the other judicial opinions that
she has supposedly prejudged. It did not happen, period!
Senator Leahy was speaking on George Stephanopoulos's
program, "This Week" on Sunday, just past. And this is
what he said and I quote. This is word for word: "James
Dobson has said that he knew privately; he had private
assurances of how she would vote." Well, Leahy is either
lying or he's given to his own delusions or he's got some
problem somewhere, because that's flat out not true.
Nowhere have I been quoted making such a statement,
because it's not true.
Again John, last Sunday, Democrats were on all the talk
shows and nearly all of them mentioned me one way or
another. Senator Schumer from New York, referred to my
conversations with Karl Rove as a "wink and a whisper,"
you know, trying to make something sinister out of it.
It's obvious what the agenda is here.
Now John, I feel like I have clarified the nature of my
conversation with Karl Rove. Let me just say in the
conclusion to my comments here -- and I want to speak
directly to members of the judiciary committee about the
possibility of my coming to testify -- if they want to do
that, then I just suggest that they quit talking about and
just go do it. I have nothing to hide and I'll be happy
to come and talk to you. But I won't have anything to say
that I haven't just told millions of people. And so,
that's really the end of my statement.
(end of transcript)
[Official transcript ends at 18 minutes. 10 minutes of show remained.]
[Remainder of show transcribed by solarbird.livejournal.com. Early]
[sections are rough; missed clauses are indicated by "..." and were]
[not considered meaningful by the transcriber; refer to the original]
[broadcast for verification if desired. Key elements are at bottom.]
John: That is about as clear as you can make things, I think, for
our listeners, and we'll have this broadcast posted on the web
if they'd like to refer back to it at any point in time. We do have
time, I believe, Doctor, to get to a guest that you wanted to talk
to on the phone about this matter of the nomination to the U.S.
Supreme Court of Harriet Miers.
JCD: Well, John, I think it's about time I did that, 'cause I'm tired of talking and I'm tired of even listening to my own voice, so let's do get on to a telephone conversation that we have placed - I think he's on the line now - with a personal friend and a friend to this ministry... I am delighted that Judge Kenneth Starr has agreed to be our guest to talk about his knowledge of Harriet Misers because he does know her personally... Judge Starr, or as he's known in academic circles, Dean Star... he has been the independent council for five investigations including Whitewater... also US Circuit Judge for the DC district... this man is very qualified to give us his opinion with regard to this nominee... he's also written a book called First Among Equals... ... Hello Judge Starr, it's good to have you on the program... we want to talk about the new nominee...
Starr: Dr. Dobson, I've had the privilege of knowing Harriet for about 15 years in a professional capacity, both in her capacity as one of the leading lawyers in the great state of Texas and beyond, and also through bar association ... Harriet Miers has been one of the great leaders of the Dallas, Texas bar association, the Texas bar association... mostly I've dealt with her in the arena of professional activity...
Dobson: Do you think she is tough enough for the rough and tumble collision of ideas inside the court?
Starr: I do. These are all predictive judgments... she smiles, she's gracious, she's a lady, and she is tough as nails.
Dobson: President Bush called her... a "pit bull in size six shoes..."
Starr: She is so collegial, but she is also a person of very well thought out principle. ... she has not been out there on the barricades, so to speak, of the conservative movement. Thus I think the loyal opposition on the other side of the fence muse be somewhat relieved that you don't have that kind of person, but for the reason that I've already said, I think she brings a wonderful set of attributes that in my judgment are frankly needed on that court right now.
Dobson: Let me ask you the tough question, and maybe the most important one: Do you believe she's pro life, and pro family? Do you believe she will uphold the traditional definition of marriage, for example, and those issues that social conservatives are so concerned about?
Starr: I think from everything that we know and that I know of Harriet Miers from my own dealings with her is that she is a person who really honors tradition. We know that first of all she is a person of very deep faith and her own faith journey, Dr. Dobson, has been a very intriguing and revealing one; she is an evangelical christian and very actively, not just in name, but she is very actively involved in her church in Dallas; that is a story that I think that those in the Christian community should be comforted by; that this is someone who has - as a mature adult, not the way she was raised so that's the way I am - this is a mature adult, who is in fact a professional, who came to a very strong sense of belief and commitment and that set of beliefs and commitments I think means that that person is going to hold fast to traditional values and concerns.
Dobson: What do you think is going to happen in the Senate in the next few weeks?
Starr: ... I think she will do well... I think the witnesses who rally around her... the witnesses who come forward are going to present to the american people and their representatives the United States Senators... the kind of person they will be very comfortable with... again, you see someone like a John Cornin, he's not just saying Harriet is my friend, he's saying 'In her, I am well pleased,' that she is exactly the kind of person who will do well on the high court. ... [she] was part of a very important changeover in that court which has now become one of the really respected and traditional supreme courts in the United States. I think we can look to people like John Cornin and others and the witnesses we are going to hear from... this is a person who is going to wear very well, who is very hard working, who has a good heart... and I love this, her commitment in her first public statement after her nomination was announced to the founding vision in 1787 and 1789 as to the limited role the Federal judiciary is to play.
Dobson: Well, let me end with this question, and it's an obvious one now, you obviously think she would be a good justice on the Supreme Court as we would define it [emphasis in original] and I think you know what that means.
Starr: Yes, I think she believes in the traditional vision [emphasis in original], which we need to restore, the vision of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, and other great justices to have served, who's not trying to impose his or her views and especially his or her views on issues that so divide American society and American culture.
Dobson: And you are convinced she has a very personal faith [emphasis in original] in Jesus Christ.
Starr: That I do. She is a very, very strong Christian and that should be a source, I think, of great comfort and assurance to people in the household of faith around our country.
Dobson: Well thank you, Judge Starr, for taking these minutes to talk to us; I really do appreciate the perspective that you bring, and I know our listeners got a little different slant on things today. Let us know if there's anything else you that would like to communicate with our audience, and we admire you, and appreciate you, and God's blessings to you my friend.
Starr: Well, thank you, and God bless you, and just keep the faith, this is a very, very fine nomination.
Dobson: It's time to be praying for our country, isn't it.
Starr: It is indeed!
Dobson: All right. Thanks again!
Starr: Oh, my pleasure.
[End of telephone call]
John: Well, that is, once more, Judge Ken Starr, and we're grateful for his taking the time to join us here on the broadcast today.
Dobson: I really enjoyed that interchange, John... having not met Harriet Miers myself, and yet having said I think she's a good choice, it is always encouraging to hear your views validated by people who know more about the subject than you do. That was certainly the case today. We covered a lot of ground today, John, and I think a lot of the media and others want a transcript of my statement today and we have prepared it and we'll make it available.
John: I believe we have that on the website, family.org, and we also have CDs available of this broadcast conversation; if you'd like a copy, it would be our pleasure to send one to you, just look for that online or ask about it when you call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY. Now, normally, we have a suggested donation amount associated with our CDs, but for this broadcast, we want to make this CD complementary so the word can get out, so you can help inform your friends and neighbors, ask about that CD or the transcript when you call us. One more time, the phone number, 1-800-A-FAMILY, or look for us online at family.org.
[Usual closing material]
[End of additional transcription by solarbird.livejournal.com]
I have filled in the missing pieces below the official transcription. The portion covered by the official was essentially 100% accurate; there were a couple of trivial errors that changed no meaning.
The extra 10 minutes are a conversation with former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. In the early portion of that conversation, I didn't go back to fill in missed clauses, because they weren't important. (For me to get every word, I have to play each paragraph an average of four times, and my RSI doesn't like that much typing anyway.) Later on, it got more specifically relevant, and I put my wrists through that anyway. Why should be obvious.
From my standpoint, this is the most important section of the non-transcribed broadcast time:
Dobson: Well, let me end with this question, and it's an obvious one now, you obviously think she would be a good justice on the Supreme Court as we would define it [emphasis in original] and I think you know what that means.Official transcript begins below, followed by my rough-to-complete transcript of the missing 10 minutes.
Starr: Yes, I think she believes in the traditional vision [emphasis in original], which we need to restore, the vision of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, and other great justices to have served, who's not trying to impose his or her views and especially his or her views on issues that so divide American society and American culture.
Dobson: And you are convinced she has a very personal faith [emphasis in original] in Jesus Christ.
Starr: That I do. She is a very, very strong Christian and that should be a source, I think, of great comfort and assurance to people in the household of faith around our country.
From: Citizen Link <citizenlink@family.org>
Date: October 12, 2005 3:40:38 AM PDT
Subject: CITIZENLINK ALERT - Transcript of Dr. Dobson's Comments on Harriet Miers
**CITIZENLINK ALERT**
Dr. Dobson Explains What He Knows About Harriet Miers
The following is a transcript of Focus on the Family
Chairman Dr. James Dobson's comments from today's
broadcast, in which he discusses what the White House told
him about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
OPENING VOICE TRACK:
John Fuller: It's Wednesday. I'm John Fuller and you're
tuned to Focus on the Family with psychologist and
author, Dr. James Dobson. And Doctor, what a crazy
week you've had!
BODY:
JCD: Well, John, if our listeners and friends have been
monitoring the news on radio and television and the
Internet and if they have been listening to other talk
shows in the past week, then they know well, that I have
been a topic of conversation from the nation's Capitol to
the tiniest burg and farming community. And the issue
that's propelled this unprecedented interest in something
that I've said is my conversation with Deputy White House
Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, that occurred on October 1st,
just a few days ago. And that was the day before
President Bush made his decision to nominate White House
Counsel, Harriet Miers, to be the next Justice of the
Supreme Court.
Now, as you know and as I'm sure many of our listeners
know, there are members of the judiciary committee who are
running from one talk show to another, threatening to
subpoena me to find out what occurred in that conversation
with Karl Rove. And I am going to make their job easier
(Laughter), because in the next few minutes, I'm gonna
tell them what I would say to them if I were sitting
before the judiciary committee. And this is the essence
of what transpired between the Deputy Chief of Staff of
the White House and me. So, is that clear?
John: Well, I think that is. And for our listeners, you
wouldn't believe all that's going on here at Focus, as so
many of the mainstream media -- most of the mainstream
media--is contacting us. They, like those Senators, want
to know, "What does Dr. Dobson know? What did he talk
about? Tell us, please."
JCD: Well, John, I think it's time that I did that.
John: Okay, before you do though, it probably would be
helpful for our listeners to understand why you can talk
about that now and previously you couldn't.
JCD: Yeah, I haven't been willing to. The reason is
because Karl Rove has now given me permission to go public
with our conversation. And I'm gonna say a little more
about that in a minute.
John: OK. Well, fill us in then on what happened.
JCD: Well, let me go back through the sequence of events
and . . . and explain what happened. The President
announced his decision on Monday morning, October 3rd,
that Harriet Miers was his selection and the debate was
on. And a few hours after that, many conservative
Christian leaders were involved in a conference call,
wherein some of those men and women were expressing great
disillusionment with President Bush's decision and there
was a lot of anger over his failure to select someone with
a proven track record in the courts. And I came in a
little bit late and I caught just a bit of that angst and
then I shared my opinion, that Harriet Miers might well be
more in keeping with our views than they might think and
that I did believe that she was a far better choice than
many of my colleagues were saying and that they obviously
believed.
Well, my reasons for supporting her were twofold, John.
First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial
philosophy which was consistent with the promises that
President Bush had made when he was campaigning. Now he
told the voters last year that he would select people to
be on the Court who would interpret the law rather than
create it and judges who would not make social policy from
the bench. Most of all, the President promised to appoint
people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their
powers to advance their own political agenda. Now, Mr.
Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that
Harriet Miers fit that description and that the President
knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.
Then he suggested that I might want to validate that
opinion by talking to people in Texas who knew Miers
personally and he gave me the names of some individuals
that I could call. And I quickly followed up on that
conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge
in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice,
Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known
Harriet Miers for more than 25 years. And so, we talked
to him and we talked to some others who are acquainted
with Ms. Miers.
So, I shared my findings with my colleagues, not only what
I just mentioned, but other calls I made. I talked to
Chuck Colson, my great friend, who is a constitutional
attorney--
John: Uh-hm, uh-hm.
JCD: -- and talked to him four times. He helped me kind
of assimilate the information that we had garnered, but I
would not say much about the phone call from Karl Rove,
even though I'm very close to many of the people who are
on the telephone. Why would I not do that? Because it
was a confidential conversation and I've had a
long-standing policy of not going out and revealing things
that are said to me in confidence. That may come from my
training as a psychologist, where you hear all kinds of
things that you can't go out and talk about.
John: Sure.
JCD: And I feel very strongly about that. And frankly, I
think it's a mistake and maybe even an ethical problem for
people to do that -- to go out and brag about being a
player on the national scene, maybe to make themselves to
look important. You know, I just wish that didn't happen
like it does and I certainly didn't want to be part of it.
So, I wouldn't reveal any of the details about the call,
although I did say to these pro-family leaders, which has
been widely quoted, that Karl had told me something that I
probably shouldn't know. And you know, it really wasn't
all that tantalizing, but I still couldn't talk about it.
And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday,
the day before the President made his decision, I knew
that Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list of
names under consideration, and as you know, that
information hadn't been released yet, and everyone in
Washington and many people around the country wanted to
know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is
not something I wanted to reveal.
But we also talked about something else, and I think this
is the first time this has been disclosed. 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. Well,
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.
So, even today, many conservatives and many of 'em friends
of mine, are being interviewed on talk shows and national
television programs. And they're saying, "Why didn't the
President appoint so-and-so? He or she would have been
great. They had a wonderful judicial record. They would
have been the kind of person we've been hoping and working
and praying for to be on the Court." Well, it very well
may be that those individuals didn't want to be appointed.
John: For understandable reasons, because the grilling
that they get in that confirmation process is just brutal.
JCD: Well, that, it's true. The Democrats have so politicized
that process that it's become an ordeal and many people
just don't want to go through that. And I'm not sure I
blame them. So, Karl Rove shared some of that with me.
He also made it clear that the President was looking for
a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace
Justice O'Connor. And you can imagine what that did to
the short list. That cut it . . . I haven't looked at
who I think might have been on that short list, because
Karl didn't tell me who was not willing to be considered.
But that many have cut it by 80 percent right there. But
I was not gonna be the one to reveal this. I knew that
people would eventually be aware of some of that
information, but I didn't think I had the right to say it.
And so, I made my comment.
Now there's. . . there's something else I'll say in a
moment that I was referring to. But let me just say that
some of my friends that I was talking to that day and
thought I was speaking in confidence, went straight to the
media and. . . and shared what I had said or what I had
not said. And that's where the firestorm began. You
know, "What did Dobson know and when did he know it?"
Now let me go back to the statement that there were some
things from my conversation with Karl Rove that I couldn't
talk about. And of course, the media has keyed on that
statement. I had no idea that was going to be released to
the media, but there it is.
[Ed. Note: he said this on multiple news shows, and his own
show, so this makes no sense.]
So, what was it that I couldn't talk about? The answer
has everything to do with timing. It's very important to
remember that when I first made that statement about
knowing things that I shouldn't know, and shared that with
my colleagues the day that the President made his
announcement, maybe two or three hours after his press
conference.
And then, that very night, I went on the Brit Hume program
-- the FOX News program -- and. . . and talked about the
President's nomination. And then, the following day --
Tuesday -- I recorded a statement for FOF, which was heard
on Wednesday. And that is the last time that I said that
I had information that was confidential and that I really
couldn't talk about.
Why? Because what I was told by Karl Rove had been
confirmed and reported from other sources by that time.
What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I
couldn't reveal? Well, it's 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. In other
words, there is a characterization of her that was given
to me before the President had actually made this
decision. I could not talk about that on Monday. I
couldn't talk about it on Tuesday. In fact, Brit Hume
said, "What church does she go to?" And I said, "I don't
think it's up to me to reveal that." Do you remember my
saying that?
John: I do, yes.
JCD: What I meant was, I couldn't get into this. But by
Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, all this information
began to come out and it was no longer sensitive. I
didn't have the right to be the one that revealed it and
that's what I was referring to.
John: Well, I'd also guess, Doctor, that the answer you
gave here about the contents of that conversation and why
you couldn't divulge some of those matters, won't satisfy
the senators on the judiciary committee, who were looking
for some red meat.
JCD: Well, John, I have no doubt that what I've just said
will be a great disappointment to Senator Schumer and
Senator Salazar and Senator Biden and Senator Durban and
Senator Leahy and Senator Lautenberg and some of the other
liberal Democrats, because Karl 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. I did
not ask that question. You know, to be honest, I would
have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v.
Wade. But even if Karl had known the answer to that and
I'm certain that he didn't, because the President himself
said he didn't know, Karl would not have told me that.
That's the most incendiary information that's out there
and it was never part of our discussion.
One thing is clear. We know emphatically that Justices
Souter and Kennedy and Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens
have made up their mind about Roe v. Wade, by politicizing
their decrees on that issue and others. They have usurped
the right of the people to govern themselves and they've
imposed a radical agenda on this country. And John, as
long as I'm talking about that, let me say one other
thing.
More recently, they have been drawing some of their
conclusions, not from the Constitution and not from
precedent and not from the American people, but from
public opinion in Western Europe. You know, that's one of
the most outrageous developments in the history of the
Court. American public opinion is ignored and so are
previous Court decisions or precedent. And frequently,
the Constitution itself is bypassed. And instead they
favor the views of people who have no commitment to our
freedoms and our traditions that the Founding Fathers gave
us.
So, I want the President to appoint someone who will go to
the original intent of the Constitution and tell us what
the founding fathers meant. If we don't like what they
wrote, there's a process to change it. But the way it
works now, every time the Court meets, it can be more or
less a constitutional convention, where five or more
justices reinterpret the meaning of that precious
document.
Now Karl Rove didn't tell me all of that, but what he
said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict
constructionist, which is why the President likes her.
And you know, I've never met her; I don't have any
personal communication with her. I've never received a
letter or a phone call from her or any firsthand
knowledge, but I do believe President Bush is serious when
he says this is the kind of person I'm looking for and
Harriet Miers is such a person.
Nevertheless, what the Democrats have concluded in their
wildest speculation is that Mr. Rove laid out for me a
detailed promise that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe
v. Wade and revealed all the other judicial opinions that
she has supposedly prejudged. It did not happen, period!
Senator Leahy was speaking on George Stephanopoulos's
program, "This Week" on Sunday, just past. And this is
what he said and I quote. This is word for word: "James
Dobson has said that he knew privately; he had private
assurances of how she would vote." Well, Leahy is either
lying or he's given to his own delusions or he's got some
problem somewhere, because that's flat out not true.
Nowhere have I been quoted making such a statement,
because it's not true.
Again John, last Sunday, Democrats were on all the talk
shows and nearly all of them mentioned me one way or
another. Senator Schumer from New York, referred to my
conversations with Karl Rove as a "wink and a whisper,"
you know, trying to make something sinister out of it.
It's obvious what the agenda is here.
Now John, I feel like I have clarified the nature of my
conversation with Karl Rove. Let me just say in the
conclusion to my comments here -- and I want to speak
directly to members of the judiciary committee about the
possibility of my coming to testify -- if they want to do
that, then I just suggest that they quit talking about and
just go do it. I have nothing to hide and I'll be happy
to come and talk to you. But I won't have anything to say
that I haven't just told millions of people. And so,
that's really the end of my statement.
(end of transcript)
[Official transcript ends at 18 minutes. 10 minutes of show remained.]
[Remainder of show transcribed by solarbird.livejournal.com. Early]
[sections are rough; missed clauses are indicated by "..." and were]
[not considered meaningful by the transcriber; refer to the original]
[broadcast for verification if desired. Key elements are at bottom.]
John: That is about as clear as you can make things, I think, for
our listeners, and we'll have this broadcast posted on the web
if they'd like to refer back to it at any point in time. We do have
time, I believe, Doctor, to get to a guest that you wanted to talk
to on the phone about this matter of the nomination to the U.S.
Supreme Court of Harriet Miers.
JCD: Well, John, I think it's about time I did that, 'cause I'm tired of talking and I'm tired of even listening to my own voice, so let's do get on to a telephone conversation that we have placed - I think he's on the line now - with a personal friend and a friend to this ministry... I am delighted that Judge Kenneth Starr has agreed to be our guest to talk about his knowledge of Harriet Misers because he does know her personally... Judge Starr, or as he's known in academic circles, Dean Star... he has been the independent council for five investigations including Whitewater... also US Circuit Judge for the DC district... this man is very qualified to give us his opinion with regard to this nominee... he's also written a book called First Among Equals... ... Hello Judge Starr, it's good to have you on the program... we want to talk about the new nominee...
Starr: Dr. Dobson, I've had the privilege of knowing Harriet for about 15 years in a professional capacity, both in her capacity as one of the leading lawyers in the great state of Texas and beyond, and also through bar association ... Harriet Miers has been one of the great leaders of the Dallas, Texas bar association, the Texas bar association... mostly I've dealt with her in the arena of professional activity...
Dobson: Do you think she is tough enough for the rough and tumble collision of ideas inside the court?
Starr: I do. These are all predictive judgments... she smiles, she's gracious, she's a lady, and she is tough as nails.
Dobson: President Bush called her... a "pit bull in size six shoes..."
Starr: She is so collegial, but she is also a person of very well thought out principle. ... she has not been out there on the barricades, so to speak, of the conservative movement. Thus I think the loyal opposition on the other side of the fence muse be somewhat relieved that you don't have that kind of person, but for the reason that I've already said, I think she brings a wonderful set of attributes that in my judgment are frankly needed on that court right now.
Dobson: Let me ask you the tough question, and maybe the most important one: Do you believe she's pro life, and pro family? Do you believe she will uphold the traditional definition of marriage, for example, and those issues that social conservatives are so concerned about?
Starr: I think from everything that we know and that I know of Harriet Miers from my own dealings with her is that she is a person who really honors tradition. We know that first of all she is a person of very deep faith and her own faith journey, Dr. Dobson, has been a very intriguing and revealing one; she is an evangelical christian and very actively, not just in name, but she is very actively involved in her church in Dallas; that is a story that I think that those in the Christian community should be comforted by; that this is someone who has - as a mature adult, not the way she was raised so that's the way I am - this is a mature adult, who is in fact a professional, who came to a very strong sense of belief and commitment and that set of beliefs and commitments I think means that that person is going to hold fast to traditional values and concerns.
Dobson: What do you think is going to happen in the Senate in the next few weeks?
Starr: ... I think she will do well... I think the witnesses who rally around her... the witnesses who come forward are going to present to the american people and their representatives the United States Senators... the kind of person they will be very comfortable with... again, you see someone like a John Cornin, he's not just saying Harriet is my friend, he's saying 'In her, I am well pleased,' that she is exactly the kind of person who will do well on the high court. ... [she] was part of a very important changeover in that court which has now become one of the really respected and traditional supreme courts in the United States. I think we can look to people like John Cornin and others and the witnesses we are going to hear from... this is a person who is going to wear very well, who is very hard working, who has a good heart... and I love this, her commitment in her first public statement after her nomination was announced to the founding vision in 1787 and 1789 as to the limited role the Federal judiciary is to play.
Dobson: Well, let me end with this question, and it's an obvious one now, you obviously think she would be a good justice on the Supreme Court as we would define it [emphasis in original] and I think you know what that means.
Starr: Yes, I think she believes in the traditional vision [emphasis in original], which we need to restore, the vision of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, and other great justices to have served, who's not trying to impose his or her views and especially his or her views on issues that so divide American society and American culture.
Dobson: And you are convinced she has a very personal faith [emphasis in original] in Jesus Christ.
Starr: That I do. She is a very, very strong Christian and that should be a source, I think, of great comfort and assurance to people in the household of faith around our country.
Dobson: Well thank you, Judge Starr, for taking these minutes to talk to us; I really do appreciate the perspective that you bring, and I know our listeners got a little different slant on things today. Let us know if there's anything else you that would like to communicate with our audience, and we admire you, and appreciate you, and God's blessings to you my friend.
Starr: Well, thank you, and God bless you, and just keep the faith, this is a very, very fine nomination.
Dobson: It's time to be praying for our country, isn't it.
Starr: It is indeed!
Dobson: All right. Thanks again!
Starr: Oh, my pleasure.
[End of telephone call]
John: Well, that is, once more, Judge Ken Starr, and we're grateful for his taking the time to join us here on the broadcast today.
Dobson: I really enjoyed that interchange, John... having not met Harriet Miers myself, and yet having said I think she's a good choice, it is always encouraging to hear your views validated by people who know more about the subject than you do. That was certainly the case today. We covered a lot of ground today, John, and I think a lot of the media and others want a transcript of my statement today and we have prepared it and we'll make it available.
John: I believe we have that on the website, family.org, and we also have CDs available of this broadcast conversation; if you'd like a copy, it would be our pleasure to send one to you, just look for that online or ask about it when you call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY. Now, normally, we have a suggested donation amount associated with our CDs, but for this broadcast, we want to make this CD complementary so the word can get out, so you can help inform your friends and neighbors, ask about that CD or the transcript when you call us. One more time, the phone number, 1-800-A-FAMILY, or look for us online at family.org.
[Usual closing material]
[End of additional transcription by solarbird.livejournal.com]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 08:30 pm (UTC)Worst-case scenario... doesn't bear contemplating.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 09:03 pm (UTC)I don't think it says that at all. I think it says "she'll rule like our shared religious beliefs would want, and to hell with the letter of the law." C.f. my next post.
Now, I do not know if that's what she'd actually do. I just think it's what Dobson and Starr are saying she'll do. (I'd use "implying" instead of "saying," but it's so strongly implied that I think it falls through to just plain saying, if not in that many words.