October 06, 2005
Salazar v. Dobson Redux: A Mystery
One of the more intriguing questions to come to light in the wake of the Miers nomination is what bit of info Dr. James Dobson was given to temper his concerns. Dobson has hinted that it speaks to the heart of the matter -- Miers's core view of the court. But he won't say what it is. That has provoked, as Chuck Todd notes below, pointed questions from Democrats who wonder why Dobson seems to have access to information about Miers that the rest of us -- or them, as constitutional actors who will reject or confirm her nomination -- do not.
One Democratic Senator has decided to take the question to the next level. CO Sen. Ken Salazar (D), a frequent and often caustic critic of his fellow Coloradan, said today that if the White House revealed info about Miers to "groups" -- meaning, clearly, Dobson -- it may have waived claims to executive privilege that Miers, as White House counsel, is covered under. (Sorry to end that sentence with a preposition.) [MARC AMBINDER]
(Here's a portion of what Dobson said on his radio broadcast Wednesday: "You'll have to trust me on this one. When you know some of the things I know -- that I probably shouldn't know -- that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation.")
Responds Tom Minnery, Focus's Vice President for Public Policy and Governmental Relations: "Sen. Salazar knows nothing about what Dr. Dobson has been told, or by whom, and hasn't bothered to ask, yet he seems to have reached far-fetched conclusions. Once again the Senator is fishing without bait, without a pole and without a boat."
As Bob Novak would say... A side note: Watch for Dobson to reveal more about just what he knows as early as next week.
A second side note: on a conference call today with conservatives, White House political director Sara Taylor told an Iowa activist that she would e-mail inormation that would help the activist better comprehend Miers' strict constructionist philosophy.
A third side note: I reviewed the latest set of talking points sent today to surrogates and allies by the Republican National Committee. They contained nothing that hasn't yet been in the public domain, so if the RNC has something up it sleeve, it's not sharing with first-order allies.
A fourth side note: Cosnervatives close to the White House say they expect Miers' writings when she was president of the Dallas Bar Association to shed some light on her approach to the law.
Posted at 07:40 PM
Comments
The truth will win out. Keep up the great effort.
Shawn Harmon | 10.07.05 01:49 PM
 |
Check out this post on that topic:
http://agendagap.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-would-jesus-do.html
Adam Shpeen | 10.07.05 02:06 PM
|
"Cosnervatives" sounds so much like a slur I'm using it from now on.
Michael | 10.07.05 03:05 PM
|
Tom Minery is quite wrong-- Senator Salazar knows a great deal about what Donson has been told. He knows Dobson has asked us to 'trust' him. He knows the information has convinced Dobson that Miers will overturn Roe vs. Wade. He knows this secret important information generates 'fear' in Dobson. He knows blasphemy and deceitfulness are sinful.
Salazar also knows something else that is not about Dobson. He knows his duty under the law-- to examine the fitness of 'my little crony' to be on the Supreme Court. He also knows we have a necessary separation of church and state. But of course, our priciples of duty and law are lost on Dobson as well as Bush.
David Joyce | 10.07.05 05:18 PM
|
Tom Minnery is quite wrong. Senator Salazar knows a great deal about what Dobson has been told. He knows that Dobson expects us to trust him. He knows the secret information is so important that is generated fear in Dobson. He knows Dobson is convinced Meirs will overturn Roe. vs. Wade. Senator Salazar also knows that blasphemy and deceitfulness are sinful.
He also knows something that is not about Dobson. Senator Salazar knows his duty under the law-- to examine 'my little crony' for fitness to be on the Supreme Court. He also knows we have separation of chuch and state in this country, thank God. But such priciples as duty and law are lost on Dobson and Bush.
David Joyce | 10.07.05 05:29 PM
|
Sidestepping the tough question of whether privilege attaches, there is no dispute that Dobson enjoys no protection from Congressional scrutiny. Thus, if (and, hopefully, when) compelled to testify to a Senate committee, he must answer what he knows. And if he lies to the committe and says he knows nothing, he'll have to admit that he lied on his television program and open up a variety of pointed questions involving the propriety of his actions. If he says he does know something but refuses to answer: see Miller, Judy: contempt for the good Doctor.
And, of course, if he answers truthfully and honestly, Democrats might just be able to sustain a filibuster.
win/win/win situation...if we subpoena him to the hearing.
Jason | 10.07.05 06:40 PM
|
Remember that under the rules the R's have to okay issuing a subpoena to Dobson.
Dennis | 10.10.05 01:00 PM
|
aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf
Jessica | 01.28.08 08:05 AM
|
lostyand | 02.16.08 01:35 AM
|
lostyand | 02.16.08 01:35 AM
|
lostyand | 02.16.08 01:35 AM
|
lostyand | 02.16.08 01:44 AM
|
listik-28081 | 02.26.08 05:34 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.26.08 05:34 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.26.08 05:34 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.26.08 05:34 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.27.08 11:53 AM
|
listik-28081 | 02.27.08 11:54 AM
|
listik-28081 | 02.27.08 11:54 AM
|
listik-28081 | 02.29.08 12:03 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.29.08 12:03 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.29.08 12:03 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.29.08 12:03 PM
|
listik-28081 | 02.29.08 12:03 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
