In October 12 reports, numerous media outlets -- including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post -- uncritically reported Focus on the Family founder and chairman (left) James C. Dobson's purported defense of his prior refusal to reveal "confidential" information that he claimed to have received from the White House about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. In fact, the information that Dobson now claims to have received from White House senior adviser Karl Rove, which he said at the time reassured him about the Miers nomination, had already been widely reported following Miers's nomination, even as Dobson was claiming he couldn't disclose it because it was confidential.
D.H. note: I blogged a short piece on Dobson on July 25, 2005, on his position on the John Roberts nomination, including his threat this past Jan. 2 to oppose any senators in 2006 who did not support all of President Bush's so-called "strict constructionist" judicial nominees.
Yesterday, the right-wing radio screamers, such as Sean Hannity, were proclaiming loudly that Dobson had a "right of privacy" to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee to "shove it" if he were subpoenaed to testify about what Karl Rove told him about Miers.
It appears to me that the "private conversation" Dobson had with Rove was never confidential, just that Dobson maybe thought it was at the time. I think it is ironic, though, that Dobson and his supporters are claiming a "right of privacy" here, but if their hoped-for reversal of Roe v. Wade were to happen, the right of privacy that Roe was decided upon would be reversed also. Privacy is thus a right only when it's convenient to them.
Donate to DemLog, a project of Marcus Comton (click on box below to go to PayPal and donate). Thank you very much: