Well, the cat’s out of the bag. The transcript of today’s radio show is up at family.org.

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.”

Dr. Dobson probably made a big mistake in saying he had information he “maybe shouldn’t even know.” So what was the information he “shouldn’t even know?”

And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday, the day before the President made his decision, I knew that Harrier 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.

Basing his support of her nomination on the facts that we all now know, that she’s a pro-life Christian who goes to a pro-life church, whose sometime date - the ubiquitous Nathan Hecht - vouches for her, is to me a bit premature.

If, after watching the hearings, she appears qualified to be Supreme Court Justice, I will wholeheartedly support her. But until then, her personal religious convictions are not enough to convince me. Ardently pro-Life is good, but while abortion is an absolutely critical issue, and Roe’s ridiculous granting of “rights” must be overturned, there are also many, many other issues that of grave importance that will come before her on the court over the next 20-30 years. I also want to know how she interprets the constitution, not just how she views the absolutely sacred and precious life of an unborn person.

After reviewing Dobson’s comments Bayly Blog adds:

So exactly why is it we’re supposed to support Ms. Miers’ nomination? Do we know her position on, say, the use of peyote in Native Indian rites?

Joke.

To state the obvious, 1.3 million unborn children are being murdered across our nation each year and we’re left with another White House “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

And Paul at Info Theory continues to drive his point home this morning.

In other words, there are no assurances from Dobson that Miers is not personally “pro-life” while also judicially pro-Roe in agreement with the President’s pro-Roe judicial philosophy.

Sean McConeghy puts it bluntly.

Miers’s supporters had hoped that when Dobson would speak out, he would tell us something that we did not already know. They hinged their hopes on Dr. Dobson, trusting his judgment. Now we see that in this case, hijudgmentnt is simply wrong. Their desperate, but understandable, attempts to believe that there must be something more that Dobson knows have now been obliterated.

The White House has nothing left. Their greatest ally, their great hope for convincing conservatives, has spoken, and the only thing that it changed is that the rest of the table now knows just how weak the White House’s hand is. Conservative Senators now know that they will have nothing to hang their hats on, nothing to defend a Yea vote. It is time for Ms. Miers to do the right thing and withdraw herself.

UPDATE: Paul Diegnan continues to beat the Laura Bush / Al Gonzales drum this morning, and highlights critically this quote from Al Gonzales.

… how I feel personally may differ with how I feel about it legally…it’s the law of the land.

I think Gonzales would be a bad nominee and the following statement is in now way an endorsement of him, rather it’s a critique of Paul’s concern about this quote. The idea that a judge could rule against his own personal ideology when that conflicts with the law and the Constitution is certainly not a problem. In fact, that is exactly what I want in a judge. I want a judge who interprets the Constitution and laws, not one who determines what is right or wrong. That is a legislator’s job as a representative of the people.

UPDATE 2: I have re-read Dobson’s comments, and they include this:

[W]hat [Karl Rove] said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict constructionist, which is why the President likes her.

If this is correct, then my comment above may have been based on a too-cursory reading of Dobson’s transcript.

Basing his support of her nomination on the facts that we all now know, that she’s a pro-life Christian who goes to a pro-life church, whose sometime date - the ubiquitous Nathan Hecht - vouches for her, is to me a bit premature.

So Dobson believes she is a pro-Life Christian who is a strict Constructionist. That is a much better reason to endorse her than just that she is a pro-Life Christian. I missed that the first time through.

And I still want to wait to see the hearings.

Patterico says today’s Dobson revelations will further erode her support. (Via ConfirmThem)

In light of this, Miers supporters will lose still more credibility if they continue touting Dobson’s endorsement as if it tells us something we didn’t already know.