Hugh Hewitt v. David O'Steen

Check out this exchange between Hugh Hewitt, defender-of-Mitt-Romney-in-extremis, and David O'Steen, the executive director of National Right To Life, over Fred Thompson and abortion.

HH: Well, that’s the same…David, David, this audience is very sophisticated. They don’t like double talk. He’s not where Huckabee is, he’s not where Romney is endorsing the amendment. What I’m trying to get to is why do you guys not care about that?

DO’S: Well, wait a minute, I didn’t want to talk about other candidates specifically.

HH: Well, come on.

DO’S: Look at the history of other candidates. I said he’s had a consistent pro-life position.

HH: Are you saying Huckabee’s not consistently pro-life?

DO’S: What did you say?

HH: Are you saying Huckabee’s not consistently pro-life?

DO’S: No, I’m not saying…I wasn’t talking about Huckabee. You were mentioning other candidates. I mean, you…

HH: But Huckabee is…

DO’S: Huckabee has been pro-life, yes. He’s pro-life.

HH: And he’s for the amendment. So why would you guys not go with him?

DO’S: Well, I’ll tell you, we’re also looking at what we view as electability.

HH: You don’t think Mike Huckabee is electable?

DO’S: Well, in the polls we’ve been watching, in the national polls, Fred Thompson has in the majority of them run second, Mike Huckabee hasn’t.

HH: David, have you been watching…David O’Steen is my guest from the National Right To Life Committee. Have you been watching the recent polls? Fred Thompson’s falling like a rock.

DO’S: Well, he’s running strong in South Carolina. The last national Real Clear Politics average I saw showed him running second to Rudy Giuliani.

HH: He’s got 6% in Iowa, and less than that, I think, in New Hampshire in the CBS poll released yesterday.

DO’S: But he’s running strong in Nevada and South Carolina. As I said, you know, everyone can look at polls, and the last Real Clear Politics average I saw, he was running second to Rudy Giuliani.

Comments

entertaining... thanks for sharing Marc

Posted by GreenGuy | November 15, 2007 12:33 PM

O'Steen & the NRLC lost all credibility with me and much of the pro-life community with this bogus endorsement. They're backing a guy who opposes a federal ban on abortion...which is their primary platform! That's not just a head scratcher...that's insulting to those of us working in the trenches of the pro-life movement.

When I called their office on Tuesday, they fully admitted that Huckabee had the strongest pro-life record and position...but they felt that Thompson was more electable. By throwing away their principles like that...they've automatically turned themselves into nothing more than a cheap political machine, have ruined their credibility and marginalized themselves.

But it's seemed to help Mike Huckabee. He's raised a truckload of money this week, his website has record traffic, and he's surging in the polls. Meanwhile, Fred is in single digits in Iowa (5th place), and his polling at 5% in New Hampshire.

Posted by Chris | November 15, 2007 12:52 PM

A good reminder about who is the natural, winsome candidate for the pro-life movement. Many in the pro-life movement feel the same way. Governor Huckabee's record and heart are 100% on this. It is just one of many important issues that seem to be driving him up in the polls as more people get to know him.

Posted by Steve | November 15, 2007 1:54 PM

The misguided "leaders" may endorse whom they will but the followers seem to be endorsing Huckabee by the loads. It is really interesting.

Posted by Greg | November 15, 2007 2:51 PM

Wow...

O'Steen got punked, and he knew it...

You could almost feel sorry for him in his desperation... couldn't even ATTEMPT to argue Thompson was more prolife than Huck, than stammers on pragmatic electability "but, uh, Nevada..."

funny

Posted by steve prost | November 15, 2007 7:47 PM

Thompson is more electable than Huckabee? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA *gasp* HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Thompson is 3rd in Nevada and SC! And he's sinking there and everywhere else! He's been steady 6th place in NH, behind Ron Paul, even! National Right to Lie Committee, hmmm?

Posted by Chris L | November 15, 2007 8:34 PM

Huckabee followers:

Fred Thompson is 100% pro life. His voting record is 100% pro life. And his stance on a Constitutional Amendment is 100% pro life.

First: A President plays no Constitutional role in the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment would never even go across the Huckster’s desk or bear his signature in any way.

Second: Such an amendment would require a 2/3 consensus from both houses of Congress. This would require a 20 to 30 seat shift in the Senate alone. AND that is just to get the Amendment before the states. Thereafter, you would need 38 states (3/4ths) to pass the Amendment. Someone please give me a realistic scenario where you see the ratification of an Amendment possible within the next President’s term(s).

So what's the point? Such a contentious Amendment process, at this moment, would re-energize a faltering pro-abortion movement. States have made substantial headway in the pro-life movement over the past 10 to 15 years as far as challenging the boundaries set forth in Roe. A re-energized movement on the national level could set back those gainst by decades. THAT is one valid reason why the NRLC endorsed Thomspon.

The only way we are going to stop abortion at the moment is to overturn Roe. That is why the NRLC endorsement is right on target and you people in the trenches of the pro life movement should thank them for it.

Fred Thompson is the most faithful conservative candidate in his dedication to the underlying principles of our Republic. Among those, is a belief that the Constitution should not be stretched to fit any agenda, and the states should retain their sovereignty explicitly provided for in the 10th Amendment. There is no Constitutional Amendment prohibiting murder. Why? Because murder, under the Constitution, is a matter for the states to retain jurisdiction over. The federal government does not prosecute murders, unless there is federal subject matter jurisdiction (interstate commerce, etc). That is the way our country has been since its founding, and that is the way it should remain.

The next president will be nominating, most likely, at least Justice Stevens’ replacement.

If Thompson is in the White House, we would appoint an originalist in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. That would give us the fifth and final vote needed to overturn Roe and put the matter back in the hands of the states WHERE IT BELONGS (see the 10th Amendment).

With Huckabee in the White House, it would be a crap shoot. Why? Because Huckabee does not understand, or chooses to ignore, the founding principles of federalism and he would likely appoint another pseudo conservative like Souter.

Huckabee is a liberal who is pro-life and anti-gay, plain and simple:
-Huckabee raised taxes at a frightening clip during his tenure as governor in Arkansas.
-Huckabee provided in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants (as a person who was born in Guatemala and came here legally, and served my country in the United States Marine Corps in Iraq, I take personal offense to this. So if I, someone who put my life on the line for my country, went to Arkansas to go to college, under Huckabee, I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition. But an illegal immigrant? Well he gets the subsidized rates. That’s simply outrageous).
-Huckabee supports socialized health care (refuses to endorse President Bush’s veto of SCHIP -which is a foot in the door for supporters of socialized health care).
-Huckabee increased the size and scope of the government Governor Bill Clinton left behind for him in Arkansas.

So what does this have to do with the abortion movement? It shows that Huckabee does not understand true conservatism. And when the next Supreme Court appointment is so critical to ending abortion in America, the NRLC did not want to entrust that appointment to someone who does not understand our Constitution and would likely appoint someone to the Court who would uphold Roe and set us back another generation or two. Thank God for the NRLC.

Think about it ladies and gentlemen. We are in almost all of the federal messes we are in now (social security, welfare, socialized medicine, among many others) including living under the specter of Roe and its progeny, because we abandoned our federalist principles. A right to privacy is not explicit in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court implied it there and created it out of thin air. Then, based on that implied right, the Court implied that the Constitution provided a woman with the right to snuff out the life of the unborn child in her womb. Why do we want to continue abandoning our founders’ principles, when that abandonment is what made the abortion holocaust possible?

Imagine Thompson being elected. Then imagine his first Supreme Court appointment. Then imagine Roe getting overturned. Then imagine one, then two, then five and ten states outlawing abortions. The other states would see the results of a government endorsing life instead of death and begin to follow suit. That is what, I believe, the NRLC imagined when they chose to endorse the right candidate for the right to life movement. Thank you for reading.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 15, 2007 8:34 PM

Mr. Sexton,

The ninth amendment states that a right does not have to be explicit in the constitution to be a right. Those are the founders's principles. If you really believe that only those rights explicitly spelled out are rights, you are opening the door to the federal tyranny you claim to fear.

Posted by William Burns | November 15, 2007 9:14 PM

Mr. Burns,

Why do you paraphrase such a short Constitutional Amendment?

The following is the actual text of the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As you can plainly see, it does not, as you claim, state that "a right does not have to be explicit in the constitution to be a right." Rather, the debate amongst the founders leading to the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution shows that it is only a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights does not, BY IMPLICATION, increase the powers of the national government to infringe on rights that state governments may see fit to codify.

Therein lies the crux of your misunderstanding of the Ninth Amendment. Your interpretation renders the Amendment function of the U.S. Constitution meaningless. It also renders the Tenth Amendment meaningless.

Griswold was wrongly decided and many Constitutional scholars recognize that. Whether you like the result or not does not mean that its underpinnings are Constitutionally sound.

And finally, contrary to your final assertion that to read the Constitution as it is written opens the door to 'federal tyranny', the Text of the Constitution provides safeguards to limit the federal government. The amendment function therein, provides the PEOPLE with the power to Amend the Constitution as has been done on numerous occassions to provide women with a federally protected right to vote, and make possible the 14th Amendment, which effectively ended segregation in the states.

If a right to privacy was meant to be in the Constitution, the framers were certainly intelligent enough to have included it in the Constitution. They did not intend for the Constitution to be a puzzle for Justices to figure out and make implications to fit the desired rule of the Court's majority.

They intended for the States' various Constitutions to protect people's privacy; many of them currently do. If the PEOPLE determine that a right to privacy should be provided for in the U.S. Constitution, then they can amend it.

Such a reading of the U.S. Constitution leaves the Tenth Amendment in tact. Today's jurisprudence has rendered the Tenth Amendment nothing more than a truism, which was certainly not the framers' intent.

The bottom line is that reading the U.S. Constitution as written, and amending it as necessary, rather than permitting courts to interpret it as they please, provides more protections to the PEOPLE and just makes sense.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 15, 2007 11:13 PM

Senator Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.

I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a Republican-in-name-only (RINO) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. The White House isn’t for sale! Mike Huckabee is pro-illegal amnesty! NO THANKS!! Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our country. Nice picture, huh?

However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this country.. A little of the good old days of faith, federalism and family would do well for this country. If a conservative runs as a conservative, he will win!

Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a nation, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?

Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our nation right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart.

Posted by Alan | November 16, 2007 12:21 AM

Thank you Alan. Great post. I absolutely agree and encourage everyone to re-explore Fred Thompson.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 16, 2007 12:31 AM

He was pro-life before he was a lawyer let alone a Senator. Look at his bio. He married his girlfriend rather than get rid of the baby. He takes responsibility seriously, even if its not a responsibility he wants.

Given his always conservative attitude and the fact that he's walked in our shoes during his lifetime pushes him far above the Guilianis, Romneys, and Huckabees in this country.

Couple that with what Mr. Sexton and Mr. Alan have said, it's a no-brainer.

Posted by StephC | November 16, 2007 5:58 AM

Amen, Alan! Add this to Fred's Social Security bravery and you've got a candidate who has strong principles and will stand up for them.

Posted by K T Cat | November 16, 2007 9:49 AM

Joe Sexton should be writing for Fred. Best Blog I have read on Fred and right to the point and most important, correct on everything...good job!
Joe

Posted by MAGGIE CRAWFORD | November 16, 2007 10:04 AM

I'm not sure about Thompson. He's certainly pro-life enough for most social conservatives. Whether he has what it takes to get the nomination, much less be elected president is another matter entirely. Most of us are obviously not convinced at this point. But Huckabee is something else. Just because he's pro-life doesn't mean I would vote for him.

I don't think it's accurate to call him a liberal, but he's certainly a populist at heart. Here is something he's said more than once I'm sure:

"I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street. CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong"

Instant turnoff. What business is it of his, or the president, what any CEO makes? And what's wrong with Wall Street? What makes main street better? Why not be the candidate of both? This is America, Mr. Huckabee. You know, free market capitalism? This kind of statement sounds like it comes out of that raving madman, John Edwards.

Conservatives have gotten all over Bush because he's a "big government conservative," which most of us believe is an oxymoron. Well, at least Bush isn't a populist who panders to average Americans with a politics of envy. With Huckabee we'd get the worst of both worlds.

Posted by Mike D | November 16, 2007 10:29 AM

Thank you Maggie. I'd love to work for Mr. Thompson.

Mike D., I agree entirely with your conclusion. But why do you believe it isn't accurate to call Huckabee a liberal? I guess my definition of a liberal is fairly synonymous with a populist. He increased the size of government, increased taxes, supported providing tax-subsidized in- state tuition for illegal immigrants, refused to endorse President Bush's veto of SCHIP. To me, that spells liberal. Notwithstanding his anti-abortion rhetoric.

As for the electability of Fred Thompson, he's never been given a fair shake by the main stream media. All of these pundits make a great living from the election season. If they can expand that election season, they'll only make more money. Thompson didn't play by their rules and jump into the race a year before any candidate had ever entered a presidential race in past elections, and as a result, the pundits turned their backs on him.

If the election for President is a beauty contest, then perhaps you're right. But if the American people are still interested in serious political discourse, an honest statesman who will give us the bad news along with the good and has specific and well-reasoned plans (i.e. social security, illegal immigration, and ensuring that our military remains the dominant military force in the world), I believe that Americans, from both sides of the aisle, could rally behind him.

He may not have Romney's salon-polished image. He may not have all of the jokes, or the hellfire pulpit style of Huckabee. But I believe he has a demeanor that is comforting and strong at the same time. He has the ability to tell the people of the United States that Western Civilization is at stake, without sounding alarmist.

Moreover, he has character and principles that would stand up to even the most close scrutiny, which is something I believe most of the other GOP candidates lack. And finally, for me, I like the fact that he does not seem to have a lustful hunger for the presidency. I know many see this as one of his most fatal faults. But I believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Thompson seems to view the presidency, not as some aristocratic seat of power, but rather a position of great responsibility whose primary role is to be a servant of the people, which is a characteristic I find unique and admirable.

If people would only do the digging into Huckabee that the media is not doing, I think they would find that he isn't the nice, aw-shucks, steadfastly conservative candidate he has portrayed himself as.

I liked him initially. But instead of buying into the cursory analysis provided by the major media outlets, I looked into his record. What I found was troubling. So I turned back to Fred Thompson.

I encourage everyone reading this to act like adults and do your own thorough research before you make up your mind and rally behind any candidate. That is what the American political process is about. I'm confident that if you do, you'll find more to like about Thompson than anyone else making a bid for the presidency.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 16, 2007 11:57 AM

If the issue is "electability," doesn't the candidate have to be "running?" And has anybody told Fred Thompson he's running? His organization is so screwed up, he isn't even "virtually" running. Maybe he's walking for the office of POTUS.

Posted by rickp | November 16, 2007 12:00 PM

RickP, do you have facts to back up your assertion that Mr. Thompson is not running? Or are you just regurgitating the mainstream media's critiques of Mr. Thompson's campaign? The FACTS support the latter rather than the former.

Mr. Thompson has done something no other POTUS candidate has done: put forward comprehensive plans to address the most pressing problems facing our nation, including a plan to fix the sinking ship that is social security. Even the Washington Post can't ignore that this is a more courageous and proactive effort than has been seen from any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502078.html

Stop feeding from the trough rickp (it's quite unseemly). Fred Thompson is running, and he's the only candidate offering REAL SOLUTIONS to our problems.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 16, 2007 1:14 PM

Joe,

You make a very persuasive case. Like most conservatives, I think, I was very much excited about Thompson getting in the race. I'm not convinced his problems are totally media created. No doubt they magnified whatever problems he had. I think running for president must be a skill that one has to learn through practice. I think he's getting better at it. There was a good piece by Larry Kudlow at NRO's The Corner today:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzMzMDViM2ZjMmVkNDk1NWE4Y2M3MWRjNjI0MGQ5ZGY=

He's interviewing him for his show today and Kudlow was impressed. I'm still undecided, but hopefully Thompson can win me over.

As for Huckabee I guess liberal is too inclusive. Populist and "big government conservative" are more accurate to me, because these views can be found on the right, although I wish they weren't. What makes Huckabee dangerous is that there are others (e.g. Michael Gerson) who claim the mantel of conservative who simply do not believe in the concept of limited government. Too many people are trying to re-define conservatism in the mold of "statecraft as soulcraft" as George Will put it many years ago, and we cannot let that happen. Thompson is the only one who is fighting for limited government and I like that.

Posted by Mike D | November 16, 2007 2:23 PM

Mike D,

That's a great piece by Kudlow. Unofrtunately, I was working too late to have had the chance to watch it last night.

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the perilous position of true conservatism (limited government and personal responsibility vs. government intrusion and dependency on entitlement programs) within the ranks of the GOP. I hope, for all of our sakes, that whoever prevails in this nomination for the GOP, will stand by the principles that have enabled us to win the last 7 out of 10 presidential elections and more importantly, have provided prosperity and progress for the American people.

I would hope all Republicans, and Americans for that matter, would weigh their decision with the same substantive and critical analysis that you seem to be engaged in. Of course, in the end, I hope Fred Thompson secures your support.

Posted by Joe Sexton | November 16, 2007 3:05 PM

Joe Sexton needs a life. He is very verbose.

Posted by Wow | November 17, 2007 1:09 PM