Wilson Criticizes State GOP on Abortion Litmus Test

Republican Gov. Pete Wilson on Tuesday criticized a move embraced by the state Republican Party convention last weekend that could deny funding to candidates who do not support a ban on late-term abortions and analyze judicial candidates based on their stance on abortion.

Using so-called partial-birth abortions as a candidate litmus test sets a dangerous precedent, Wilson said in a meeting with California reporters in the nation’s capital, where he has been attending the National Governors’ Assn. meeting.

“This is simple arithmetic: You win elections by adding, not subtracting,” said Wilson, whose relationship with GOP conservatives has long been strained.

Delegates at the California conclave last weekend passed a resolution urging the state party to change its rules to deny financial support and other benefits to any candidate who does not support legislation outlawing the late-term abortion procedure. The Republican-controlled Congress has passed such a measure, but President Clinton has blocked it with his veto.

Wilson said the state party should have followed the “big-tent” approach adopted by the national GOP last month when it rejected a similar resolution to withhold support to party candidates who do not support the ban on late-term abortions.

Wilson also disagreed with the provision in the state party resolution calling for a panel that would scrutinize judges based on issues such as parental consent on abortion, saying such an analysis sets up a “very slippery slope.”

“They shouldn’t shoot the messenger because they don’t like the result,” Wilson said, noting that judges interpret and apply laws set by legislators. “You shouldn’t blame judges if they have accurately and carefully and fairly applied the law.”

In a conversation that ranged from his views on Internet taxes (there should be a moratorium while the complex issue is studied further) to President Clinton’s personal woes (his sex life is relevant only if it impedes his leadership), Wilson also reiterated his desire to run for president again in 2000--if he can raise the money.

“I’ve been pleasantly surprised by people who’ve said encouraging things, but talk is cheap,” Wilson said. “It’s a question of whether or not I would have the resources. It’s an immense undertaking.”

Asked whether he knows what he will be doing in January when he steps down after completing his second term as California’s chief executive, Wilson said simply: “No.”

Asked if he would run for the nation’s top office, he shrugged: “I don’t know.”

“I am not shy or coy about saying I have an interest,” Wilson said. “Whether that interest materializes into an actual effort depends on whether or not I can get the significant financial support.”

Wilson’s nascent 1996 bid for the GOP nomination died for lack of funding.

Even as he took note of the financial hurdle facing another presidential candidacy, he touted his credentials. “There are a number of things that the country needs that I could assist in bringing about,” he said.

Wilson rejected the notion that a candidate who supports abortion rights could not win the Republican nomination, and said that even people who are “conscientiously pro-life” are beginning to realize that a constitutional amendment banning abortion is not as practical an approach for limiting the number of abortions as cultural change.