Replies

A few days ago, Wesley Clark made a blanket statement that if elected to the Presidency, he would support abortions up to the moment of birth and would not appoint “pro-life” judges. At the time, I didn’t think it was possible for a politician to be as politically clumsy as to dedicate himself to such an indefensible position. The positions attributed to Clark deserve serious coverage and debate, because Clark would presumably be in a position as President to appoint a Supreme Court justice within the next few terms of the Court. Given the seriousness of the issue, I personally thought that perhaps the newspaper that quoted Clark, the Manchester Union Leader, had somehow confused his words or misquoted him.

Right on cue, Clark is now attempting to back away from his statements on abortion. He now claims through his press secretary that the Machester Union Leader misquoted him and twisted his words in a deliberate attempt to get the candidate to support a position that amounts to political suicide. However, his strategy does not reassure the public that this candidate would not, in fact, support abortions up until birth or impose a strict litmus test in the appointment of judges to the Federal bench.

Unfortunately for Clark, the record seems to show that the newspaper did not misquote him at all. Wesley Clark expressed support for abortion up until the moment of birth. The story isn’t about his “confusion”, but rather about an embarrassing kowtow to an extreme constituency that will later require an astounding flip-flop. Here is a transcript of Clark’s interview with the Manchester Union Leader:

“A transcript of the session reveals the following exchange between Clark and Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News.

McQuaid: Let’s take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion—

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: It’s between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

Clark: Nope, nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don’t put the law in there. Yesterday, Simmons [Clark’s press secretary] said ‘Republicans and conservatives want to pin you down in debates about timing, but this isn’t about timing, it’s about whether we trust a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interest about her and her life.’

‘The issue here is whether or not we’re going to try to inject politics and government into a medical decision by a woman and her doctor and his answer is ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’’”

I would say that Clark’s words speak for themselves. At the time of this interview, he did indeed support abortion of babies up until the moment of birth. In fact, he even went so far as to support abortion up to the moment “the head [is] coming out of the womb”. Clark’s press secretary has also come out with a non-denial denial, claiming that “Republicans” are somehow making the “debate” about “timing”, without denying that his candidate has announced an extreme position on abortion not shared by any candidate of either party. Amazingly, the newspaper editor even gave Clark several chances to qualify his answer rather than just let him hurt himself accidentally. The questions sound almost incredulous that a major party candidate for national office could really stand behind such an astoundingly ignorant and arrogant position, and Clark was given more than a few opportunities to qualify his remarks.

In short, Wesley Clark’s problem isn’t that the newspaper misquoted him, but rather that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. For obvious reasons bearing on his ultimate electibility, Clark cannot stand behind the statement he made that abortion should be allowed until the baby is born. On the other hand, extreme feminists and abortion activists are bedrock Democratic Party activists, and if he wants to win the party primary, he had better bow and bow deep to them. Therefore, he can’t stand behind his own statement, and he can’t deny it.

He can, however, put out a laughable press release and send his flacks scurrying to somehow blame their candidate’s extreme position on “Republicans”.

Finally, I would like you to note that neither Clark or his campaign denies that the candidate intends to impose a strict abortion litmus test on Federal judicial nominations. Recall that a few days ago, Clark summed up his thoughts on the subject by saying:

“I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life.”

Indeed.

Tasty Manatees

Why not? Weasley was all for grinding children under tank treads.

CHEAP THRILLS - $1 (the first one's free!)

If every FR member gave a buck a month, we wouldn't need fundraisers. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

>>. . .as retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark spoke to an adoring packed house at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post.<<

Adoring??!!

Adoring??!!

Right.

The MU writer of the article was insane to allege a bunch of veterans who fought in foreign wars were sitting around "adoring" some awful perfumed prince(s).

Dolt.

Idiot.

Dun@ss.

Bump.

Clark's candidacy should be aborted.

At the pancake breakfast, Clark seemed to be generating the same level of excitement exhibited at the rallies of Republican Sen. John McCain...

Who also went down in flames and failed to win the nomination.