I'm just curious: would you cut Rudy, McCain, or Romney so much slack if one of them claimed to have forgotten or would have you concluded he was lying?
What troubles me about this is that if Fred is such an abortion foe, why wasn't he immediately and greatly conflicted? This should have been a moral dilemma of first rank; not the kind of thing you easily forget. I'm hoping this is an isolated event and not the first of a series of events where Fred sets aside his convictions for convenience's sake.
This one event (even if proven to be true) doesn't change my positive opinion of Fred Thompson but it does make me uneasy.
Seriously, if this is the best the opposition can offer, this is going to be a cakewalk for Thompson.
This is probably just the opening salvo. Why would the opposition open fire until the candidate is clearly in the race?
For something that allegedly happened 16 years ago, is denied by all the principals involved, has no documentation to show otherwise, and is based solely on the word of a Hillary Clinton operative? Yes, I would.
What troubles me about this is that if Fred is such an abortion foe, why wasn't he immediately and greatly conflicted? This should have been a moral dilemma of first rank;
Except that it isn't. He never lobbied for the group in question. It is possible (but as of now, not proven) that he indirectly assisted them by providing legal advice to one of his partners, a responsibility he was ethically bound to fulfill as part of his partnership. In that respect, Thompson may be vague on his denials simply because he doesn't remember one way or another, and doesn't want this to be used as a "gotcha" later if he did happen to forget. I mean, look what happened to Scooter Libby as a result of inconsistent memories. ;)
This is probably just the opening salvo. Why would the opposition open fire until the candidate is clearly in the race?
Because too many people fear him getting in the race in the first place -- from both parties. They want to derail him before he truly gets started.