Thompson - Swing And A Miss!

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a Los Angeles Times article accusing Fred Thompson of lobbying for a pro choice organization. One commenter suggested I disregard the LA Times piece until they produce billing records as proof. Fair enough.

So why is it that when Sean Hannity asked Thompson of the "attack" on his character, Thompson doesn't give him a direct yes or no answer? Thompson got a softball question from Hannity and whiffed at it, but the crowd roared regardless.

HANNITY: "They have attacked you, they have attacked your family, and now, they come out in the Los Angeles Times with a piece that says you lobbied for abortion rights. You say that's absolutely not true."

THOMPSON: "No... You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself. They will probably come at me, in 35 years of law practice, with some people, I represented criminal defendants. I was a prosecutor. I had a general law practice. So that in and of itself doesn't mean anything anyway... I'm not gonna get down in the weeds with everything they dredge up over the next six months." Then cheers from the ignorant audience.

Sounds like a little back-peddling to me. Why not just say, "No. Absolutely not. I have never been pro-abortion." As Thoman B. Edsall reports, in the July 7 LAT story, Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo firmly rejected charges that Thompson had lobbied in support of the pro-choice group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said.

In response to a Huffington Post inquiry today [July 11] however, Corallo was more equivocal: "He said he has no recollection of doing any work and does not recall lobbying anyone on it."

From "No, period" to "I can't recall" in just four days.

"You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself."
To my ears, this sounds like, "Hey, they hired me to do a job. Why should I turn it down? If I can represent criminal defendants, why not this? It doesn't mean anything anyway."

I wonder what else Mr. Thompson won't be able to recall as all this progresses. And to my commenter "Sturm", any input? What do you think the reason is that he shrugged it off instead of vehemently denying it?