The EFM Feature

Steve, I’m going to have to disagree. But, first of all, I’ll reiterate the stated need for Sen. Thompson to clarify his position on abortion, as it’s not benefiting anyone for supporters/competitors/pundits to try and decipher his true feelings.
I think it’s possible that Sen. Thompson’s use of the word ‘distracting’ in reference to abortion may have been misconstrued. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But in David Brody’s column, we do not read a quote from Sen. Thompson stating that the issue of abortion is distracting. Rather, he said that he doesn’t hear about it a lot. Additionally, he said that he wants to keep the focus off distracting issues in the next election. I’d like to know in what context those quotes were made because Brody’s interpretation is about as clear as the Monongahela. I just think it’s jumping to conclusions and, frankly, unfair to criticize his supposed stance from something that is hardly concrete.
But, let’s say he did mean that the issue of abortion is unimportant enough to him to label it a distraction. Do I disagree? Completely! But that was in 1996, and I can certainly believe that he’s changed his stance since then. Furthermore, I do not regard being a businessman with “balance sheets and markets” on the brain any greater of an excuse than Sen. Thompson may have to justify a pro-choice stance at any point in their lives.
Again, it’d be a whole lot easier if some serious clarification arose from Team Thompson. And Steve, I promise I’m not just picking on you because your musical judgments are shameful.


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

Comments are closed.