“I think you are right to say that his first wife’s family supports him politically, and for that reason they have refused to discuss whether or not Fred Thompson was unfaithful in his first marriage. But we should not take their silence as a confirmation of infidelity.”
The problem is, the brother wasn’t “silent.” He pretty much confirmed that it was infidelity, and nor mental or physical cruelty.
“As to the matter of Fred Thompson’s activities while he was not married, to me there is a difference between marital infidelilty and sexual promiscuity outside of marriage.”
There certainly is a difference, because you are not cheating on a spouse. My observation was that I was surprised at how many seemingly religious people see nothing wrong with promiscuity if you are single. It bothers me. Just as his wife’s shack up relationship — and we know about one. Maybe others will surface — bothers me. I’ve never believed in a double standard. His behavior, to me, is as bad a hers.
But, as I said before, maybe it’s just me. I think it will be an issue.
Given the way we love our lovable rogues, I think that Fred Thompson’s life between his marriages will work more for him than against him. I am not defending it, but it would be silly to deny it.
As for the statement of his former brother in law, you are reading into it more than I do. I do not agree with your assertion that that statement pretty much confirms marital infidelity. An implication, perhaps, but not a confirmation.
Do you *really* think Hillary will want to go down that road with fred? I mean it opens up a whole an of worms for her family and history... Heck if Fred avoids condemning her marriage and she goes after him he gets to hold the all precious hypocrite card