Friends with Fred?

So, I'm ashamed to admit that someone in my family (who I won't name here), just said "I think Fred Thompson should be president." When asked what she thought his qualifications were, she said "He doesn't need any." Is this not the most ignorant thing that could possibly be said in reference to a presidential candidate? She also says that we don't need another Clinton in the white house because we were "screwed the first time." Well, someone was screwed, but I'm pretty sure I don't believe it was America at large. I haven't decided yet who I'm going to vote for, but I can say with complete confidence that it wont be a republican. I can also say fairly confidently that a republican won't win this election, and I'm almost certain that if it is a republican (god help us) that it won't be Fred Thompson.

I did a little research to find out what Mr. Thompson's qualifications actually are, besides 2 runs for senate, and a spot on Law & Order. Turns out, he does have some experience, and would possibly not be the worst of the possible candidates for his side. As I mentioned, he was a senator (R, Tennessee) for 8 years (1994-03). He was active in the Watergate debacle, and has been a lobbyist for various causes since the 70s.

So, he has some experience, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't quite the right kind of experience for him to dive into the presidency. My worry is that a great number of people (like my misled family member), will think that this name recognition is enough. Can they separate Fred Thompson from his L&O character (Arthur Branch)? Will they take the time to find out that he is pro-life and thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? Do they know that he supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and is opposed to withdrawing troops now? That he would support a ban on gay marriage? Actually, looking at that list, these are probably the things that people who vote solely on name recognition would be interested in.

During the Clinton impeachment, Thompson voted against a conviction on perjury charges, but he voted in favor of a conviction of the obstruction of justice charge. I'm not exactly sure how it's possible, (in this situation) for President Clinton to be innocent on one count and guilty on the other. It doesn't seem like a well thought out vote on Thompson's part. Perhaps more research is required.

This really isn't about Fred Thompson, it's about how astounded I am with the complete lack of attention that is paid to the most important things in our society. That we would elect someone because we recognize his name, and his face, but really have no idea about what's going on in his head. This is about how shocked I am that someone I know could be so completely clueless.