Scooter McResearcher wrote:
@random lawyer
I would think that any bill pre-2010 would have been introduced under a democrat controlled house and senate. This got buried in a Dem. controlled sub-committee and in fact was sponsored by a hose republican.
I feel that, even though I was wrong, and thank you for letting me know how it works, the website seems to be misleading and not trustworthy per se.
Thanks to Random Lawyer for the clarification and back-up.
Scooter McResearcher, I did concede that the site was partisan and yes, in retrospect should have picked some more objective sites. But here's a link from CNN, which draws upon a variety of links--and while even news sources have their biases, they aren't overtly partisan:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-753680.
Overall, I do wish that both the Romney and Obama campaigns would focus on why we should vote for their candidates, less than why we shouldn't vote for their opponents. Take me seriously or not--I'll live either way. (I don't always even take myself seriously.)
I really just want to see a discussion of the candidates that focuses at least as much attention on what's right with Candidate A vs. B as what's wrong--not to eliminate any discussion of negatives, since we need to know both the ups and downs, but not to focus exclusively on the negatives. Unfortunately, both parties have spent more time than I'd like on the latter. But it seems as if that's what they believe (correctly?) that voters respond to.
So my effort here is to make a case FOR my candidate rather than focus on the case AGAINST Romney (others have done that). I get your challenging the website I chose--I want to build my case on solid ground, so appreciate your questioning the choice. But also share info that makes your candidate someone worthy of my vote.
Haven't we all gotten involved in this long thread because of a running-related issue! But it's bringing out a lot of talking points! It intrigues me when a candidate feels the need to inflate her/his accomplishment. Says something about both the candidate and voters' expectations/demands. If it gets us thinking about what we value and want in a candidate, it's a good thing. If it just turns into name calling and one-upsmanship, not so much. And can a candidate show any vulnerability? I look back at, for instance, Muskie in 1972, tearing up, or more recently, Hillary Clinton's tears. Both ended up losing their races--so do we want someone we can regard as above us, superhuman? And so candidates then give in to temptations to show themselves as greater heroes than they are? Maybe we need to find our own source of power/heroism so that we don't look for our leaders to carry that burden? But it's late, and this discussion all too irresistible...