When I was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, the speaker at the ceremony told us, "I have one thing to ask of you all. Get into politics. And by politics I don't mean choose a pet cause. You need to get involved in the whole process of it. Understand that to put money toward one thing takes it away from another, and that there are comprimises that need to be made." Assuming that a no vote means a candidate is against what seems like the obvious good is a simplistic way of thinking. There could be issues about how money is appropriated. The bill could include other items that a candidate feels are not appropriate to lump in with the relevant cause. A candidate may change his/her vote on two seemingly similar bills because the terms are more or less agreeable in the second bill. Keep this in mind when you look at voting records and suddenly it will seem a lot less black and white. To me, a candidate who weighs the options carefully and votes thoughtfully on each individual bill is the better choice than one who seems to see everything in black and white.
Just MHO.
tiptoe39
