Well, "Mike"...
The percentages come from the Reuters article, linked at the end of the first paragraph, so referencing them in the article actually does make sense—I include links for a reason—if you chose not to read them and then leap to bad conclusions, that’s on you. If you have documentation to refute the numbers, present it, and make sure you demand a correction/retraction from them and Project Vote Smart.
As for your accusation that all I seem to do is bash NRA, I've run into that one before. Perhaps you could point out where the untrue statement is. Again, bring proof, because there is a long history of documentation proving undeserved ratings if you really want to open that can of worms. Or is it you want the truth about such cynical manipulations of members suppressed? Why?
As for VCDL, they're not supposed to let their members know when a candidate refuses to sign their survey and his campaign claims an endorsement that was never given?
What's your skin in the game, "Mike"? Do you just lap up whatever you're fed by Fairfax, or does it go deeper? You have me at a disadvantage since there's no way to check without you revealing more.
On the other hand, there's some perceptive commentary from "Russn8r" in the thread, as well as from Bob Sadtler, who is correct in pointing out there was a third significant race I should have highlighted.
See? I can take criticism when it's warranted.
Thursday, November 05, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment