Don't tell me why your opponent is a bad guy. Tell me why you're the right guy for the job. What do you see as the answer for the stalled economy? How will you get a dysfunctional Congress to work? What should be done about Iran? There's so much I want to hear from you. I want to vote for someone, not against someone.

I know there's a school of thought that negative ads work. And I'm sure the Democrats are going to throw every bit of mud they can find at the Republican candidate. Please quit giving them ammunition.

These two bills came about thanks to the lobbying efforts of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Also supporting these bills were some big trademark-dependent companies like Nike. The bills were attempts to address very real problems -- infringements on intellectual property. We all know the world is filled with knock-off counterfeit products, ripped-off movies and music, etc. I understand the desire to stop these criminal activities. But as often happens with legislation, the bills were written in such a way that they could hurt many legitimate businesses and websites.

Had these bills become law, the unexpected consequences could have been very far reaching. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon, in an op-ed piece, pointed out that making companies liable for users' actions could have a chilling effect on user-generated sites such as YouTube. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned about the danger to other user sites like Etsy, Flickr, and Vimeo. The IT magazine eWeek reported, "The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal Internet use." Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other companies sent a joint letter to Congress, stating "We support the bills' stated goals -- providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign 'rogue' Web sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. However, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action and technology mandates that would require monitoring of Web sites." I could go on.

Thankfully, the protests from the online community got the attention of the legislators and the bills were tabled while they worked to re-write them.

Will someone please tell me why it's okay to require a photo ID to board a plane, to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, apply for food stamps or welfare, cash a check, open a bank account, etc. but heaven forbid we insist on a photo ID in order to cast a ballot, one of the most important things we do as citizens. It's ridiculous. AG Holder and those who are against these new photo ID laws claim they discriminate against minorities, but that's simply untrue. According to Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the South Carolina State Election Commission, the law provides exemptions: for those who vote by absentee ballot, have a religious objection to having their photo taken, or due to a "reasonable impediment" like a physical disability. So if it's truly too difficult for you to provide a photo ID, vote by absentee.

My home state these days is Florida, which also recently enacted a new voter ID law. But even though they require a photo ID, if you don't have one, you'll still be allowed to vote by provisional ballot. The canvassing board determines the validity of those provisional ballots (that it was cast at the correct precinct and that the voter hadn't already cast a ballot). Of course, you can also vote by absentee. So nobody is disenfranchised like the liberals claim.

Speaking of Florida, part of the new voting law included reducing the number of early voting days to eight (from 14), and prohibiting early voting on the Sunday before an election. I can't believe people are complaining about this. People, it wasn't that long ago when there weren't any early voting days. You went to the polls on election day or you voted by absentee ballot. The polls are open long enough for people to come before or after work. And again, there's always the absentee ballot by mail. All these early voting days simply makes it easier to commit voter fraud and cost taxpayers more money to man early voting locations. Sorry, critics, you get no sympathy from me on this issue.

Senate Republicans had a good reason for refusing to confirm any nominee to this new agency. It's part of the disastrous 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The new agency was given too much unbridled power and could seriously damage our already-on-life-support economy.

The Heritage Foundation has a great article detailing the problems with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Read it and be educated about why such a beneficial-sounding agency is actually bad for the people it claims to protect.

When I was a young girl, I remember my mother taking me into the voting booth with her. Back in those days, it was a large, three-sided machine that had a curtain for the fourth wall. You went into the booth and pulled a lever that closed that curtain behind you, and set the machine to accept your vote(s). There, by each name or issue, was a small lever that you pushed if that's what you were voting for. You pushed all the relevant levers, then pushed the curtain lever. Doing that caused the machine to record your votes, clear them, and open the curtain so you could leave. This is where the phrase "pull the lever" came from to describe voting.

While I've been an avid voter my whole adult life, sadly I didn't follow in my mother's footsteps, taking my daughter with me as I voted. And today, she's much more lackadaisical about voting. I remind her, nudge her to vote, but she often doesn't. It breaks my heart.

So parents, it may not be enough to let your children know you voted (as I always did with my daughter). Take them with you and hopefully they'll turn out to be avid voters like me.