. . . of this essay was designed to expose the truths behind Mike Cox's smear campaign against Pete Hoekstra.
I get how politics works, and I wish I didn't. All five of the candidates on the republican side of the gubernatorial ticket want to win it on Tuesday; four of those five have a legitimate shot. Of those four, two (Hoekstra and Bouchard) have been running positive campaigns; no dirt, no deception, no dirty tricks. The other two, not so much.
Pete's been all over this state telling people what he'll do for them if he has the honor of being elected as their next governor; a message that has largely been about exactly how he'll get the state government back on its leash. And that message has resonated; he's had an uncontested lead in statewide polling from March 31st until July 27th.
The only reason, in my opinion, that the lead is now within the margin of error is largely because of the smear attacks launched by Mike Cox and his political allies. My intention was to write a pro-Pete piece; unfortunately, in order to do so, I had to expose the truths behind the smear campaign. Because the smear campaign was orchestrated by Mike Cox and his allies, that meant that I was compelled to speak negatively about Cox; nothing I could do about that, although I did my best to put a positive spin on it.
Let's be clear. At no point in the actual essay did I mention anything about anyone having a "loaded cannon" with regard to Mike Cox. Please keep the essay section and comment section separate . . . especially since they are.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Pete felt the need to speak about what he knows (at least what of it is unclassified), then he most certainly would have done so. My guess is that he's taken a hard look at the numbers, realized that most of the voters on Tuesday are going to recognize Snyder and Cox for what and who they are, and decided that he didn't need to go negative. I've been face-to-face with Pete often enough to know that he has his reasons, and I trust his judgment.
Parent
