. . . my negativity regarding Mike Cox let me point something out: Jason, if you had a paper trail on a candidate for office who was abusing the authority of his current office and/or deliberately running misleading smear ads against his opponent, then you'd call him out . . . no question about it. Not only that, but you'd also make a point of describing what those tactics remind you of, whatever that may be. (You've done it before.)
So why am I being criticized for wrapping two essays around the well-documented falsehoods and misbehavior of a candidate for office? (I assume you have a credible answer for that.) Nevermind that the candidate in question is our sitting Attorney General, why hasn't he been called out on these pages?
Civility to one's opponent is normally limited to the extent to which that civility is earned. I'll grant that common decency dictates that we don't go foul in our label-hanging, even with socialist-democrats, but we are label-hangers here. Two adages apply, one involves pigs and the other ducks; the point being that all the window dressing in the world doesn't change the window itself.
Rick Snyder's been called plenty of names here, every last one of them well and properly earned; and it's a safe inference that 58% of the likely voters today would agree with those labels. However, I find it odd that when I use labels that a not-identical 58% of likely voters would agree apply to Mike Cox, the kvetching starts almost immediately. And, by the way, I'm keeping those labels clean; others are not necessarily so inclined.
Unlike the trolls on this site, I have no problem laying out my opinion, the reasons for it, and the research that backs it up. I don't go by a screenname, being quite comfortable using the one my parents gave me. You and I disagree on this issue, and that's fine; realistically that would make a grand total of twice (total) where we've come down on different sides of a controversy.
Primaries, like the rest of the electoral process, are adversarial for a reason. If you want to take the field for MSU against U-M, then you first have to convince the coaching staff that you're worthy or wearing the green-and-white. That means competing against others vying to wear the same uniform, and neither of you are looking to not make the cut. Mike, Mike, Tom, Pete, and Rick are all looking to quarterback the Republican team to victory this year; but it's up to us, the voters, to decide who'll make the cut and who won't.
I'm not sliming a fellow team-member; I'm pointing out valid weaknesses that I think disqualifies him from the position that he seeks. You disagree, and I get that.
