First, this was my think-through; I think that means that I'm free to call 'em as I see 'em (as long as I keep it clean).  I promise you that I'm not the only person in this state that refers to Mike Cox with the terms "weasel," "slimy," "snake," and much worse.  To go by the polls, I might fairly infer that about 58% of tomorrow's likely republican voters might agree with me.

Second, primaries are absolutely not about unity.  Primaries are primarily about weeding through a field of candidates vying to wear the same team uniform, deciding which ones get to make the cut and which ones don't.  That inherently means internal competition, which implies by definition a degree of disunity.  Unity occurs after the primaries.

I did make a strong case for Pete Hoekstra, the essay on Friday was entitled "The Cox File."  However, in order to come out with that strong case, I had to refute the smoke screen of deceptive advertising that has been put out by the Mike Cox campaign and its allies.

I learned a very important life lesson a long time ago:  If you're going to take a stand for something, then you must by definition stand against that which opposes what you stand for!  (And yes, that's also true in reverse.)

That means that everyone who has chosen a horse in this primary has, by extension, opposed every other horse.  They may engage in that opposition only passively, but oppose they do.  This is also the brutal reality of the primaries; even when it's clean, it's still a contest . . . and no one enters it with the intention of finishing anywhere other than first.

I don't need to go negative on Snyder, at least not any more so than I already have.  As I've already observed, about 58% of tomorrow's likely voters also already recognize Snyder for who and what he is, and that has already been exposed in considerable detail on this site.