Rally Around McCain for Michigan

Bitter is arguing we should rally around John McCain in Michigan, where Fred isn’t polling well, in hopes of knocking Mitt the Shit out of the race.

If Mitt doesn’t win Michigan, even though he has more delegates than anyone else right now, he’s lost the momentum he needs to go into Super Tuesday as a truly viable candidate. Don’t get me wrong, he’d still spend his money like crazy, but politically, the GOP mainstreamers are going to be more open to shopping for a new candidate – and that could be Fred since McCain seems to have a few more enemies.

Read the whole thing. I agree with Bitter’s analysis. Michigan is Mitt’s other home state. Mitt should have won New Hampshire, hands down, but he didn’t. He should, if his candidacy is remotely viable, be able to win his real home state of Michigan, a state that elected his father Governor. I think if Mitt can’t win Michigan, it casts some very serious doubt on his viability as a candidate, and the GOP machine just might get behind another candidate. We can only hope.

5 thoughts on “Rally Around McCain for Michigan”

  1. You know, Bitter, if you’re going to put me in the Ronulan camp, it would only be fair to actually link the comments. Don’t you think?

    As I stated there, my intent was not to anger you, but obviously I did. I did not assign a “scarlet letter to you” as you assert in your analysis but evidently you seem to need to assign such to me. I was going to post this at your blog but it is obvious it would not be welcome. So be it. If you wish to alienate your allies on the one issue that obviously matters to both of us that is your choice.

    In defense of myself, however, I will state that I have been reading here since April or so and started posting somewhere around July. I am not prolific in my writing but I have been seen around these haunts as well as Uncle, War on Guns, Alphecca, and a few others including Breda, Tam and even John Lott. To my recollection, I have always been polite though assertive and have never sought combativeness, especially to those who share my views on gun rights. I am not a hit and run contributor. To the contrary, I am an avid visitor here. To agree to disagree is one thing. To openly attack (though you did not name me) and name call is another.

    I seek nothing from you in making this post. I’m a big boy and can take a knock or two. But the offense you are perceiving is not present in my posts to you. You may take the course of pundits and professional politicians. I choose the course of standing on a platform. I have nothing to apologize for in doing so.

  2. McCain actually recorded ads for a couple state anti-gun groups for 2006 referendums.

    I think they were in favor of “gun show loophole” closing laws, but it could have been for “one gun a month” laws.

    He’s not just “on the rec ord” for this, his ads actually played in the states (OR or CO), paid for by anti-gun groups.

    Romney may be weak on guns, but he has never done anything as egregiously anti-gun as McCain.

  3. Really, Old Easterner?

    Apparently, you are unaware of the press conferences where Mitt declared that semi-auto rifles “are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” The best part is that it was completely un-spurred by anything other than someone told him it would be more popular to say that.

    He also used his press conferences and releases to promote gun ban groups, particularly John Rosenthal of American Hunters and Shooters Association, but most notably of Stop Handgun Violence.

    You want a cite? Here’s the press release picked up from the event.

    Ask people who actually lived and worked under him. With Mitt, you have no idea the devil you get. You know you get one because he’ll throw everyone under the bus he possibly can in an effort to become more popular. At least you know the battles you’ll need to fight under McCain, and I’d much rather go into a fight where we know the enemy.

    Oh, and Clint, I love that you assume it’s all a conspiracy. I thought there was a link, much like I’m sure Sebastian doesn’t realize he didn’t categorize this post. Sometimes, in more than 5 years of blog authorship, such mistakes happen. I don’t go back and read the posts until comments show up. I didn’t realize that such minor mistakes are enough to justify running and screaming censorship.

    I also love that you assume there’s some plan to silence you. That actually goes to support my opinion that you’re a Ron Paul-fan, only for Fred. As long as there’s nothing to trigger spam or moderation features, my comments are open. Even spam-flagged and moderated comments eventually get through. Though, to be honest, such public accusations of censorship against me before even trying are hardly going to put you on a list of favorites.

  4. *sigh* Just for the sake of clarification, when I say “it is obvious it would not be welcome,” I am referring to the tone of the elements of your post directed against me. Not that there was some kind of censorship.

    Otherwise, I’m done trying to have a discussion with you. You are either trying to goad me or you are going to put a negative spin on anything I say. Either way, it is not bearing good fruit.

Comments are closed.