How McCain can win Michigan

Barack Obama and Jennifer Granholm, Ideological twins who support more taxation, and expanded government control into people’s lives are more alike than merely a political stance or two.  They are both highly charismatic and “likable” personages who successfully deliver their own (albeit misguided) message of how to run government capably.  “Style over Substance,” as one radio personality used to call it, “fluff,” “hot air,” Etc.. 

An effective message Might be all that is needed to snap Michiganders from the hypnotic trance of O-Who. A daily comparison of the woman who wrecked Michigan, and the man who would do the same with similar policies to the rest of the nation might serve a couple of purposes.  It would remind Michiganders to not let those who are at fault (the Democrats and Granholm)  escape their wrath.  It would also drive home the point that Michigan could still suffer further if the plague of the worst possible fiscal and social policy were to further emanate into the nation as a whole.

Michigan has continued the slide into its own recession, driven by policies and fiscal mismanagement which have resulted in loss of jobs, inspiring fear and putting many of its people in abject poverty.  In the face of the worse economic disaster in my lifetime, the state of Michigan, under the leadership of Governor Granholm never let up in its pursuit for more revenues through taxation.  Minor tax concessions made to “special groups” of business which are quite literally hand picked by the governor’s team of “growth” remind us of the elite nature of liberal conscience as it relates to governance.

Add to this, the failure of Granholm to sign off on a ban of the practice of Murder at birth, where the fetus is partially extracted, and mutilated near full term.  A practice which would send even the most strident “pro-choice” voter to confession, and therapy if they ever witnessed it.  Planned parenthood, which has an incredible presence in Minority neighborhoods has a “supply and demand “business model of death for those who cannot defend themselves.  This all generally supported by the Democrats, and Barack Obama. Even the vatican calls the Democrat party the “party of death”

Hunters, and firearms are a great part of the state’s economy. Voters need to be reminded of the threat they face with an Obama Presidency and two houses controlled. Contrary to Ray Shoenke ads, and the new Greg West ad, O-Who and his type do not think it is necessary to have firearms, and certainly not handguns.  It may start off slow, but like the cigarette revolution, seat belts, and other personal responsibility issues, expect the gun police to start putting pressure on in an evironment that is condusive to oppressive treatment of gun owners, collectors and hunters.

Fuel prices are high, Obama supports adding to the cost of oil companies with confiscation and reimbursement to the taxpayer.  Under this plan, would the taxpayer not pay more at the pump again?  And then have to beg off the government for the promised payoff is insane.  Michigan suffers from high energy costs.  Automakers adjust to changes in demand, and Democrat policies as they relate to “climate change” have driven fuel prices up so fast that the automakers were stuck with low MPG SUVs many couldn’t afford to drive.  Obama even said “well uh  uhh gas prices being high arent the problem, uh uh its just they went up too fast.”

Correct Barack, they went up too fast, but that dog you let out of its cage is going to run fast and hard.  Green policies hurt michigan, the nation and anyone who doesnt have additional pocket change. The additional cost of green cannot be offset by “green Jobs creation as suggested by this state’s governor Granholm.

Team McCain needs to remind the black and minority communities who is killing its babies.  They need to remind Michigan it CAN GET WORSE if the entire country heads in the liberal direction Michigan has since electing the most economically destructive governor the state has ever seen.  Energy costs driving people from Jobs, their homes, the state need to be brought up.  The emphasis on MORE of what Michigan has endured should be made. The comparisons to Granholm could win this, here.

Barack is bad for our Michigan, because he will do to the country what granholm has done to the state.  Identify the similarities, the destructive policies, and McCain could take this state and easily.

22 comments for “How McCain can win Michigan

  1. bbaker
    October 4, 2008 at 8:53 am

    problem is,McCain doesn’t want to win.If he does he wants to share it with those who caused all the problems.America as well as Michigan is screwed.

  2. Bill
    October 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    McCain has waved the white flag in Michigan. Perhaps you haven’t heard? And he’s in a political death spiral that will be exacerbated by his foolish (but only) option of attacking Obama and not telling people what he’d do to fix this mess.

    The Swift Boat bs worked 4 years ago. But there’s an old adage about being “fooled twice.” Americans were duped into voting for Bush last time on cheap nonsense at the 11th hour and they WILL rebel even more against McCain if he does that now.

    Get with 2008, Karl Rove. It’s a different ballgame and you’re behind the times.

  3. jgillman
    October 4, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Ahh Bill, I was wondering when you might show up here.

    Cheap nonsense no. Obama is an empty suit but for the baggage he carries, and the business killing policies he shares with Granholm. You live here, and I am completely familiar with your neck of the woods, and have many friend who wouldn’t see eye to eye with your assessment of the Governor’s success in Michigan.

    Again I would assert that were the McCain team able to marry the policies of Granholm and Obama, it would be an easy win.

    Oh yeah, and.. if you haven’t noticed they are coming back.

  4. October 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Unfortunately, ignorant people (like a nice lady I work with) say things like “I feel sorry for the governor…”

    My reply was simple: she doesn’t know how to fix the economy because she doesn’t understand economics. Nothing was foisted upon Granholm.

    However, when Obama wins and screws things up, thanks to the idiot republicans who voted for this bailout, Obama’s supporters will just say things like “well, after all, he inherited a horrible economy from Bush,” and god forbid, 6 years later they’ll still be saying it – just like Granholm’s.

    Bend over, take it like a man – it’s only going to get worse.

  5. Bill
    October 4, 2008 at 11:51 pm


    You can argue policy, that’s fine. My point is that McCain appears ready to abandon that (and thus concede the points on it) and simply try a swift boat attack. And the strategy with Palin–which is hugely insulting to ALL voters right now–is style over substance. There is no way you can argue that isn’t the GOP strategy with her.

    As for Michigan, I probably concede Michigan in the next election. We’re most likely going to see a Republican governor. That’s how it works: you have your chance for two terms and if it’s not working you get broomed out (of course, dems could pull the lame “maverick” thing and front a candidate who acts like a dem and is a dem but claim he/she isn’t).

  6. Bill
    October 4, 2008 at 11:53 pm


    I really don’t know how on earth anyone or anything could be as bad as these last 8 years. You’re accusing Obama in advance of wrecking things but Bush done blew up this country into little itty bitty pieces a long time ago.

  7. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 12:05 am

    I don’t think anyone should feel sorry for the governor, however I’ll try to pursue the dialog in a way that wont stop the discussion cold.

    The republicans who voted for this bailout were wrong. From an ideological standpoint and from historical perspective. The central bank has created these crisis before, and the government has assisted before as well, and lengthened the resulting chaos.

    The sheer number of banks and financial institutions this time around makes the situation a little different, but is not the responsibility of the government to prevent the failure of ANY business by PURCHASING parts of it regardless.

    The action here IMO sets up additional issues that may have to be addressed in the future including but not limited to nearly unlimited action for other business or entity of significant size based on the 14th amendment’s equal protections. California being the first in line..

  8. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 12:33 am

    I am currently pretty pissed at GW for even considering the level of power he was ready to concede to a single person with little or no oversight. I have quite a bit less respect for the man at this point for that reason. My Congressman went along with the passage of the final result as well as many others whom I never would have guessed would do it. I am mad, and not in the happy state about anything that is going on right now as it relates to the people I fell I have lent my trust.

    Having said that, I will still call it as I see it. I think our president initially did the right thing by pursuing the element which by its own admission seeks our demise. Afghanistan the primary target, and Iraq based on some bad information (though much of it WAS true ) provided by a weakened intelligence service.

    If you can truthfully look at the situation as it unfolded, coupled by our weakened military, and a strategic reserve that was raided for the benefit of Al Gore, and cheap gas to keep the masses happy in the 90s, and say George Bush had a perfectly wonderful set up, then I have some shares of Bear Sterns Left with your name on it.

    Given the handicap of a golden goose with its guts yanked out and a failing economy BEFORE Bush took office, I think the man did quite WELL for the nation as a whole. Michigan’s situation was quite different however. Granholm herself may not be entirely to blame for our initial problem of manufacturing slumps, she poorly handled many opportunities to properly deal with it. Her Democrat and liberal counterparts on the other hand, those who sought out a solution to a problem which has yet to be determined results or even causes (CO2) created an anti energy environment which made the problem worse. Then rather than scold those who were hitting the state of Michigan the hardest with unnecessary “green” terrorism, she embraced it, and made the false assumption that it can be used to create jobs to replace the jobs that were/are lost.

    Slight problem, somewhere in the calculations of the number in the Netherlands or some such place that she was using as an example, there was an extra zero or inserted, and the actual job creation cited was over exaggerated by multiples of hundreds!

    So continue telling yourself and others BUSH blew it into little bitty pieces. it is a partisan attack that seems to work. To bad it has only a limited amount of truth and belies other causes.

  9. Bill
    October 5, 2008 at 8:08 am


    You know as well as I do that if a dem had been president these last 8 years and the 8 years prior to that a GOP had been president, many (if not all) of your blogging friends would be howling mad about how the sitting dem president wrecked the country. Come on.

    You want an argument of substance and depth in a media vehicle (blogs) that thrive and grow on just the complete opposite: shallow spin and shameless pandering.

    Heck, the blog that linked this blog currently has front-page stories trying to blame the dems for the bailout bill and absolve key GOPs any responsibility–never mind this was a BUSH initiative, pushed by GOP administrators, and would not have ever passed if not for GOP LEADERSHIP and our GOP ADMINISTRATION not only BIRTHING the bailout but supporting it.

    Yes, McCain has effectively been tied to Bush and the GOP has effectively been linked to our country’s mess by the American public. Cry me a river. That’s how it works. And the GOPS crying out it are the same ones who have, and will, do the exact same thing with they have the and do have the chance.

    Again, don’t fret: you should be able to use that to effective advantage in the next Michigan Gov race. But in the interim, we’re probably going to see a dem president elected and dem gains in the senate and house.

    That’s life.

  10. Bill
    October 5, 2008 at 11:46 am

    “Hunters, and firearms are a great part of the state’s economy. Voters need to be reminded of the threat they face with an Obama Presidency and two houses controlled. Contrary to Ray Shoenke ads, and the new Greg West ad, O-Who and his type do not think it is necessary to have firearms, and certainly not handguns. It may start off slow, but like the cigarette revolution, seat belts, and other personal responsibility issues, expect the gun police to start putting pressure on in an evironment that is condusive to oppressive treatment of gun owners, collectors and hunters.”

    I went out hunting just yesterday. I have guns that I use for sport shooting and hunting. I am not in the least bit worried about Obama taking away my guns (lol).

    Again, the base pandering to fear and stupidity really needs to stop. This country has bigger fish to fry. I wish McCain would tell me how he plans on frying those big fish rather than letting his handlers desperately try to distract voters from that and instead focus on the mundane and completely irrelevant, both fueled by lies, myths, rumors, and fearmongering.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I headed out into the field with my guns to shoot at some ducks.

  11. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Fantasy Bill.

    O-Who wants no guns in the hands of ordinary people. Period. Deny all you like because he is your party’s nominee.

    Oh and all the ducks? they’ve been flying overhead, you might be a little late as I am directly south.

  12. Bill
    October 5, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    The last comment is what is completely wrong about the GOP.

    I’ve voted Republican in the not-so-distant past. I’m keenly aware of candidates stand on all issues. Save your irrational fearmongering for the base crowd who don’t think for themselves nor investigate for themselves. It’ll probably work with a few of them.

  13. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    Your words, like Shoenke’s and West’s are finely acted for the promotion of your agenda. Though I know of Democrats who hunt, and collect guns, I doubt you have much time for that “intellectual” pursuit between trolling the blogs and grading college papers.

    Obama wants no guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. as for his “stated positions?

    “Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff. ”

    Courage.. he KNOWS you don’t want to hear his “position” on gun ownership.

  14. Bill
    October 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Heck, I’ll do you one better. I even found a pro-gun site that has posted Q & A with Obama on his gun beliefs. I see nothing in here that scares me as a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, and sportsman. Nothing. Gee, let’s keep fighting a two-front war, going into debt at the tune of tens-of-billions a month–just let me have my semi-automatic weapons and let me pack when I go grocery shopping.


    Then again, I’m not an NRA-all-guns-at-any-cost person, either. But that’s just me–to each his/her own. To me, it’s silly to vote on this as a main issue when we’re fighting a two-front war and we’re going into hock to the Chinese for $12 billion a month. Why doesn’t anyone right now on the Right want to discuss things THAT MATTER? We both know why 😉

  15. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Umm please tell me you actually READ the information on the site before posting it. You are making my argument on the lying of Obama as it relates to guns. I hope all the people who visit here actually take an opportunity to review that information. I dont need to say anything else. Ispe Loquitor.

  16. Bill
    October 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    The reason I posted it is because it is indeed anti-Obama and very pro gun. Despite the intent, the slant, and Obama’s answers, I find nothing “alarming” in his answers and nothing that freaks me out and gives me nightmares that the government is going to bust down my door and take away my guns.

    The fear factor and hysteria associated with this issue is ridiculous. Again, there ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS going on right now.

    And Obama HAS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO right now than take away your hunting guns.

    I seriously question the logic of voting solely on this one issue (or should I say “perceived” issue). A bit simplistic, given the massive problems our country faces.

    good freaking grief already.

  17. jgillman
    October 5, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    one issue? we have only been talking about the ONE issue.

    Ok lets talk about a new world order? Lets talk about a radical change inspired by Hugo Chavez. Lets talk about “Truth Squads.” Lets talk about High taxes. Lets talk about spending taxpayer dollars on head start social programming while the mandated $850 Billion is still being doled out. Lets talk about Tony Rezko. Lets maybe chat about going to JAIL if you don’t buy health insurance?

    Take your pick.. where do you want to start? This is ONE SICK SOB. Lets rumble.

  18. Bill
    October 6, 2008 at 8:46 am

    I will only say you need to get out more and experience the world and not rely solely on what your right-wing blog buddies tell you.

    But I’ve said that before about you.

    You’re going from one chicken little alarmist rant to another (and another).

    It’s the equivalent of me going on wacky paranoid about the right-wing “secret society” and the masons and Bush’s links to the Skulls and…

    well, you get the idea. Step away from the ledge.

  19. jgillman
    October 6, 2008 at 9:07 am

    You are a fool.

    You blindly follow the democratic talking points.
    You fail to consider all of the evidence which supports my assertions.
    You think because I disagree with you, I am relying merely on what my “right wing” blog buddies tell me.
    You assume my paranoia by finding I have many reasons to argue against an enemy of free markets, and liberty.

    Weak.. seriously weak. You haven’t a clue as to the nature of my experiences.

    You ever have a car repossessed? It may have been me who took it. Bought a Pizza? I might have made it. Played a hand of blackjack in the local casino? I took your rent. Talked to an operator, seen the guy on the ore boats that roll through little bay Denoc? Been there. As I sit here, I am doing payroll for the few people who are lucky enough to have a job which pays better than Minimum and provides health.

    They are here at MY LEISURE. Not because GOVERNMENT says they must be. And you know what? I don’t NEED half of them. But because I CAN, they are here. At the point (and it seems to be getting closer) where government feels I need to pay more, I have to make the hard decisions. THAT is what you buy with an Obama presidency.

    When you can get off the government subsidized education nipple, and go out and actually create a job, create a product that sells, make a REAL contribution to society beyond your weak arguments for continued and expanded socialist policies, then you have the right to call me out on my paranoia.

  20. October 6, 2008 at 10:28 am

    By the way, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “hunting” rifles and shotguns. It was put there so that if the situation arose where voting from the rooftops would be inevitable, it could happen.

  21. Bill
    October 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Lol…no, I’ve never had anything repossessed. Ever. My credit rating is stellar 😉

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...