Nixon son-in-law eyeing challenge to Hillary

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/275706p-236112c.html

Nixon son-in-law eyeing challenge to Hillary

By MARC HUMBERT
AP POLITICAL WRITER

ALBANY, N.Y. — Edward Cox, a son-in-law of the late President Richard Nixon, is considering a challenge to Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2006 re-election bid, a longtime friend and adviser said Friday.

"To say he's running against Hillary Clinton is to way overstate it, but he's interested in it. He's testing the waters," said the adviser, who spoke only on condition of anonymity after being referred to The Associated Press by Cox's law office in Manhattan. "We're meeting with people and sometime, probably in April or so, a decision will be made."

"If you're going to take on Hillary Clinton as a Republican in this state, if you wait until January of next year, you might as well not even go," the adviser said. "You've got to start early. You've got to raise a lot of money. It's an uphill fight no matter what."

(snip)

Other prominent Republicans mentioned as potential Clinton challengers include former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Pataki, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Erie County Executive Joel Giambra and state Sen. John Flanagan. Thus far, only one person, little-known Republican activist Adam Brecht, has said he is running.

more:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/275706p-236112c.html

He may be a perfectly nice guy, but the Repukes have to do better than that. And Giuliani ain't running.

and hope the worst one wins the nomination

He'd better be careful or he'll fall on his ass.

Maybe they're hoping people will forget Republicans were begging Nixon to leave. No one wanted to see him impeached representing their party, such as it is.

-- our U.N. Ambassador?

If Bush appoints him, that would likely give him a little profile for 2008 but would probably take him out of a challenge to Hillary.

Does anyone know what's up with Pataki?

I'm not a big George Pataki fan.

Keep us posted, Aunti Bush.

available. Heh.

It will be easier for Hillary to hold the seat.

as a joke.

Cox is a fresh face and much more attuned to the moderate wing of the Republican Party---like most New York Republicans.
The Nixon thing won't hurt him either. Most of Nixons supporters ( all most half the country) still think he got a raw deal, and are zealous in their attempt to re-habilitate him.

This is not something to take lightly.

"Most of Nixons supporters ( all most half the country) still think he got a raw deal, and are zealous in their attempt to re-habilitate him.

Nixon was our most divisive President. He didn't get a raw deal. He good a damn good deal.

Nixon was more hated then the GOP hated Clinton -- or then we dislike Bush.

sorry, last re poster.. Nixon was not universally hated/.

What you cite as evidence for voter dislike, is input theory.

what counts is what comes out, not what goes in a pipeline.

a hundred theories fail for each one that becomes true.

Go by what current polls say is voter opinion on Nixon. I dont know what polls say now, but i would be surprised if half the voters spurned him.

Nixon was mild compared to Reagan the horrible. If voters like reagan clones, they must surely like Nixon.

Personally, i think both Reagan and Nixon belonged in jail.

for some things, and I think feared more than **

because you had the sense that Nixon was really in charge and might do something crazy.

but my memory is pretty clear about how things went back then. The Nixon resignation was one of the many things that set in motion the place we find ourselves in today. Republicans vowed revenge for Nixon. And I dare say they have been hugely successful.

The only difference back then was the media. It was not corporately owned and really enjoyed shredding people of any party. Nixon was never a personal favorite of the press, so it didn't take an awful lot to whip up enough fervor for his ouster.

Compared to the crimes Bush and Co. have committed in four years makes Nixons coverup attempt look like childs play, but we controled both Houses of Congress. And don't forget , that the Democrats were equally as guilty of dirty tricks and such. The repubs had their hands tied so Nixon quit. Resentment has festered ever since.

Nixon was a liberal compared to what has followed,and I believe Cox could be just the ticket that would fit with NY Republicans and other New England moderates.

I'll bet the Clintons take this serious.

it turned to hatred.

I lived in the Kent State recruiting area - Allison Krauss' dad was a professional colleague, my Mom was distantly related to Sandy Scheur.

We dislike him before Kent State. We hated the guy after Kent State.

Small world coincidence - the Dean of The School of Education at Kent was a WW2 ship mate of Nixon's --- and there was no personal contact -- the guy is more hateful then Swiftie John O'Neill.

TOO BAD THERE WERE NO "CARRIER SAILORS FOR THE TRUTH" AND NO LEFTIE JOHN O'NEILL IN 1968

The Dean of the School of Education at Kent?

I recently read Kent State by James Michener. (I don't recommend it.)

by one of the largest margins in our history, and that was "after" the Watergate break-in had been exposed.
You're right, people who didn't like him or the war were pretty po'ed by 1970, but there was a much larger group Nixon coined the "Silent Majority " that basically thought the kids at Kent "got what they deserved."

BTW although I had moved to California from Cleveland in 1969, my wife and many friends were attending Kent State and most of their rage was directed ( correctly ) at then Governor James Rhodes, AND the war itself. Nixon had only been in office for two years and was at least pretending to try to put an end to it. The public was actually divided in favor of " seeing it through" very much like they are today with Iraq.

Nixon's campaign first destroyed Muskie in the primaries and then McGovern in the general election. McGovern was a WWII pilot, he was the senator who created the food stamps program and was a soft spoken nice guy. The Rep identified him with acid (LSD), amnesty (draft dodgers), and abortion.

do believe that Nixon got a raw deal and they are mad about it and hate the Democrats because of it. I know several people that feel that way it may not be a majority but it is a large enough amount to make a difference.

we can't or shouldn't try to re-write history.

"Nader's Raiders" way back when so that could help to come across as more moderate.

Cox running on Dick's legacy. :eyes:

With respect to "I think if Hil veeres any further right, she'll be overtaken by Cox!" and this search for ideological purity.

1. I was court martialled in 1968 for campaigning for Humphrey during my authorized liberty, off duty, off base, civies time -- Articles 88, 133, 134, Hatch Act). The charges were dismissed - but I still have a chip on my shoulder against the "There's no difference between Nixon and Humphrey" and "He's not Eugene McCarthy" --I put my butt on the line (including risk of a "Federal Court Felony Conviction" for the Democratic Party. So, as they say in NYC - "kish mer tuchus"

2. In 1972 Nixon (on a national level) and the local GOP (on the local level) played the "Race Card" - and they played it hard! In my district we saw the big yellow buses, and the School Board closed two of the best public schools in our neighborhood ("to promote integration") --- and quotas were hitting hard -- this was before Bakke --- and the (}MEDICAL) schools were applying the old pre-WW2 "quota" - and blaming it on racial integration. And Nixon rode in on that. And a lot of traditional Democrats stayed home because the Democrats were "too pro integration" and a lot of the Progressive Democrats stayed because our Assembly candidate was an "elitist" (i.e., a PhD engineer) and didn't follow the 100% Americans for Democratic Action - ACLU Line (he had dared to question busing). Our Democratic Assembly Candidate won, and McGovern carried the District --- but to the Progressive who stayed home I say as they say in NYC - "kish mer tuchus"

3. IMHO (try to convince me otherwise - I had Morris de Groot for statistics - and got a B+) Gore lost because too many Progressives said "There's no difference between Bush and Gore." Well, as they say in NYC - "kish mer tuchus". And, ask yourself - would be in Iraq today if Gore was President? Would be fighting to save Social Security if Gore was President. Would we be fighting to save the trade union movement if Gore was President. Would Condi be Secretary of State :puke: and would the enabler of war crimes Gonzales be Attorney General :puke: :puke: if Gore were President. AND WOULD MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ BE APPROACHING 1500 IF GORE WERE PRESIDENT? So, to repeat -- as they say in NYC - "kish mer tuchus".

I consider myself a Progessive - I have paid my dues - canvassed, worked at the polls, stuffed envelopes, tithed, attended rallies. And I get a little tired of dilettantes who say "This candidate or that candidate is not liberal enough for me -- and is GOP-Lite -- so it doesn't make any difference. as they say in NYC - "kish mer tuchus".

don't take anything they do lightly

them in the cities of our hometowns. We will not falter, we will not fail.

Let's roll.

shivering in her knickers. :boring: Pzzzzzzzzzz

...in my hometown and actually had the nerve to show up in front of McGovern HQ (I was inside stuffing envelopes). The county Dem party chairman had an impromptu debate with him outside - it was a interesting moment in my young (7 years old) political life.