The New York State Republican Party has elected Edward F. Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, chair of the New York State Republican Party. You will recall that President Nixon, besides having been involved in break-ins and an improved relationship with China (recall the US/China ping-pong match), was Mr. Inflation. He abolished the gold standard and pressured then-Fed chairman Arthur Burns to reduce interest rates to create a stock market bubble to assist his own re-election. Hence, he was as tightly linked to the corrupt New York City economy as is the Democratic Party and its publicity wing, the
New York Times. Morally and politically Nixon represents the worst in the Republican Party.
But should the sins of the father-in-law be visited on the son-in-law? Cox has worked as an attorney with Patterson Belknap, a white shoe law firm in Manhattan. The firm is intimately linked to the Wall Street-and-bubble economy, and so the Democrats are very much in his corner. The Democratic publicity wing describes Cox as "centrist", which is a very, very bad sign. When the fringe left describes a Republican as "centrist" the smell of co-optation is in the air.
Mr. Cox assumed his post on September 29 and cannot be held responsible for the Republicans' shooting themselves in the foot in the 23rd Congressional district. The
Wall Street Journal reports that Joe Mondello led the charge to nominate a left-wing extremist to run in the 23rd Congressional District. The brilliant and lovely Raquel Okyay
has blogged on this depressing race. As an active Republican I cannot support her endorsement for the Conservative Party candidate, though.
Newsrunner publishes a Daily Kos poll that finds that in the Republican 23rd district, the Democrat is ahead because the state Republicans have allowed a left-winger, Dede Scozzaava, run on the Republican ticket. Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who represents the mainstream, is getting more than 20% in response to Scozzafava's candidacy. That leaves the Democrat Bill Owens ahead. The Journal reports the same points.
The Journal seems to claim that Joe Mondello and the Republican County chairs are stupid. Perhaps they would rather run a left-wing extremist like Scozzafava than a conservative even if it means losing. Actually, it's not that bad because they thought she would win.
The question for Liberty Republicans in New York is: Can the Republicans recover from the dominance of the extreme left at the state level?
The Republican Liberty Caucus in New York has been discussing the
Wall Street Journal editorial which claims about the conservative Republican 23rd district:
"...party bosses have managed to nominate a rare Republican who could lose: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, whose liberal record has caused voters to flee to Doug Hoffman, a business executive who is running on the Conservative line. Mr. Hoffman has more than 20% support in the latest poll, which is only a few points behind Ms. Scozzafava, who is only a little behind Democratic lawyer Bill Owens."
The Journal is inaccurate in describing the district as all that conservative. First of all, there are a number of higher education institutions in northern New York and they will slant the vote to the left. Second, the former Congressmen, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big government Republican
about whom I blogged in May 2007. McHugh was not only corrupt, but he was so "conservative" that
Obama appointed him Secretary of the Army. That's really a sign of conservatism. Their former Congressman was a regular John Locke. After all, he was appointed by Obama.
Third, I lived in northern New York and found the population there to be mostly interested in two things: their next welfare check and how to best clean the buck they just shot. Combine that with widespread drug abuse and a high mental retardation rate due to all the in-breeding and fathers raping their daughters, then you get a sense of the "conservative" population up there. Hence, the Journal overstates northern New York's conservatism. The county chairs may not have been crazy, but they were not people whom I would support in a thousand years. They belong in the Democratic Party, not the Republican.
The question, though, if you care about freedom, is how to get candidates who can help optimize the quest for freedom. Edward F. Cox seems unlikely to be able to do a good job, even if he, as did other Progressive Republican types like George W. Bush, speaks the language of lower taxes and reduced spending. I have concluded that Ivy League types make bad politicians because they have been indoctrinated in the failed ideas of Progressivism. Cox is a graduate of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Government. I very much doubt he knows the first thing about free markets, Locke or the principles on the nation was based. I very much doubt that he will make a difference with respect to Scozzfava or similar kinds of calls.
There is no question that candidates must market themselves to voters and liberal districts need to be regaled with liberal candidates. But I would like to see people who are genuine conservatives who win by pandering to liberal voters on the surface, rather than what the Republicans have now, Republicans who are Progressives at heart who pander to the conservatives in the party and expand government when they are elected, not the least of which were George W. Bush and New York's George Pataki.
