Skip to comments.Stopping Hillary: Nixon son-in-law Ed Cox gearing up to challenge Clinton in '06 Senate race.
Posted on 05/13/2005 6:54:35 PM PDT by CHARLITE
HILLARY CLINTON'S reelection campaign for the United States Senate in 2006 may be tougher than expected. On Monday, May 2, the New York Observer reported that Clinton might face a challenge from Richard Nixon's son-in-law Ed Cox.
Cox, who has declined to make a statement on his intentions, has made steps toward running for Clinton's New York Senate seat, including launching an exploratory committee. Associates to Cox believe that he will win the endorsement of New York Governor George Pataki.
By the time Hillary Rodham married future president Bill Clinton in 1975, Ed Cox had been married to the daughter of then current president Richard Nixon for four years and had been making valuable in-roads within the Republican party. He became a loyal intimate to his father-in-law, standing by him through Watergate and regularly traveling abroad with the former president.
While Cox's Rose Garden wedding to Tricia Nixon brought him into the Nixon family, and in some ways the administration, Hillary was trying to bring it down. While on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee, she helped to write articles of impeachment against the president.
Those close to Cox are certain that he will embrace the Nixon legacy if he decides to run. But Cox has more to offer than that. Besides traveling to more than 30 countries with Nixon, Cox has traveled extensively on his own. He is chairman of the State University of Construction Fund, trustee of the State University of New York, chair of the New York State Council of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and commissioner of the New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination. In addition, Cox has written pieces for the New Republic and the New York Post.
Cox supporters realize that defeating Clinton is a long shot, but they also recognize that a Cox candidacy may be the only shot at stopping Clinton's reelection.
Michael R. Potts is a staff assistant at The Weekly Standard.
Regardless, someone has to run against her and at least make her work to get re-elected. She cannot be allowed to run unopposed.
Forget about Cox.
If any Nixon were to run, it should be Julie. She is brainy, beautiful, and conservative.
Remember when The Turtles (an LA band for you) played at the White House during Nixon's Presidency? It was for the birthday of one of the daughters, can't remember which one. When I lived in LA I used to go down to San Clemente now and then -- you could see Nixon's Casa Pacifica sitting way up on the cliff overlooking the ocean.
Oh, I agree somebody has to run against her, and there is always some outside chance something bad will crop up and bite her. But it will have to be a much better candidate than Lazio (not sure who that would be -- NY GOP pickings are pretty slim.) Her negative ratings in a poll taken a few days ago were only 28 percent; that's going to have to go up quite a bit in the next year and a half. A conviction of her chief fund raiser might help, but her followers are so ga-ga that I doubt anything short of murdering Slick Willie would hurt her much.
It's like Von Helsing Cox going after the beast Hiliary. It may seem hopeles at first, but something good may come of this.
His victory would be absolute poetry.
Nah, I grew up on the East Coast, worshipping the image of SoCal as seen in "The Endless Summer" and Beach Boys albums. It seemed like it would have been Paradise in those days. I visited a lot, but did not move out there until well into adulthood, in the mid-90s. I actually still liked it, and I still miss In-N-Out Burgers, and going to Huntington Beach in January when you can have it to yourself, and hiking in the Malibu Canyons. Still plenty of good stuff, which is why I think it's worth fighting for. But when you grew up there, man -- how I would have loved to have seen the orange groves and car culture at its zenith, and been around to watch all those great bands in person.