Keep John Cox out of the Debates!
John Cox is a millionaire from Chicago who is trying to get some attention running for president of the United States. Unlike the dozens of other fringe candidates who sign up with the FEC as "official" candidates for president, this guy has actually gotten some attention.
While it's mostly NEGATIVE attention (like the Weekly Standard article revealing how he snuck into the Reagan Library debate disguised as a reporter, and how no one is buying him as a real candidate) some blog postings are showing some sympathy for the guy.
We all love underdogs, but Cox doesn't deserve sympathy, or pity. And he doesn't deserve to be in the debates.
Here are some reasons why:
1. He is not a real candidate. He is not raising money, for starters. He's brought in just $13,000 or so in 13 months of campaigning (he got in the race back in Feb., 2006!) The 10 *real* candidates are raising millions, or at least in the case of Ron Paul, hundreds of thousands. How is he going to get his message out? He cries that media outlets are not covering him, but is he running ads? If he can't raise money, how can he? How will he defeate Obama or Hillary without the ability to raise money?
2. He snuck into the Reagan Library debate - as noted above - and was escorted off the premises in humiliation. While not yet a felon, like fellow fringe candidate Robert E. Haines, he's becoming an embarrassment nonetheless. After the debate, he took the MSNBC footage and spliced his own comments and his face into the debate to make it look like he was invited and was actually answering Chris Matthews' questions. Spooky.
3. Ten are Enough. We have ten Republican candidates already on the stage. Some would say even that's a few too many, but others think having conservatives like Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee and Hunter on the stage are more than enough to counter "Rudy McRomney" - the three frontrunners - and get a strong conservative message out. Ron Paul is a character all on his own. We don't need another nut on the stage, and Cox has proven he's a loose cannon.
4. Cox is not a serious candidate. He has not appeared in any polls, until recently, and now he's consistently at 1 percent or less. That is effectively "zero" if you count the margin of error. Cox's one paid blogger online likes to say that this one percent is equal to others in the race - including Hunter, Ron Paul and Tancredo, but this is not an argument for Cox's inclusion, it's an argument for the OTHERS to be excluded. As such, that's a fair point, but these other candidates have tens of thousands of supporters on the ground in early primary states, and have raised millions, making future campaigning possible. Cox likely has less than a dozen supporters across the nation. To his credit, he's scored a win in a poorly attended straw poll in a small South Carolina town, and brags about coming in fifth in one other.
5. Cox is not a serious candidate. ALL of the other "second teir" candidates, and of course the frontrunners, have held or are holding political office. Cox has never held elective office, and his one appointed position - "president" of the Cook County GOP - was created for him as a consolation prize after so many electoral faiures. Cox was a big donor to the Cook Co. GOP. The position was eliminated when he left it.
6. Cox wanted a Federal judge to decide who the SC GOP could and couldn't put on the stage in the May 15 South Carolina debate. Those mean old Republicans demanded that he get one percent in a national poll. Cox, as we've seen, can't seem to do that. Is Cox REALLY a Socialist? Because he sure doesn't understand that activist judges shouldn't be allowed to tell private institutions (especially political parties!) who can and cannot have access to their stage. When Cox "pays for this microphone" he can pretend he's Reagan. Otherwise, he needs to win some polls first and prove himself worthy of inclusion.
7. Cox was defeated for Congress, defeated for the US Senate and defeated for a dog-catcher position ("recorder of deeds") in Chicago. He cannot win even local elections. In each case, fundraising was near zero, and his campaign staffs were a quickly revolving door, due to the poor temperament of the candidate.
8. If Cox gets on the stage, why not the others? There are 26 others officially listed as of February, 2007 as GOP candidates fore president (there are dozens of others listed as "independents," Democrats and other parties.) If 10 people are too many on the stage, how about 37? Ridiculous? Perhaps. But this obscure businessman, with no elective experience and no fundraising and no chance of attracting sufficient numbers to EVER appear in a real poll, has no greater claim to be on the stage than any of these other "official" fringe candidates:
Daniel James Barnett
Dewey R. Broughman
Edward Allan Buck
Anthony Lungo Carter
Eamon Patrick Clune
Dr. Hugh Cort
Lowell Jackson Fellure
Robert L. Forthan
Anthony Keith Gallagher
Daniel A. Gilbert
Mildred T. Howard
Timothy Charles Kalemkarian
Philip A. Kok
Elvena E. Lloyd-Duffie
Yehanna Joan Mary Malone
James Creighton Mitchell
Robert Edward Edward Moreau
William Nathaniel Raven
Marshall Samuel Sanders
Freddy Irwin Sitnick
Michael Charles Smith
Richard Michael Smith
Johns Wallace Stevenson
True conservatives who are disappointed with the current field should NOT be fooled by this fellow or by the active paid blogger online who is pushing his inclusion in the debates. Look elsewhere among the "second tier" of candidates or outside the announced list (such as Thompson and Gingrich) for salvation. But don't be fooled by someone who cannot raise money, has serious "issues" with the GOP, behaves bizarrely, and cannot seem to win elections.