Are we really set to make Ed Cox the chairman of the New York Republican Party?  Based on what?  His  2006 Senate Campaign?  His stewardship of the 2008 McCain/Palin effort in New York?  Where he got 31% of the vote (Bush got 40% in 2004, and 35% in 2000).  In his defense, he did do better than Bob Dole, 30.5%.  

Has Cox showed any ability to raise money?  That seems to be the biggest credential put forth by his backers, and yet he didn't raise much money in his own run.  Aside from is ability to name 30 rich people, are there people who believe he can raise more money than Rudy Giuliani?  Lest we forget, in 2007 before the wheels came off, Rudy raised more than McCain, Romney or any other Republican in the field.  

 I like Ed Cox personally, but nearly every time I have met him, he has referred to the political teachings of his "father-in-law".   As a state party, operating in the bluest of blue states, should we be taking plays from Richard Nixon's playbook?  I mean seriously, the guy made Niccolo Machiavelli seem chill.  He brought dirty politics to a whole new level and almost went to  jail for some of the stuff he pulled.  I hope the post Cox era is not as traumatic for the NY GOP as the post Nixon era was for America.

It boggles my mind that instead of choosing the Chairman preferred by the Nominee in Waiting, the man who will be relying most on the Party Chairman, we instead are going to go with Dean Skelos' pick.  Dean Skelos, the guy who lost our 40 year grip on the Senate Majority.  The man who lost what little respect there was for Albany with that ill advised and misguided coupe attempt a few months back.  When will we learn?  Here is looking at 2014...

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Daniel Peterson , August 31, 2009

Firstly, Rudy Giuliani isn't running for the chairmanship. So to throw Giuliani into this mix is silly. Can the former NYC mayor raise money? Sure, but he's all about himself and not the party. He just wants things convenient for him.

As for the condition of the State GOP, you cant' put blame in anyone trying to do something from 2006 to 2008. The reason for the sorry state of affairs for the GOP is due to 12 ineffective years under the leadership of George Pataki. Pataki was also all about himself and he bought himself patronage and silenced decent. By 1997, Pataki was not interested in being a fiscally responsible republican. He was all about selling out to the highest bidder for re-election.

And finally, Dean Skelos and Joseph Mondello. You are criticizing Skelos who had about a year to strengthen the condition of the State Senate ffter the State of the State GOP under the leaders of Pataki, Minarik and Senator Bruno was spent teaming up with SEIU 1199 and the Working Families Party and other groups that are destroying this state? It's Skelos' fault? Give me a break.

Let's not forget old Alfonse D'Amato, the money making lobbyist who pushed for the election of Spitzer because it would send money his way and how he stood by Paterson when Gillibrand was appointed US Senator because it suited him well. These ARE NOT THE LEADERS WE NEED FOR THE NY REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Nothing against Henry Wojtaszek, because it apepars he's done much to build his county organziation. But he's surrounding himself with the has-beens that New York must wash its hands clean from.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Ok then...
written by Arthur Forlani , August 31, 2009

Let's take Pataki, Alfonse and everyone else out of this. What about Ed Cox makes you think he is the leader we need for the Republican Party?

I must say I disagree with your not wanting to factor Rudy into the mix. There is a reason why in every President gets to put an ally at the helm of their Party's National Committee. As Rudy will likely be the nominee and likely be the governor, don't you think he should be able to express his opinion on who he believes can help build the best party organization?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Daniel Peterson , August 31, 2009

Giuliani has already shown how strongly he feels about the Republican party. He pushed the five county chairs to back Michael Bloomberg. Even if Giuliani supported Bloomberg personally, the mayor is not a Republican and could only do more damage to the feckless CITY Republican Party. He should've stayed out of it.

There is probably a big reason why so many county chairs are supporting Cox and hope their committees do the same. Ed Cox is looking forward to the future and not to the past. It is those Republicans leaders of the past that has put the party in the sorry state that it is in today.

I can see it coming. If Cox beats Wojtaszek, then he'll be blamed for Giuliani not running. But since 2000, Giuliani has shown he has absolutely no real interest in public service anymore. Otherwise he would be looking to serve the public. He backed out of the 2000 Senate race which he could've won. He supported Bush in 2004 and increased his name recognition, but chose not to run for Governor in 2006 which should've been the year to do it. He ran a horrible Presidential campaign in 2008 sitting back and thinking people will come around to him. With the field wide open, all he needed to do is "place" or "show" (using the horse racing terms) for one of the early primaries and caucuses before Florida. Instead, New Hampshire and Michigan he was nowhere to be seen, two states he could've probably come in second or third.

Since leaving office, he has done nothing to help build the local NYC Republican Party. Why? Because he wants money for appearances. It's not about party support. IN 2003 and 2005, we had councill candidates in districts that are winnable by Republicans and he was MIA.

Lastly, Ed Cox so far, has run a clean campaign. The name calling and the childish "attacks" are coming from the other camp. Rather than be sportsmanly, I'm seeing contempt. If these are the types of operatives that will work under a Wojtaszek-Giuliani team, then I will find it hard to even be associated with this group.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Arthur Forlani , August 31, 2009

Let me get this straight, Giuliani, who it could be argued is the reason there is even still a Republican Party in the city has to campaign for city council races in a body that will never go Republican in order to run for Governor? There are nearly a thousand municipalities in the State of New York, and 62 counties. Each one with a legislative body. Obviously he can't campaign in each of those elections.

But thats not the point, the point is Ed Cox has never run a successful county or campaign committee. He has never raised a substantial amount of money, even for himself. So why are we putting our eggs in his basket? In all honestly the Republican State Committee Chairman matters a great deal less then the Republican Nominee for Governor. So why would we turn our backs on that would be nominee in favor of someone who lacks a relationship with the nominee and the credentials to hold the position in the first place.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Jay Golub , September 01, 2009

"...Where he got 31% of the vote (Bush got 40% in 2004, and 35% in 2000). In his defense, he did do better than Bob Dole, 30.5%."

Honestly, I'm a very big supporter of Rudy for any available executive position and will support him if he decides to officially run for Governor, but he and his campaign did a HORRIBLE job in the Presidential race. He was the "favorite" yet was out of the race, effectively, before it even started.

I don't understand why the 31% of the vote McCain got, after Bush and the GOP destroyed our party's reputation during the prior 8 years, should discredit Cox in any way...

"Aside from is ability to name 30 rich people, are there people who believe he can raise more money than Rudy Giuliani?"

Cox wouldn't be running against Rudy, Arthur, so what does that have to do with the job?

"As a state party, operating in the bluest of blue states, should we be taking plays from Richard Nixon's playbook?"

Not fully, but remember, his "father-in-law" did become president, this after he was basically "out" of the political world after his 1960 loss to JFK.

If anyone has lessons of how you turn a sweaty, electoral-loser into a victorious entity, learning from what Tricky Dick did to turn his fortune around isn't totally the wrong thing to do...

"He brought dirty politics to a whole new level and almost went to jail for some of the stuff he pulled."

That's not how he became President or turned around his career in politics. You are trying too hard, Arthur, to make this point about Ed...

"It boggles my mind that instead of choosing the Chairman preferred by the Nominee in Waiting, the man who will be relying most on the Party Chairman, we instead are going to go with Dean Skelos' pick..."

Again, I think you inaccurately tie these two guys together, but I agree about not listening to Mr. Skelos for advice on this point.

But if you keep up with the past comparisons, one could argue that Rudy doesn't deserve to run for Gov. I can turn you words here...

"Dean Skelos, the guy who lost our 40 year grip on the Senate Majority."

...into, when referring to the Governor's race...

"Rudy Giuliani, who took a double digit lead into Iowa and never made it to super Tuesday?"

Again, I support our former Mayor completely, but you're not doing Rudy any favors bringing him into this discussion...

I just recieved a letter from Mr. Wojtaszek, so I will see what he wants to do with the party. I also recieved a letter from Mr. Cox. I hope to put the comparisons down on paper later on today.

I'm for change - not for more armchair political decisions. The GOP needs to be moving in a different direction. Let's see who offers the best plan and make our decision based on that rather than who is supporting which candidate...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Arthur Forlani , September 01, 2009

I agree with you Jay, I have been trying to make this about comparing the two candidates for Chair.

Cox, really has a limited resume when it comes to party politics, we can look to his 2006 run and his stewardship of the McCain 2008 effort in New York State. Thats it. So I believe the 31% of the vote he produced is relevant. So far, the biggest selling point on on a Cox Chairmanship is his ability to raise money. He has listed 30 or so people that are willing to serve on his fiance committee, but I am not sure that alone translates into prodigious fundraising. Linking Cox with Skelos isn't inaccurate http://www.newsday.com/long-is...-1.1407625 The feud between Giuliani's minions and the Senate is well documented, there is no doubt that the minority's hands are propping up Cox in certain counties. Maybe they are just doing a better job of being covert then Rudy's people.

When Wojtaszeck was elected Niagara County Chairman, Republicans were in the Minority. They now control 14 of the 19 seats. He has raised money, he has recruited candidates, he has built organizations. Those are all things that Cox hasn't done. Or at least, hasn't done successfully. The party needs to rebuild from the grassroots, there is nothing grassroots about Ed Cox.

I am not sure if Rudy "doesn't deserve to run for Governor" because he "took a double digit lead into Iowa and never made it to Super Tuesday". My only reason for bringing up Rudy's name is because I believe that as the candidate he should be give deference. He will have to rely a great deal on who ever the Chairman is, he will have to send donors to State Committee. If Giuliani thinks Wojtaszeck can better help him raise money for State Committee and rebuild the party, I think its pretty relevant to the debate.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Ed Cox Concerns Me...
written by Party_of_Lincoln , September 02, 2009

I agree with you Arthur. Although Cox has run a good campaign for State Chair, I am deeply concerned about his lack of experience in running a party organization.

The NY GOP desperately needs someone who knows how to build an organization, recruit candidates, increase voter enrollment and of course raise money.

Ed Cox has never done of any of those things, while Henry Wojtaszek has succesfully done all of those things. Wojtaszek was instrumental in turning the Niagra GOP from a minority party to the majority. He understands the nuts and bolts of building a winning organization and that is exactly what the NY GOP in a State Chair, a mechanic who knows how to rebuild the engine that drives this party.

Ed Cox is a nice person, but I am concerned about selecting someone as Chair who I believe is running because he believes it is simply his turn.

The 2010 elections are going to be a make or break election for New York and I simply don't feel comfortable with a State Chair who has not fought down in the trenches and lacks a record of success in building the party apparatus that will be crucial for the Party in next year's elections.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Daniel Peterson , September 02, 2009

POL, you make a very valid case against Cox in that Wojtaszek has proven he can rebuild a county, therefore he will likely do well as State Chair.

That's all great, but then we see goons like D'Amato and Pataki side with him. Then we we hear arguments that Cox is too "conservative" while Wojtaszek is more moderate. Where's the argument here? Cox isn't too conservative. And if he is compared to Wojtaszek, does that make the Niagara chairman a Rockefeller?

Hold on a sec, we don't need more Rockefellers. We don't need a return of the old guard party that is clearly defunct in the GOP today.

Since 1990, if a New Yorker turns 18 and plans to register to vote, if his or her political philosophy is that of a Roy Goodman, Nelson Rockefellor or a John Lindsey, then that person will register Democrat.

We need to define ourselves as a Party with differences to the Democrats. We cannot sell out to special interests because we will lose the battle. A resent Rassmussen poll shows that a majority of Republican voters believe they are more conservative and fiscally responsible than the Republicans we have in Washington.

If someone surrounds themselves with three former elected officials who are currently all about the money they make, I can't see how this will help build our party.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Daniel Peterson , September 03, 2009

http://www.nydailynews.com/blo....html#more

"The battle for the state GOP chairmanship is turning ugly, with whisper campaigns well underway by operatives for both Henry Wojtaszek and Ed Cox in an attempt to dirty up the competition.

Cox, who heads the NYLCV's Education Fund, chaired a group charged with recruiting environmental experts to serve on Cuomo's team. "

Wait a minute. I have to chuckle at this.
So Cuomo wins the 2006 AG election. The battle is over. Pirro is doing fine on TV, is she not? Republicans lose, shake hands, move on. In the end, it's about representing the People of the State of New York, not your political pride. Secondly, the AG office, of all Statewide offices, is supposed to be the LEAST partisan of ALL Statewide offices.

OK, so Cox briefly worked with Cuomo.

Let's look at Wojtaszek's side.
1. He's got a former NYC Mayor who ENDORSED Mario Cuomo for re-elction in 1994. That same mayor who did NOTHING to build up the Republican Party during the 1990s within the five boroughs.
2. He's got a former US Senator who has actively FUNDRAISED for Eliot Spitzer and other Democrats, couldn't find himself to back any Republican in 2006 except for saying, "I'll be campaigning for Senator Bruno so the GOP retains the Senate, and stood side-by-side with Gov. Paterson when he announced Gillibrand as the next US Senator.
3. A former NY Governor who sold the party out by renewing rent regulation, bought support from SIEU 1199 and other unions, and gave up every conservative principle he campaigned on in 1994.

To read that the supporters for one or the other are beginning to name call and get "down and dirty" just shows the sleeze that gets into politics. This is the kind of crap we need to avoid. Can you imagine if your favorite sport, Football or Baseball was like this? Give me an 'effin' break here.

GROW UP PEOPLE!!!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0