John Cox

I was not sure what to expect from John Cox when I started me research. I had never heard of him, and without any of the titles in front of his name that are so common among the well known candidates (Governor, Senator, Representative) I half expected to find that he was one of those people who has a message but will be happy if they can just get that message on the evening news sometime because of their campaign.

What I found was a very serious, dedicated candidate who really believes in his message. He has years of experience in various political areas, just none that are in the spotlight so much as where better known candidates have usually been.

Instead of finding a man who had ideas and dreams, I found a man who had experience in making things happen in his own life and in the lives of people around him. I believe that he is a candidate who will not be overwhelmed by the office if he should win the presidency.

Having been pleasantly surprised in my findings, I still had to decide if I would endorse John Cox for president. My conclusion is that – although I do believe that he could fill the office of the president – I do not believe that he is the type of man that this country needs at this time.

His tone is slightly too divisive and idealistic. We need someone who can be grounded in their morals and pragmatic in their direction. Some of John’s ideas are not pragmatic. Others are good, but not focused on the issues that are the most important to us today.

About David

David is the father of 8 extremely organized children (4 girls / 4 boys) who is constantly seeking answers to tough questions related to parenting, education and politics while moonlighting for 40 hours each week as a technology professional. He also enjoys cooking, gardening, and sports.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


7 Responses to John Cox

  1. Michael says:

    John Cox is a fringe candidate. Period. He’s in it just to get some attention, and as a bored millionaire, he needs LOTS of attention.

    He is not competitive because he’s only raised about $20,000 (sic) since announcing his campaign 18 months ago.

    He’s on his fifth campaign manager and his LEGIONS of former staffers have nothing good to say about him.

    His business “success” has been questioned. He has no electorial successes above one stint on a zoning board. He is not presidential material.

    A few people around the country have been taken in by his pseudo-conservative rhetoric, but that’s all it is, rhetoric, since he can’t back it up with a record of performance.

    More facts:

  2. David says:

    All the more reason for me not to have endorsed him.

  3. Michael says:

    Yes, good move!

  4. Michael says:

    He dropped out of the race on Saturday, so we have one less fringe candidate to worry about. Not that we were worrying.

  5. David says:

    I wonder what the chances are of getting this down to a six man race by January? (I think I can safely name 6 candidates who will not – short of dying – drop out of the race before then. In fact I would expect at least five of the six I have in mind to stay in at least until February 5th.)

  6. Michael says:

    I hope the networks or other debate sponsors put a 7% polling rule on future GOP debates. That cuts out all but Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and probably Huckabee. Then, we can have a reasonable debate.

  7. David says:

    I would agree except that putting that kind of a limit (especially with large numbers of candidates like the 8 or nine we currently have) tends to ensure that we will weed out anyone who is not tied to the existing system. I don’t think that’s wise, let the candidates weed themselves out and accept the fringe candidates even if they have nothing useful to contribute.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...