Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Jim Nicholson for U.S. Senate?

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:37:32 AM MST


There may be a new Republican name in the field for U.S. Senate in 2008, and it's a surprise.

Current Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson is rumored to be taking a serious look at running for Senate in 2008, and the rumor is serious enough that current GOP frontrunner Soctt McInnis is more than a little bit concerned.

A West Point grad, Nicholson got his law degree from the University of Denver and was a successful real estate developer in Colorado. His resume is pretty impressive for a potential senate candidate:

Prior to his nomination, Mr. Nicholson served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, a position he held since 2001, where he became a well-known advocate in Rome for the elevation of human dignity, giving special emphasis to human trafficking, religious freedom, starvation and bio-tech food, HIVAIDS, and international terrorism. He was knighted by Pope John Paul II in October 2003 for this work representing the U.S. to the Vatican.

Mr. Nicholson was born in 1938 and grew up on a tenant farm in northwest Iowa in a family of seven children. He is a 1961 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He served eight years on active duty as a paratrooper and Ranger-qualified Army officer, then 22 years in the Army Reserve, retiring with the rank of colonel. While serving in Vietnam, he earned the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry and two Air Medals.

Mr. Nicholson earned a master's degree from Columbia University in New York, and a law degree from the University of Denver. He practiced law in Denver, specializing in real estate, municipal finance and zoning law. In 1978 he founded Nicholson Enterprises, Inc., a developer of planned residential communities, and in 1987 he bought Renaissance Homes, which became an award-winning builder of quality custom homes.

In January 1986, Mr. Nicholson was elected committeeman from Colorado for the Republican National Committee (RNC). In 1993 he was elected vice-chairman of the RNC, and in January 1997, he was elected chairman of the RNC, where he served for four years, through the elections of 2000.

Not only does Nicholson have an impressive resume, he has plenty of money from his time as a real estate developer that could be used to instantly build a strong campaign foundation.
Colorado Pols :: Jim Nicholson for U.S. Senate?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jim Nicholson for U.S. Senate? | 53 comments
Many Veterans (especially in Colorado Springs)
will remember that he, and the Veterans Administration, have put up numerous roadblocks to the creation of a Veteran's Cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region.  If he's looking for a natural consistency with veterans, he may be deluding himself.
Crazy Crazy
Wasn't he also a temporary candidate for the US Senate in 2004?  And wasn't he considered a front-runner when he was thinking about running for governor in 2006?  What kept him from running in both those races?  No fire in his gut, lack of grassroots support, and yes his age.  Jim's a great guy, but in the end he'll be an after thought once again. He's an elder statesman for those who remember him.  A government bureaucrat for those who don't. 
I could hear the 527 commercials now.....
Millionaire-developer-bureaucrat Jim Nicholson......yadda yadda yadda
And-----
He's also boring.  If he stays in and self funds and Schaefer gets in, this could be the split in the right wing that McInnis needs to win a primary.  Nicholson is a social conservative, of the country club set a la Terry Considine, but without the charisma.  I just can't get past the fact that he has been behind the scenes all these years and you never hear about him in the press.  He's just not quotable.  Would be a good Senator, but not a good candidate.
He's very ambitious, hard worker, attractive, dull
I agree with Craig.

Well put.

[ Parent ]
sounds like you're describing Wayne Allard with a brain

[ Parent ]
And the ability to act independently
[ Parent ]
"He's just not quotable"
Given the Republicans' penchant for foot-in-mouth issues I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.  Boring seems to work in Colorado.  People so tired of the same ol' stuff in politics with the vitriol and polarization may appreciate qualities like those Nicholson posesses.  That's what made Allard so attractive.  He was just a nice down-home doctor from outside of Denver.  That resonates with Coloradans.
[ Parent ]
Big threat
He'd beat Udall & all the Republicans.  Mass defections by Catholics will vote for him.
Ritter and Salazar ran away from the church; could he win running as a Catholic?
Doesn't figure.
[ Parent ]
Catholic church
Salazar and Ritter are Dems, and they had to run from the Church (as defined by Chaput) because of the abortion & 'gay marriage' issue.  Nicholson would be A+ on all issues related to the Church--gay marriage, abortion, stem cell, poverty, disease, you name it, he's almost as holy as the Pope (which I suppose would rub off on you the more you see the guy if  you're ambassador.
[ Parent ]
Besides,,,
Ritter and Salazar didn't win because they ran from the church--if anything, their independent stands but devout Catholicism helped them.  Nicholson trumps that because he's gonna be ok with all the church's positions but still be bleeding heart enough on "traditional" Democratic things like poverty, disease, etc.  So, he'd bridge the gap with unaffiliates and 'conservative Dems'.

Mind you, I wouldn't in a MILLION, GAZZILLION years vote for Nicholson, but I'm just saying he'd be a formidable candidate.

[ Parent ]
you would be shocked ar the number of Catholics (myself included) who do not tow the "party line" put out by the Vatican and archdiocese

[ Parent ]
But do you toe the party line
Big difference - tow vs toe :).

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
touchee..............lol

[ Parent ]
Yeah??
Like all the Catholics went so hard for Beauprez who was 100% with the pope too???Please, I just don't buy that Catholics vote for Catholics.  Most don't even know religious affiliation when entering the voting booth.  Nicholson certainly isn't an "obvious" Catholic name.  I just don't see this as an advantage.  And how about the evangelicals who think the Catholics are the devil?  What about those who hate Catholics?  There are still some of those around.  I just think you are wrong.
[ Parent ]
The Catholic Vote
There is little else I dislike than identity politics.  I cannot stand the idea--typically unfounded--that blacks simply vote black, Latinos simply vote Latino, Jews simply vote Latino and on it goes.  It's simplly not true.  Michael Steele, a fine Maryland Republican, got walloped by a fancy-pants white Democrat in 2006. 

It also demeans the intelligence--or parochialism--of cerain groups.  Are Catholics not smart enough to vote on issues alone that they have to vote for "one of their own?" 

This issue also carries over to Mitt Romney.  Let's evaluate people on their ideas--not ethnicity or faith.

[ Parent ]
But but but,,,
What you don't realize is the possible cross-over potential Nicholson has with Catholics--he can get conservative Republicans to vote for him because he'll say, "see, I'm anti-abortion & anti-gay marriage," and then with moderate Republicans and & conservative and moderate Catholic Dems he can say, well, "yeah, I'm anti-abortion but the real issue is poverty, disease, etc."  with gay marriage, it's such a non-issue now, that he can just say, "yeah, I'm anti-gay marriage, but it's not going to come up for a vote anyway, and yeah, I'd vote for it if it did, but the real issue is poverty & disease, etc."  So, he'd be a Salazar/Ritter and an Owens all wrapped up into one.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps.
You might be right.  But that seems like a pretty fine line to walk.  He may be a dandy candidate--I've never heard of him--but I think he'll be dandy or un-dancy because of his ideas, not his Catholicism.
[ Parent ]
Back on earth
None the less, the single most accurate predictor of how someone will vote remains their demographic profile.

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head". Georges Clemenceau
[ Parent ]
I've never even heard of this guy.
He seems nice enough but I really doubt he's the kind of star we need to win in 2008.  Being a veteran is a plus no matter the election and no matter the party.  But it's not going to seal the deal.

The idea that he'll take the Catholic vote is absurd.  The "Catholic vote"--which had been trending Republican until 2006--is not stupid.  Catholics don't just vote for people because they are Catholic. 

There are three main Catholic groupings:

1. Hispanics--socially conservative but Democrat-leaning
2.) Cafeteria Catholics-- vote Democrat and are socially and economically moderate
3.) Traditional Catholics--conservative and fairly Republican (think Bill Bennett).

Ritter and Beauprez were both Catholic and Catholic issues had not play in the election.  Neither gay marriage nor abortion were very big issues and so the Catholic vote hinged on other concerns like Iraq and healthcare and whatever--just like the rest of us. 

This Nicholson guy is likely a strong, devout Catholic.  That's nice.  But I don't think it will win--or lose--him any votes.  Let's see where he stands on the issues and lets see what kind of a vision he brings to the state.

Huh
Self made millionaire,
soldier, West Point Grad, chaired the State Party when they won both houses of the Legislature and the Governorship, chaired the RNC and they won both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, IOU's from all over the country and pictures with the Pope. Nicholson will run unopposed in the primary and probably end up running against a second tier Democrat as his money will likely scare off Udall
Whatever-
it is that is brewing, you must be drinking and I would like some.  Please.
[ Parent ]
Agree with everything but,,,
the part about Udall.  Udall is in it for good.  If he pulls out now he loses all credibility.
Bob Schaffer is Catholic....
and nobody is talking about the Catholic vote going for him. That's because his Catholicism won't determine how Catholics vote--his ideas will.
Schaffer is no Nicholson
'nuff said.
[ Parent ]
So educate me.
I seem to be the only one here who has seriously never heard of this guy.  I support Schaffer absolutely but if Nicholson is more electable and just as solidly conservative then I may be interested.

What makes this guy more electable?  What are his conservative credentials (besides being the Pope's homeboy)?  What are his political credentials?  If I don't know about him then his name recognition should be pretty terrible.  Can that go up?

I would appreciate any information or web links.

[ Parent ]
Nicholson wins
Nicholson has a record of winning.
Nicholson served in combat and Udall will counter by saying it got kind of hairy on some of those rock climbs.
Nicholson was winning elections for the Republicans across the country while McInnis was stingily sleeping on his office couch.
One thing we know for sure Nicholson will have a talented team and those lovable losers Cinammon Watson and Sean Duffy will be nowhere to be found.
Will either Udall or McInnis want to take on the Nicholson fundraising juggernaut?
Something tells me you have a personal stake here...
But no matter.  Nicholson, strong as he may be on paper, has a long way to go before he becomes the credible candidate you believe him to be.  He'll need to win the primary, first.
[ Parent ]
But he also loses
Nicholson's tenure at VA was marred by multiple giant thefts/losses of vets' personal data; he didn't seem to be too focused on the problem or its solution.  I'd think that would come back to haunt him if he ran for Senate.
[ Parent ]
Exactly.
Given Nicholson's record on keeping electronic information secure, it shouldn't be hard for opponents to get ahold of his campaign plans and confidential contributor lists.
[ Parent ]
Nicholson actually saw combat in the military which is very rare for a Republican

[ Parent ]
"Udall will counter by saying it got kind of hairy on some of those rock climbs."
LOL!
[ Parent ]
Absurd suggestion
Nicholson is a professional cheerleader. He has no original thought, no policy experience, and no record of positions.  He's never even won a contested race.  State Chairman and RNC doesn't even count.  That's so not on the par with a senate campaign.  I'm not going to walk precincts and stuff envelopes for a stuffed-shirt Bush cheerleader.  Schaffer is the man. 
That's my thinking.
I wouldn't call Nicholson a "stuffed-shirt Bush cheerleader," but I agree that "We Need Bob."  I think the big thing here is just name recognition and star-power.  Schaffer has that something that sucessful Republicans have that demonstrates poise and confidence.  That's why he's our best candidate.
[ Parent ]
Colorado Pols,
Where would you put Nicholson on the Big Line?  Which Republican is most threatened by his candidacy?  McInnis?
I think Schaeffer
McInnis is the moderate.  With Nicholson in the race, the right wing nut vote is split between the true believers going with Schaeffer and the country club right wingers going with Nicholson.  This leaves McInnis with the moderate vote.  I think McInnis benefits by two strong right-wingers.
[ Parent ]
no go
I'm still not appeased.  Nicholson is old and represents the County Club mentality of our party.  Bob Schaffer is the guy.
What does Schaffer represent that is
"not Country Club" - I don't know the non-El Paso County group.
[ Parent ]
"Republicans need to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club."
-Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
[ Parent ]
Ok, what about Schaffer is Sam's Club?

[ Parent ]
I never said he was.
It was only a highly instructive quote.

I know nothing about this Nicholson guy so I really can't comment on what kind of club he belongs to.  But I can tell you that Schaffer gives off a folksy--if wonkish--charm that appeals to a lot of voters.  I think the GOP in 2008 really needs to focus on the suburbs a lot harder than they have.  They need to focus on issues that will appeal to suburbanites like transportation and health care while still holding the flank on tax and values issues.  Bob Schaffer can do that.  He is attuned with the cares and concerns of suburban voters and in that sense he is a man of the club--Sam's Club.

[ Parent ]
OK, my tough question I always ask -
how does he get to the first two - transport and health issue - while keeping to the later - taxes. And, please, don't give me the D "it will pay for itself" or the standard R"We'll just cut elsewhere" unless you have a specific plan for where the savings come from and what happens if they don't show up or exactly where you will cut and what happens if the cuts don't happen or they don't cover the cost. I'm tired of both those trite and tired smoke and mirror phrases.
[ Parent ]
How to win the suburbs...
By being conservative yet pragmatic.  I actually got that Pawlenty quote out of the latest National Review where they highlight an article about the GOP and the suburbs.  They point to two Republicans who can win and not lose their conservative principles: Jeb Bush and Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty won re-election in a miserably blue state.  Bush left office with a 70% approval rating in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans.

Why?

Here's a blurb:

"In most of the country, in fact, independents and suburban swing voters may be worried about pocketbook and quality-of-life issues or dissatisfied with the political establishment, says Democratic consultant Crone, but they "like to see positives and solutions. Americans are basically an optimistic people." One might say that attracting these voters isn't about ideology, it's about confidence. Candidates who talk about challenging issues and propose new ideas (sometimes even risky ones), but do so with a smile, exude a comforting confidence. They obviously believe their solutions will work. Think Jeb Bush, think Ronald Reagan. Suburbanites busy with their own careers, families, and communities don't spend a lot of time pondering political questions. They are looking for someone to offer them credible, constructive answers. If Republican politicians believe that academic rigor and parental choice will improve schools, that consumer-driven health care is the right direction, and that markets and automobility are a better solution to transportation snarls than central planning and commuter rail, they shouldn't shy away from saying so, as long as they do it with a smile.

Come to think of it, if they don't believe these things, a suburban strategy for the GOP isn't worth having, anyway"

The article goes on to highlight both Pawlenty's and Bush's embrace of school choice mixed with tougher standards and merit pay--for example.  You can use market principles to advance a conservative agenda on transportation by converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes--High Occupancy Toll roads.  E-470 is a brilliant deal.  You can use conservative market principles to provide universal health care by adopting a program similar to Mitt Romney's. 

You won't get ideological purity.  You just won't.  Bill Owens tried to compromise for the better of the state with Ref. C.  He compromised a little too much but it was fundamentally a sound idea to amend TABOR a bit.  Notice, also, how Owens ratings, despite the venom coming from the right, are very high--in the 60s as he leaves office.  Pragmatic conservatism will work.  It will win elections becuase it will keep the suburbs red.

[ Parent ]
DDHGLQ - didn't answer the question
how does he specifically intend to deal with transport and health issues in the context of taxes. I hear vehemently anti-C people spending a lot of time now talking about how to spend the C money on transport and health care without ever addressing how they would have done so without C. All I ask for is clarity and consistency in these areas.
[ Parent ]
Let me try it out...
Health care:  You can ensure that more people are insured without raising taxes.  Mitt Romney in Massachusetts mandated that citizens have insurance as long as they fall within certain tax brackets.  Ultimately, all but the seriously poor would have to buy health insurance from a private source.  No money spent there.

So what about the poor?  We'll have to subsidize them and that's what really grates on conservative ears.  But you can combine those subsidies-- (which would only apply to a very small fraction of society and would be provided to small businesses, not the citizens themselves) with tax breaks across the board for small businesses.  Nowhere would you have to raise taxes because every citizen would be insured.  The revenue you lose from the offset of subsidies and tax breaks you'll get back from no longer having to pay for care for the uninsured.  Again, it's not fiscally pure but it's a common-sense solution that uses market principles to help everyone get insured.

There is also the fine idea of health-savings accounts which may be a good start.  Pawlenty ran on that issue and did quite well with it.  So did Jeb Bush.  Again, no new taxes.  My point in bringing up the need for Republicans to start talking about health care is to show that Republicans also have ideas on health care.  Conservatives may disagree about things--as they did about Romney's Massachusetts program.  But voters want two things:

1.) They want to know that Republicans aren't tools for the insurance agency. When Republicans talk about this stuff voters know that Republicans also care about kitchen-table issues.

2.) They want individual control--not bureacratic control--over their health care.  That is why health-savings accounts--the sort that the President will discuss tommorrow night--are both attractive to families and also a good policy-position for Republicans.

Transportation: We need roads, not big fancy super-duper speed-trains that will haul, at best, 2% of the metro area population around the city.  There simply is no solvency there.  We are already seeing FasTracks run into formiddable complications with zoning and costs.  The problem is that the vast, vast majority of Denverites drive their own cars.  The new trains are an absolute waste of money.  FasTracks was a loser and the city is worse off for it.

So how do you get roads without raising taxes?  Toll roads.  What else can I say?  If you want to have more room to drive your car without traffic you have to build more roads.  But you can't do it for free.  You have to either raise taxes or you have to have toll roads. 

Toll roads, of course, are a de facto tax on drivers.  Voters know that.  That's why projects like Superslab and E-470 are decent--if imperfect--ideas.  The missing piece to the 470-loop is the western cooridor near Golden.  Golden is building commercial and residential properties like gang-busters just to keep C-DOT from putting in the new road.  So you put a toll on it and let the city keep soem of the revenue.

An even better idea is to convert those silly, useless HOV lanes into HOT lanes.  That way the main arteries are not tolled--but the High Occupancy lanes are.  That program has worked fairly well in Minneapolis.  The transportation folks there put a toll on the high occupancy lanes to pay for construction of more lanes on the interstates and so far it's worked well.

I think Ref. C was too ambitious.  They didn't need that much money and they badly underestimated how much revenue they would collect.  But for the sake of transportation and health care some sort of an adjustment to TABOR was necessary.  I think Owens did the right thing.  I can't be an apologist for Jon Caldara.  I'm only saying that Owens' suburban-model is the exact path to follow for future Republicans.  Starting with Schaffer. 

[ Parent ]
So, you work for the campaign?
If not, are these your ideas or those told to you by someone in the campaign? I agree many of them - not all - come near my sweet spot and the ones that don't at least are good points of departure. But is this what he is proposing or you? If just your ideas, then I'll wait to hear from Schaffer before I jump on any bandwagon. If you are associated with the campaign, then keep pushing your guy and stop bashing other potential candidates; remember the 11th commandment - which your postings on this thread violate frequently.
[ Parent ]
Wait a minute!
Who have I bashed?  I said I'd support every damn Republican considering running.  If you're referring to Nicholson I've been up front with the fact that I haven't even ever heard of him.  The only one I'd rather not run is McInnis only because I don't think he has the "righ stuff" to pull it off against Udall.

I'm not working for the nascent Schaffer campaign...yet.  Those ideas are my own only and I'm glad you agree.  I think, though, that Schaffer will run a very Owens-esque campaign if he doees run.  The party, as I'm sure you know, is looking to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters without sacrificing core conservative values.  It's not hard to do.  You just talk about things like conservation, health care, education (local control not that beastly NCLB), and transportation.  You also remain unflinchingly pro-life and committed to helping the tax-payers with lower taxes and not be afraid to talk about that stuff when asked.  We need people who can clearly articulate what it is exactly that conservatives believe.  Schaffer can do all of that.

[ Parent ]
My mistake, I reread and you are correct
and I was wrong about bashing - mea culpa.
[ Parent ]
If this guy's picture was next to Al White's
could anyone tell the difference?
Al White was seperated at birth with Nicholson....
And John Ferrugia....

Revenge of the mustache!

[ Parent ]
You beat me to it
I swear to god, I was scrolling down to make sure no one had already mentioned that. First thing I thought of was the picture was a mistake and they put Al White's up there.
[ Parent ]
LOL, I know, that's what I thought!

[ Parent ]
Jim Nicholson for U.S. Senate? | 53 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 22 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >

















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox