Paul R. Nelson Announces Official Candidacy
By
I wanted to give an update of the official announcement of Paul R. Nelson for the candidacy for the United States Congress for the district of Wisconsin last Monday evening that I witnessed.
Paul has spend most of his life in this district. He attended Somerset High School. After graduating he felt compelled to serve his country by joining the US Marine Corps. His tour of duty lasted from 1984 to 1988. After serving he settled in Western Wisconsin near Woodville where he has lived ever since. He is married to Janis and has 4 children. He feels once again compelled to server the country again, as district three Congressman.
Paul feels that the recent “Kelo Decision” was wrong and will work on restoring property rights. Paul is aware of Wisconsin as one of the most heavily taxes states in the country. He states that the tax burden is a detriment to working families, farmers, and retirees.
Mr Nelson wants to control spending and promises to work with other members of Congress and the President to cut spending, eliminate wasteful projects and streamline our massive government bureaucracy.
Paul is committed to working on measures what will get our country started on the road to energy independence through the development of new fuel sources as well as ethanol and bio diesel.
Paul is a believer in the concept of individual liberties set forth in the US Constitution and will go to Washington to protect the freedoms that the great men and women of our country have died for.
Mr. Nelson will work tirelessly to ensure that the definition of marriage remains a union of one man and one woman and will work on the initiative that will keep our families strong.
Finally his mission in Congress is to focus on preserving our individual liberties and representing the concerns of people in Western Wisconsin.
No related posts.
Well, now here is my commentary. Just about anyone is better than Ron Kind. Kind has been entrenched for 6 terms. In his latest campaign he ran against our current Wisconsin Majority Senate leader, Dale Schultz. The key to Ron Kind’s success has been that he has 7 universities in the 3rd district. Paul will need to hammer these universities hard. If he can’t dent this demographic he can’t win.
I agree with most of the positions that I heard Monday evening. However, I was disappointed in one in particular. That is the subsidization of corn for bio diesel and ethanol. Much has been said about this topic on this blog and the math just does not add up. The ingenuity, resourcefulness, invention, and entrepreneurship of the nations energy policies have been hijacked for over 25 years by the anti-capitalists and environmentalists. The dirty secret you never hear is that only 16% of our oil is from the middle east. Another is that is has never been about the quantity of oil, it’s the refining capacity. There hasn’t been an oil refinery built in the United States in over 25 years. The same is true of a nuclear plant. What will help? Open drilling, smart drilling, up. The technology has increased 10 fold. The footprint’s needed to bring up oil have been reduced by 9000% over the rigs from the 60′s. The area that would be effected in the arctic in Alaska would be akin to a grain of sand in your 100 foot driveway. Other non-subsidized solutions could be helping companies stager working hours so their employees are not all driving during peak hours as well as car-pooling. Additionally, incentives that would allow companies to let their employees work from home could be developed. Technology has increased so much that for many jobs, an employee could do it from home. Conservation incentives don’t cost tax dollars, bio diesel and ethanol do.
I did talk to quite a few of the attendees at the gathering. Many were family and friends. There were however over 120 people. It does take time to create name recognition and Paul has a great early start. I was concerned that after talking with some of his staff that they were not very knowledgeable about blogs. This is the new media and to make a dent in the colleges he will have to tap it. Take a look at Scott Walkers site.
It also is not out of the realm of possibility that another Republican challenger may come forth and run against him in a primary. Only time will tell. Paul R. Nelson is no career politician and this is good. However, this lack of experience could be good, or it could be bad. Right now, he is the front runner as far as I’m concerned. He does have some time to adjust his energy policy as well as hammer Ron Kind.
Mr. Nelson seems like a pretty good guy, but he needs to learn one lesson from Scott McCallum. McCallum tried to ride the fence and placate the other side. He went as far as to advocate for 4 year old kindergarten to try and win the teacher’s vote. Mr. Nelson needs to be specific about where he wants to cut the bloated Federal budget, not just talk about limited government. Right now he sounds o.k., but he’s not going to win this conservative’s vote unless he firms up his stance and shows a little more backbone.
First of all let me say that what is to follow might be viewed as a little reactionary and undoubtedly rambling. Some might say it is an unfair criticism of an otherwise good guy who is, after all, running on the GOP ticket. A former Marine for God’s sake. Well, my days of simply supporting whoever flys the GOP flag are long gone – military background or not. We need special people in Washington, people who go with a mission to make it smaller and then come home with the job done. People who wear the philosophy of The Founders on their shirt, not in a box to be pulled out when it’s expedient. We do not need another politician who simply is looking for a “career in Washington.” So, here goes and with all due respect to those who attended the gathering alluded to by admin and cheered wildly I am sorry if I don’t share your enthusiasm.
Despite the garage logic that is hard to argue with, we still see politicians (and would-be politicians) running the ethanol flag up their campaign poles. Most recently, Paul Nelson (the local real estate salesman who for some reason thinks he can unseat Ron Kind), who is quoted as saying: “We’ve made vast improvements in the production of ethanol, and the cost effectiveness is nearly 200 percent more than that of gasoline — with bio-diesel it’s about 300 percent.” The fact is, the rosiest numbers I have found (from USDA sources) show a positive net energy gain somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 . Which means, depending on how you scrub the numbers, you can potentially get 25 to 30 percent more energy out for the energy put into the process. Then there is research at Cornell and Berkley indicating a net energy loss. To suggest that this is 200 percent better than gasoline is, well, irrational.
If ethanol were 200 percent more cost effective than gasoline we would have been running our cars on ethanol long ago and all of north America and most of tillable Canada would be awash in corn fields – with the effect on the environment 1000-fold worse than gasoline could ever be…. And you know what? There would be a Paul Nelson advocating for oil company subsidies rather than corn…just to get elected, and I find it deeply troubling.
.
Interestingly, no specific research was attributed to Nelson’s assurances in the HHSO article I read but you can bet your bottom corn cob that IF he actually read a complete research study (which I seriously doubt, he probably read an article about a research study) it was most likely sponsored by the USDA, or published in some siren beholdin to the givernment’s farm subsidy system. Mr. Nelson is simply trying to buy farm votes when he should be advocating for the elimination of all farm subsidies as a matter of basic economics and national security. As a former military man, it is stunning. Well, buying farm votes didn’t work for Dale Schultz and it won’t work for Paul Nelson – sorry Paul, but if you are going to buy into more farm socialism then you are implying that statist redistribution is OK elsewhere too – who and when will you sell out to once you get to Washington to start your new “career” would depend on…?
.
Folks, as admin states, we discussed this ethanol matter fairly thoroughly out here already so I am not going to rehash all the logic but suffice it to say that giving tax subsidies to farmers is a bad idea to being with and is a direct threat to our national security, but to do it to entice farmers to produce more corn which is then converted to sugar, and then converted to ethanol, is simply a bad idea on top of an already bad idea. And to suggest that this is “200 percent more cost effective” than gasoline is an insult to our intelligence. I guess basic science and macro economics are not required sections in the real estate licensing examination. The laws of physics, thermodynamics being the specific area, do not end at the farmhouse gate but this is precisely what politicians of Mr. Nelson’s stripe would have you believe. Ron Kind can be unseated, but it isn’t going to happen by following the path Nelson appears to have taken… Whoever is advising him should be fired yesterday.
.
I did appreciate the comment in the article regarding the recent hurricane redistribution. Nelson suggested, according to the article, that cuts in other parts of the budget should be used to offset amounts spent in the gulf coast region – I agree. But that’s not novel, Tom Coburn from Oklahoma was way ahead on this one so Nelson is hardly breaking fresh ground here.. Nevertheless, I applaud Mr. Nelson on this – the question he should be asking is “where is the sacrifice from the federal budget when Americans of every stripe are sacrificing to help?” With Hurricane Rita bearing down on Galveston, Senator Coburn’s wise counsel is even more relevant.
.
In general terms, what Mr. Nelson should be touting is smaller and less intrusive government, lower taxation and more individual liberty – and be able to back it up with specific proposals to accomplish all three. Those are the tenets of the Republican party – not right to life, farm subsidies, or even the worn out family values theme. This is not to argue that two of the three above are not important but the opposition can claim them just as easily…I will bet you Ron Kind can argue he is just as “family values” oriented as the next guy… sure, you and I won’t buy it but many will. Furthermore, when it comes to “protecting the family farm” who better than a Democrat! Good grief.
.
Unfortunately we keep seeing congressional candidate after candidate who is really nothing more than democrat-in-disguise who happens to hold a particular single issue view appealing to a certain voting block within the GOP. Hey, he might be all wet on farm subsidies and non-committal on what he would actually cut out of the government, but at least he’s pro-life and served in the military. It’s sad, but it’s true that this is, for many on the GOP side of the ledger, enough. Not for me.
On specific policy issues, Nelson should be advocating for the elimination of the Department of Education, the devolution of our farm subsidy system, an examination of a return to the gold standard (thereby eliminating the Federal Reserve System), an elimination of the IRS as we know it to be replaced by a flat and fair tax system. Locally, instead of pandering to the farmers and the religious right, he should be advocating the expansion of our electrical power generating capacity through nuclear power, creating a modern transportation system in Western Wisconsin by pushing hard for an electrified high speed rail through Western Wisconsin spearheaded by private capital, support for universal education tax credits at the state level, and be demanding (not just suggesting) budget offsets for tax money being routed to the gulf coast. Those will get headlines and attention, especially Ron Kind’s. Which will lead to a series of serious debates, which is the only way to beat Ron Kind – but this is not what I see. I didn’t read anything of the sort in the HHSO article.
The lesson of 3rd District Congressional politics is that GOP nice guys finish last. The record of some very nice people who lost is amazing. The last elected GOP Congressman from the 3rd District was Steve Gunderson. And were it not for the Sunday edition of the New York Times he would have continued to live his “alternate lifestyle” completely unbeknownst and unannounced to his constituents back here in Wisconsin. I am not suggesting the GOP needs to nominate a homosexual to run against Kind, but the political reality of having seven UW campuses in the District requires more than a family values platform – you have to challenge the statist status quo. If all Paul Nelson represents is nothing more than a right to life, farm subsidy, ex-Marine Republicrat he will lose by a greater margin than Dale (we need more money for education) Schultz lost last time.
Frankly, from what I read, Paul Nelson is a very nice guy who will likely finish last unless he gets a few lessons in economics, thermodynamics, the politics of the 3rd District, The U.S. Constitution, and the theory and philosophy of The Founders – unfortunately, those are prerequisites that cannot be learned on the job and should have been oozing from him the other night and clearly reiterated in the paper.
The yawn factor comes into play with each politician who gives the standard “appeal to the crowd” kind of speech. Generally, a speaker will know his/her audience and will be able to make some educated assumptions about the audience demeanor and simply pander to the audience without having to worry about some tough questions being lobbed at them. What Nelson will need to do is take risks and get out to those college campuses and find out what matters most to those people, ask them questions, and not be fearful of being honest.
However, some issues have more weight than others. No matter what issue is important to you, with abortion, human embryonic stem cell extermination, euthanasia and human cloning, the “right to life” has been denied to millions of American citizens since 1973; and if you’re not alive to even have an issue, then the “issue” point is moot. In other words, you must be alive to have an issue to begin with. You can’t worry about eminent domain if you’re dead; you can’t worry about freedom if you’re dead; and you can’t worry about subsidies of any kind if you’re dead.
So we’ve established that Nelson doesn’t appear to be a moral degenerate, unlike established moral degenerate Ron Kind. Without a moral foundation, every other issue is built on a sandy foundation and will crumble into a liberal left abyss. Anyone who can get beyond the character flaw of moral degeneracy or acceptance of killing innocent human life would be the same kind of person who would say that Hitler was a genocidal maniac, but he sure knew how to have intellectually stimulating conversations and kept the tax rate low, so by having lower taxes I can overlook the genocidal maniac part of Hitler. Thankfully, we’ve established that Nelson is pro-life, pro-family, so we can move onto whatever issue is important to the undecided voters because a moral foundation based on the 10 Commandments has been established.
The Leadership Institute will tell you that there’s 30% of the voting population that always votes GOP, and 30% that always votes DNC. Between 8-10% are Independent, and 10% don’t vote, don’t care, etc., (give or take a few percentage points here and there). Based on those assumptions, a politician only has about 15-20% of the voting population he/she needs to reach with a message, and that 15-20% undecided voter population will NOT be reached by staying safely ensconced by speaking to like-minded audiences. We know that most of the readers and doctor bloggers of this blog site are more enlightened than the 15-20% voting population that a non-incumbent candidate will need to reach. No matter what my personal issue is, my goal is to find out what the undecided voter’s most important issue is. You only have a limited amount of time to reach that person (less than 2 minutes—think how commercials are packaged). By personalizing this election to what that undecided voter’s issue is, you have now cared about that undecided voter enough to find out what is important to them. No matter what their most important issue is, do not try to convert or debate that person into making your cause their cause. All you need to do is establish that this person is voting for or is a potential voter for your candidate based on what matters most to them. Never stray from THEIR issue.
It doesn’t matter how many issues that you think may factor into your decision on whom to vote for, it must boil down to one issue that tips the scale; and you have to decide what that issue is and get to that candidate to find out if he/she agrees with you. Then you work tirelessly to find like-minded individuals with the sole intent to get “your” candidate elected—no matter what issue is most important to the undecided voter.
Thank you ChoosingLife, You have put a perspective that we all wrestle with. What is the most important issue of potential candidates and how will they vote? Unfortunately, not all issues are 100% aligned with a candidate nor are there many candidates that align with all ones views and morals. It’s also one of the reasons a lot of us hate politics. When it comes down to it though, we will most likely vote for the Party that most aligns their platform with their own beliefs. We have been inundated with a brand of GOP that is not much different than the lefty’s and I think you are seeing this retribution, not only from followers of this blog but throughout the state.
Your comments also more than ever put an eyeglass into the next supreme court judge that President Bush will nominate. Know that any criticism of Mr. Nelson is not advocating the lefts view of the issues so important to you. It is also an important issue for those of us who follow this blog.
Clarification and mea culpa:
Any criticism or accolade of any candidate is welcome, because if we can’t criticize or praise, that means we’ve already lost our First Amendment Rights, and those rights to speak out on any issue are tenuous, at best, in our life and times. At all times, we must try to root out hypocrisy, and this especially goes for yours truly. If you go to the root of moral bankruptcy, you will find hypocrisy reigns supreme—no matter the candidate party label. At all costs, we must check ourselves for that little kink in any Declarationist armor that the Left is looking for, and they will find that kink, if it’s there, as we find their weaknesses. Let’s identify those undecided voters who will vote for “our” candidate, and if they would rather vote for the opponent, then we make sure we get to the polls, along with other like-minded voters. Then our candidate will have a chance, whomever he/she may be.
This is getting to be quite an interesting conversation. I would respectfully disagree with choosinglife. Who among us would want to be alive in a concentration camp during WWII? Who among us would want to be alive in the torture chambers of Iraq, before the liberation? Freedom from an oppressive government is my number one objective. I want a congressman who is going to reduce the size of government, thereby increasing my individual freedom and liberty. Mr. Nelson, as nice as he seems, hasn’t told me how he’s going to do that- yet. He still has time.
“This is one of those trifling benefits which, when confurred at the moment of acute need, touches the heart and taps the unfailing springs of human gratitude….” In this case, thank you choosinglife and taxboy. You are quite right in the first level analysis of any candidate, are they morally bankrupt? Have they a core belief to which they measure all issues? And thank you taxboy, you too sir are precise in your analysis. My earlier rambling, caffeine induced rant, was a reflection of my frustration with the posturing I see all too often from candidates. We want to see men and women who run for office who see man as heroic characters who try first and foremost to instill a Reaganesque sense of our own individual capabilities and not our human frailties… Challenge us to be independent, breath and speak The Founders dream – they are rare birds indeed and perhaps it is too much to ask of anyone.
Oh, and one other thing before I leave this topic. Mr. Nelson has the yo-know-whats to at least run, so I give him credit for that and tip my hat. I will not, however, retreat from pushing the envelope of individual freedom and liberty..
Though “choosinglife makes a somewhat valid point of political strategy, there is a crack which is starting to widen beneath the surface. The problem for the Republican Party and candidates like Paul Nelson is evident everyday here Ontheborderline. It is the philosophical discussion which centers around one basic question: Do you believe in limited government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and the sovereignty of the individual? It is becoming quite apparent that many of our Republican officials and candidates do not. They believe that government is inherently good and if the cause is “right” then the hell with the Constitution and the debt which is incurred during the process. The only debate seems to be over how to win which is void of any philosophical grounding. Therefore any excuse can be fabricated for government redistribution of one sort or another in order to solicit the votes of the citizenry. The difference is the Republicans rely on the counterfeiting of the Federal Reserve and state bonding, while the Democrats rely on the armed theft of the taxpayers to accomplish their means. It is the same whore in a different dress.
The point is that there are very few who are willing to ask under what principle of liberty and under what section of the Constitution is it found that allows for government to intervene in our daily lives. Under what articles of the Constitution which is the guiding document for the powers the citizens allocate to the government is it found for example that government controls education? What ignorance overcomes an individual who states they are for limited government but does not see the danger in government controlling the mind of innocent children. Walter Williams had an excellent piece on this theme of where is it to be found in the Constitution. see story
An individual truly grounded in the principles of limited government and individual sovereignty realizes the battle is over the culture and not the next election. As Lenin stated long ago, he would rather win over the culture than an election. For when you win the culture in the end you win everything. An individual grounded in the republican [small r] form of government has no problem in debating so –called rights issues [see Spirit’s Corner posted last night]. However an individual who may be opposed to abortion and gay marriage may not hold a deep understanding of the principles of limited government. They become a pragmatist of their own self with no anchor to ground them during a fierce debate. Unfortunately, this is all too often the choices we are faced with our political candidates.
As any good debater will tell you, it’s not the facts you have or the anticipated issues you’ll encounter in a debate (although these are important), it’s the practice! This blog provides spirited debating practice for real-life issues that encounter us every day.
As true Declarationists know, the Declaration of Independence constructionists and signers were wise enough and had enough foresight to know that assumptions these inspired men had of their country should be put into writing. Therefore, they particularly chose the right to “life” to be listed Number 1 before “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They knew the most important right must be listed first in the list of unalienable rights guaranteed by our Creator. If those wise men knew that an assumption to the right to life should be put into writing for all time, shouldn’t we assume the same? They recognized the right to “life” as imperative in order to pursue liberty and happiness. If we really want to continue the God-given legacy these men gave to us, the least we can do is not bypass that very first unalienable right to life.
There is also a lesser-known clause in the Declaration of Independence regarding a government that is destructing the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”: “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–…” Are we at this point in this country’s history? I would say Yes—we destroy life, and I’m sure people will say liberty and happiness are being destroyed as envisioned by the Declaration of Independence signers. The experts on this blog should have pity on this publk-skrewel-egkukated blogger if I am incorrect, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
If you really want to leave radical feminists (male and female) speechless, tell them this: Did you know the early feminists – people like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft – were pro-life? And walk away.
One of the easiest ways to stop short any ranting and raving from radical feminists is tell them that you believe in women’s rights—born and waiting to be born. And, now that you’re thinking of it, you believe in men’s rights—born and waiting to be born. Leave ‘em wanting to know more!
He has to take Lacrosse if he is to win.With all the commie-never-had a-job- students-in the wash,good luck! Mr Kind has not been a friend to people who hold dear the Constitution.conn
This is all fascinating stuff to read. I hope the high schoolers read this blog, because they would learn more about our constitution here than they do in school. The bottom line for me is that Paul R. Nelson needs to define himself in a way that separates himself from Ron Kind and creates a CLEAR difference. Pushing additional farm subsidies is not going to do it. Kind can kiss up to the farmers with the best of them. Certainly the right to life issue is an important area as shown here by choosinglife, but is it enough? I don’t think so. This issue, while important to a good many constituents doesn’t carry much weight with the many college students that come out to support their favorite commy Mr. Kind. So what is it? He needs to be bold and specific with his proposals to cut spending in Washington to put Kind on the defensive. The first cut, as mentioned here, would be the elimination of the Department of Education. Will he get any teachers’ votes with that position, probably not, but he’s not going to get them anyway. Next up is the elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If these t.v. stations and radio stations can’t survive like the rest, then good riddance. I’m sure many more areas need elimination, but there is a good start. These college students need to learn from Paul R. Nelson that their future is being ruined by excessive taxes, government run education, and a corrupt government. Then he’ll have a chance.
Luke rocks.I am a product of public school in Madison Wi begining in 1970 and ending in 1983,the rest I paid for.Until I was 19 years old and paying taxes I had no clue.Then i I read the bill of rights and the Constitution.Note this was not covered in the peoples republic of Madison’s public schools,but I could identify 6 forms of vd and knew gay,minority and wiccan people were oppressed by the “Man”.This blog should be required reading for the young skulls full of mush at HHS.I have submitted in writing and email over 30 letters to mr kind.I always recieve a form letter telling me how “in touch” with me he is.That is as welcome as a priest at a boy scout camp out.Later,conn
it’s been really good to read these comments (even if they are five and a half months old) because right now I’m busting my butt trying to get Nelson elected. I was somewhat skeptical after attending his announcement as well, as I was looking for some of the details that many people here wanted to see. Having known him on a more personal level, I have absolutely no problem supporting him. (And I’m someone who’s accused of being borderline Libertarian.) yeah, I think Ron Kind has hurt us way more than helped, and just about anyone is better. But the whole “anyone but” strategy is what killed the Dems. against Bush last year, and is a wrong strategy. You have to not only be against the opponent, but you must also be for the guy you support. I believe that Nelson is a true conservative. I think he’s gotten better at communicating that over the course of the campaign, and will continue to get better at it. The fact is, he’s not a politician, has never held public office, and is still learning the whole “game” of politics, which I think he hates as much as the rest of us.
I might also point out that he has never supported a government mandate on ethanol. Yes, he’d like to see advancements made in ethanol. It’s something that concerned me though, and has concerned others, and he has made it clear that while he supports measures to encourage advancement of technology that will further ethanol and bio-diesel production, he has never supported a government mandate on ethanol.
But, that’s my personal take, and that’s it. If you really want to know what he thinks, ask him. He’s a pretty personable guy.