Posted on 12/19/2015 7:49:48 AM PST by conservativejoy
Last week I brought up the sticky question of how King Corn was investing big dollars in going after Ted Cruz over his rejection of government subsidies for ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard and the fact that Donald Trump had taken a very different position on the subject. In fact, he not only seemed to come out in favor of ethanol subsidies, but used that as a line of attack against Ted Cruz. (One of the only candidates to consistently be on the right, conservative side of this question.)
Well, I wasn't the only one to notice this. Two prominent conservative radio figures who both like Trump quite a bit noticed this as well and weighed in on it yesterday. First up, Rush Limbaugh.
"Now, Trump's not trying to portray himself as a conservative, either. So it's not a violation of that. But he's clearly making himself out to be anti-establishment, yet he joins them here. And then he dumped on Cruz for being opposed to ethanol? In other words, we as Republicans must support government subsidies to corn farmers in Iowa if we're to have any chance of winning Iowa? We've gotta stand for subsidies? And that, again, is not a conservative position.â€
Rush wasn't alone. Mark Levin chimed in with a very similar explanation of what's wrong with this picture.
America's ethanol requirement destroys the environment, damages car engines, increases gas prices and contributes to the starvation of the global poor. It's an unmitigated disaster on nearly every level. Can we really as conservatives say that the right side of this is to continue to support this? Based on what conservative principle theory? And if we oppose it, we're for Big Oil. What the hell does that mean? What does that mean , that our motives are bad?, So why did he go to Iowa, Trump, and promote this? So let me explain something, here's the phrase I want to use, 'populism without conservatism is liberalism.' Even more precisely, populism without conservatism is statism. The state, the federal government, should not be in the fuel making process. The federal government should be dictating that we take food out of people's mouths and put it into cars because the environmentalists want it. So why would we defend this, when in every respect it's a disaster?
Some of our readers , who are frequently more astute than I , have regularly pointed out something about Trump's strategy which is worth noting. Yes, he says some "outrageous" things from time to time, likely going way, way too far off the beaten path. But he does it for a reason. He gets people talking about the conservative position on subjects which are too often taboo. And once the conversation is begun, a surprising number of people wind up coming along, reluctantly at first, and the national conversation shifts. Look no further than the hold on Muslim immigration or the wall on the southern border for examples. I completely agree with this assessment, though I didn't see it as soon as some of you did.
This is not one of those cases. Arguing in favor of ethanol mandates and the RFS for the sake of a few more votes in Iowa and doing so simply to attack Ted Cruz (who probably stands closest to Trump on the conservative ship this cycle) is a shallow, callous move which doesn’t move the ball forward. He should rethink this position and get away from King Corn. That's one monarch who will never save you in the end.
I would guess that about 1% of the population cares about this issue, and then it’s way down their priority list.
I think all welfare for businesses is wrong.
It is, however, way, way, way down the list of things in America that require immediate attention.
Well, if it’s a given that it’s “flawed” — then we don’t need Rush or The Great One to weigh in.
Attacking Trump 24/7 is not going to endear his supporters to Cruz quite the opposite in fact. Your are hurting Cruz more then helping him with your constant Trump bashing.
Mountain out of a molehill.
If you campaign in Iowa you have to take the party line on supporting Ethanol as Iowa is a big corn growing state.
Doesn’t mean Trump totally buys this, it’s is just part of the ritual when you campaign there.
from the Washington Examiner, 5/29/13
Byron York: Ted Cruz opens up on immigration
pull quote:
“Two other Cruz amendments would have increased the number of high-skilled temporary workers and the number of total immigrants allowed into this country legally each year. “I am an unapologetic advocate of legal immigration,” Cruz told me...”
My point, as Ann Coulter has written, it is legal immigration that will destroy the nation. Ethanol subsidies will not.
I’m one of the 1% then. I have had THREE autos (two Hondas, on F150) that have had an O2 sensor fault that would troubleshoot out to a bad catalytic convertor in real life, but in fact has been caused by ethanol destroying the O2 sensors. I finally bought an OBDII CAN tools to reset the damned light....no change in performance, ever.
Add to that the fact I’ve had to rebuild the carburetors of EVERY 2 cycle engine I own, and it isn’t a usable fuel additive IMO. It’s a frigging subsidy and an ideological necessity to kill “big oil”......effing Democrats.
Ethanol is crap, but it’s not a deal breaker. If Hillary, or one of the RINOs get in, we’ll all be riding bicycles.
The ethanol subsidy can be handled later.
Illuminating Trump’s crappiness isn’t “attacking” him.
“If you campaign in Iowa you have to take the party line on supporting Ethanol as Iowa is a big corn growing state.”
******
Yet Cruz, who said the exact opposite, is ahead in the polls in Iowa. Getting away from being “bought” by money interests is what Trump is pushing all the time. Pandering to groups just sounds like the typical politician - saying whatever he thinks people WANT to hear not saying what he believes. But then again Trump is a big believer in Corporate Welfare as long as he’s one of the recipients.
Well Cruz, if you believe it, has the Evangelical Vote. So who knows. It’s one of those regional issues you take with a grain of salt.
If the very survival of the country depended on the subsidy issue, I’d be a Cruz supporter.
At least you can take politician Trumps' word on things he does not try to spin his way out of what he plainly said.
OK he for ethanol so what? Ethanol, unlike illegal immigration and illegal immigrates is not on anybody list of must solve problems. Neither is emanate domain.
Yawn. Does anyone know what time the Trump rally is today?
It is part of the ritual if you’re pandering. Cruz has always told Iowans that he does not support subsidies and why.
It is either a glimps onto Trump’s view of the role of government or shameless pandering. If it is pandering, then it is hard to tell what he really believes.
When Ethanol first came out, I thought it was stupid. They put 10% ethanol in the gas and we got 10% less gas mileage...no savings of gas at all.
But then I upgraded cars and this one does a better job of making use of the ethanol.
So maybe it saves gas. And “if” oil is a finite resource and ethanol is renewable. Then maybe it makes sense to use ethanol to stretch the oil supply.
And if it helps defund terrorist states that produce oil, so much the better.
Some have claimed there are better more efficient sources of ethanol than corn. And that should be looked at.
Some have claimed that too much gas is used in the production of ethanol, but I recently read that 0.05 gallons of gas are used per gallon of ethanol produced.
I still think we should build nuclear plants like crazy. And we should invest in physics research and alternative fuel research. But we shouldn’t fund mass production until research shows it’s reasonably viable. We should never be dependent on foreign countries for energy.
I could probably fill a pick up bed full of my engines ruined by alky in fuel. Fuel lines, water, corrosion, carburetors, injectors; I wish whoever dreamed this up goes straight to hell.
I don’t really care who your candidate is, or how bad you might think the other candidates are compared to yours, but all this nit picking on here is not helping any of us to vet these candidates...
Was it done with obuma? I don’t know, I stayed off this site pretty much because of the McCain mess and especially after what they did with Palin...
Most of us lived thru the Clinton years, I have a lot of information on them, him and her...a lot has been scrubbed...
We need to come together right now and look at each candidate as a President...how is he/she going to get the respect of the House, Senate, how much corruption is there in those ‘hallowed halls’ of Congress? Are these people we elect to make our rules and laws, that we send there to protect Americans, are they being ‘bought’ off or being ‘blackmailed’ by super pacs; lobbyists; media; other countries perhaps....we need to know these things...
Yes I’m a Trump supporter, and sometimes I get angry at the things I read, but if there is any little piece that I question, I research...and as far as I know, that man has been vetted a lot more than most...I wonder when they are going to tell us how many spoons he eats his soup with...
If you vet your candidate, and go back, I use duckduckgo because you can get better information there and it doesn’t track you...vet him/her and read, no you probably won’t like some of what you read, I didn’t at first on some of the candidates, thought better of them...but open up and really look and then instead of throwing out insults, and I’m guilty of that also, throw out information...facts...you’ll feel better and your candidate will look better in other peoples eyes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.