Posted on 03/08/2015 6:45:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It is now conventional wisdom that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a first-tier candidate, if not the frontrunner, for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. It is just as much a given that Senator Ted Cruz is not regarded as likely to win the nomination. The reasons why this is so were on display yesterday at the Iowa Ag Summit, a cattle call event that brought leading politicians from both parties to Des Moines to hawk their wares to farm-state voters. As in the past, the agriculture industry and political observers were interested to see which of the potential candidates would show their obeisance to corn farmers by supporting ethanol subsidies and, in particular, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that mandates its use in gasoline. Though Walker has opposed the RFS in the past, as Politico noted, this year he acted like the Iowa frontrunner the polls tell us he is and backed it. By contrast, Cruz launched a frontal attack on it. It’s not clear that such a stand is as sure a guarantee of political death as it has been in the past. But these two stands as well as Jeb Bush’s more equivocal approach provide us with a chance to see how the crucible of principle works these days in Iowa as the rest of the country pays close attention.
Given that recent history tells us that winning Iowa requires a candidate to support the ethanol boondoggle that helps support corn farmers, it’s hard to quarrel with Walker’s decision. Walker needs to win Iowa and he feels he can’t afford to antagonize the farmers and the Ag industry groups that will pour millions into the GOP caucus fight to support candidates that back ethanol and oppose those who don’t. Walker is a man who has taken chances in his political life, taking on the unions and left-wing special interests in Wisconsin and winning fights that made him a conservative folk hero. But he sees no great benefit to playing the same game with Iowa farmers. He played it safe at the Ag Summit.
By contrast, Cruz knows that if he is to assume leadership of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, it won’t be by playing it safe. Instead, he chose to take on the ethanol/corn interests head on saying he was there to “tell them the truth.” There was no hedging his bets or resort to nuance. He said he’s against corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers. Ethanol and the RFS are exactly that and he opposes them.
Does that doom him in Iowa? Maybe. But, then again, maybe not. Corn may be king in Iowa but not everyone who votes in the GOP caucus is looking to the federal government for a handout or hoping that government policies will keep pushing up the value of their land. Moreover, there is a case to be made that what voters want is principle rather than pandering. With many conservatives who talk a good game about small government nevertheless falling over themselves to make an exception for ethanol in order to win in Iowa, Cruz may be able to stand out as the candidate who isn’t willing to sell out.
It also presents an interesting contrast to Bush’s belief that he, too, won’t pander in order to win the nomination. Yesterday in Iowa, the former Florida governor reiterated his support for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens as well as his continued backing for the Common Core education standards. That’s consistent with his theory that seems to hold that in order to win in November 2016, he’s going to have to stand up to his party’s base on issues where he disagrees with it. But he wasn’t willing to extend that principle to ethanol. On that issue, he was all nuance yesterday, floating ideas about eventually phasing out the RFS “somewhere in the future.”
I believe it’s a mistake to think that any candidate can run against his party’s base and win its nomination, though Bush has an opportunity to prove me wrong. But I think it’s hard to take that sort of stance seriously when the same candidate is unwilling to be just as tough on a local GOP constituency whose desires for subsidies runs afoul of the party’s basic principles about the role government in the economy.
Walker appears to have made a powerful impression on the audience in Des Moines yesterday, taking shots at Jeb Bush for having “inherited fame and fortune” and signaling farmers that he will do their bidding. That may ensure that he will hold onto his current lead and follow in the footsteps of past ethanol appeasers like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney and do well in the first-in-the-nation caucus.
It’s a long, hard slog to next winter but if Walker is to be knocked off, I doubt that Bush’s odd combination of challenging the party core on hot-button issues while folding on ethanol will do the trick. Cruz may still be a long shot but I think he’s right in thinking that the only way for him to prevail is to slay all the sacred cows and not just those in states other than Iowa. As much as his well-earned image as an uncompromising zealot may make him an unlikely nominee, sticking to his guns on even this Iowa litmus test will make an interesting experiment in modern politics. Though Cruz is widely accused of debasing our political culture with his take-no-prisoners style, he may actually be enhancing it by giving us an example of what it means to stand on principle. And he may do himself no harm in the process.
I think Cruz has predictably done the right thing.
There is no really intellectually consistent way to defend Ethanol.
It is ridiculous to raise grocery prices for Americans so we can create a less efficient fuel source out of corn.
I am really pleased he had the courage to do this. I think it will play well and it is a first hard step to developing an intellectually consistent strategy for conservatives that can win.
I agree with Cruz’s position on this. Plus, in the overall picture, it’s a minor issue. So, if you’re going to be positioned as a market conservative, it’s a good issue to establish oneself with. Not much to lose and a differentiating position.
America could use some unvarnished truth, ‘fairness’ that is actually fair, and a little consistent honesty.
Iowa has built a corn mountain and people are afraid that their ethanol con job will be figured out.
Ted Cruz for President in 2016.
Having Iowa as our kickoff game is a really bad idea, tradition or not.
They were +6 for Baraq in 2012.
We need to adopt a system that front loads states that vote Republican in POTUS elections. No blue wall states in the first 10 and maybe first 20.
I read earlier today that Cruz’s honest and straight forward talk was well received by the Iowa audience.
THIS.
Cruz is the ONE that sounded conservative re Iowa corn and the extortion of American gasoline consumers.
Bush won’t really “win
“ the nomination but he will get the nomination. It is his turn. That’s how Republicans do it.
He clearly said the subsidies should be phased out over time.
Yet the beltway conservative media and GOP insiders are promoting this lie to split the conservative base and grease the skids for Jebbers.
Thanks for the clarification.
Good for Cruz. Not sure what that’s going to do in Iowa, but Iowa ain’t what it used to be either.
Walker I don’t trust to begin with, and pandering makes it worse.
My two cents.
I’m raising $2 million to keep him from it.
How many times is this “Walker supports ethanol!” crap is going to get posted?
He clearly said the subsidies should be phased out over time.
Yet the beltway conservative media and GOP insiders are promoting this lie to split the conservative base and grease the skids for Jebbers.
BINGO!!
If conservatives aren't going to unite behind Walker, a proven conservative who is thoroughly vetted and has won 3 elections in 4 years just because he's not going to snap his fingers and abolish RFS right away, then we might as well coronate Jeb, because no candidate has the purity of Ivory soap.
You betcha.
Walker-Cruz 2016
No split there because I do not believe Cruz supporters would walk away from that.
Here is what the Cruz and Walker supporters are smart enough to see...
That would take care of 2016 and 2020.
Then Cruz-xxxxx 2024
That takes care of 2024 and 2028.
Ethanol and the RFS along with bammy don't-care and a long string of socialist communist bs will die the slow and unnatural death they all so richly deserve.
.
“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.”
— Frederic Bastiat, the Law, 1850
“America could use some unvarnished truth, ‘fairness’ that is actually fair, and a little consistent honesty.”
It is the very only way out of $20 trillion debt. And it may as well happen now than later, when the panderers, Boehner, McConnel, Walker get us further into it.
And forget it if the dems get in, either Bush, Hillary or Warren.
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.