|
 |
Posted on 03/09/2015 8:38:11 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., was speaking to Iowa farmers over the weekend and, as the Washington Examiner's Rebecca Berg reported, he shifted his position on ending the mandate that fuel contain ethanol.
Though he previously indicated opposition to the mandate, now visiting Iowa as a likely presidential candidate, Walker said, "It's something I'm willing to go forward on, continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard." The fact that he later floated the possibility of phasing it out didn't help the damage that was done to his reputation.
The ethanol mandate has little rationale beyond being a big government regulatory handout to farmers, many of whom happen to reside in a state with the first presidential nominating contest.
Walker's move not only was a deep disappointment to economic conservatives who, based on his record in Wisconsin, see him as a principled supporter of limited government, it also undermines one of the central rationales of his candidacy.
The governor vaulted to the top of Republican presidential pack based on his record of fighting special interests, particularly public sector unions. The logic of his candidacy is if he was willing to stand up for what he thinks is right — in the face of an organized campaign to destroy him by the national Left — then he can do so on a larger stage.
The concept of "political courage" was a theme of his 2012 recall election in Wisconsin, and this time around, he's trying to highlight this character trait as a way to make up for his lack of experience with national and foreign policy issues.
"If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world," Walker said at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month in response to a question about the Islamic State.
Though it was clumsily worded, the message he was attempting to send was that even though it may take him some time to get better up to speed on international affairs, he's demonstrated the character to be commander in chief.
Along these lines, my colleague Byron York also quoted Walker at a Club for Growth conference last month as saying, "Foreign policy is something that's not just about having a Ph.D or talking to Ph.Ds. It's about leadership."
Despite his well-deserved reputation for bold leadership in Wisconsin, on the campaign trail so far, Walker has started to become more defined by his pandering.
The comments to Iowa farmers come in the wake of his reversal on immigration and his muddled answers on the Export-Import Bank, Department of Homeland Security funding and other issues. His goal seems to be to avoid offending anybody. True, this, to some extent, is to be expected in any presidential campaign.
But if one of the arguments Walker is going to make to those who say he isn't ready for the international stage is that, like Ronald Reagan before him, he's a governor with strong convictions, he's going to have to take stands that are unpopular among some audiences. And the fuel standard seems like an easy one.Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke at the same conference, but he came out against the standard. "There are a lot of politicians who are going to tell you whatever you want to hear," Cruz said. "I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person here who's been disappointed with politicians in Washington, who's tired of people blowing smoke."
Whatever support Walker may have lost among the Iowa agricultural community by taking a similar line, he would have gained respect among economic conservatives and reinforced his Image of somebody willing to fight special interests.
To turn his own argument against him: If Walker can't stand up to Iowans, how will he stand up to the Islamic State?
|
|
I don’t know what you do as a Conservative in Iowa (hoping to get elected, that is)
You go against ethanol and you are cooked. It’s the functional equivalent of social security to Iowa. Sad but true.
OK ... does corn for ethenol pay more than corn for flakes, or oil, or syrup ?
In my opinion, the ethanol mandate is an example, albeit a small example, of the tyranny of the federal government. There is no longer any valid justification for ethanol - none - except it being a payout to the corn farmers of Iowa.
We still don't really know who Scott Walker is. I hope he doesn't start making decisions based on what political advisors tell him will increase his support.
I am still trying to keep an open and positive mind to him. But he is making it difficult.
Ethanol use in engines as an additive is a personal effrontery to me, its having caused me so much trouble with my small engines and O2 sensors on 4 vehicles thus far. To me, pandering to a bunch of Iowa farmers and processors really gets my goat.
It isn’t needed; if it were worth using in gas, it should stand on its merits without subsidy; and we damn well cannot afford to let good edible foodstock be pissed away on political fancy and pandering.
I think Walker has peaked. We may be looking at another Herman Cain here.
Walker is severely compassionately conservative.
In my opinion the title of this article is extreme hyperbole.
That being said, there is a point here about not pandering to an electoral group because you want their votes.
“Supporting government funding of a stadium was not a nod to smaller government.”
I thought the stadium funding was to come from taxes on the players?
It’s called MAD.. Mutual Assured Destruction.
The politics and whack science of today led us down this path.
Who is fit to govern?
Anyone from the beltway is highly suspect.
Join the crowd, Scott.
It’s OK, we have ouchless ObamaCare band-aids.
Generally speaking the answer is No. It pays about the same.
So now we have a Conservative newspaper (Wash Examiner) joining the liberals in trying to take Walker down early. It isn’t going to work.
I think the point is that the gov’t isn’t creating an artificial demand for those other products,
and the free market would direct the use of the land to other products than corn.
Why is ethanol even a political spur ?
So now the idiot who wrote this article is comparing America’s farmers to ISIS terrorists. Give me a break.
This is not a question of “standing up” to violent terrorists. This is a small government program that will continue regardless of what Gov. Walker says or does.
It's not that it pays more, it's that it's a whole different market for corn. According to iowacorn.org, 47% of Iowa corn goes into ethanol production.
And yet Ted Cruz had no problems standing with his long held opposition to ethanol. Do we want a candidate who changes his position merely because he thinks it's the popular thing to do? Or do we want a candidate who will stick to his guns regardless of audience?
Farmers have overproduced corn and now the price is low. If too many plant corn this year, the price will go lower.
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.