Ethanol is a big government boondoogle and he knows it, as a conservative he has no need to couch that fact in any way.
I agree, but here’s the thing. First, Walker needs to do well in Iowa and Iowa is economically tied to the ethanol boondoggle.
The problem with some boondoggles is they’re not one-off’s, they become long-term and people build mini-economies around them. When faced with a situation like that some will just say cut the cord and let the chips fall where they may.
But others will look at the upheaval that will be caused by cutting the cord immediately and will instead suggest a phased withdrawal so that people have time to plan for it and aren’t left holding the bag. Granted, those affected will also lobby hard for a reversal of the decision, which is why there are so many “cut the cord” types.
My understanding is that Walker said they would have to be removed eventually. He’s pandering, yes, but pandering is an essential tool in a politician’s toolbox. I don’t like it being used, but I’ll admit that Walker is quite skilled at using it. (Obama, of course, was the best ever at pandering; everyone listening to one his campaign speeches thought he was coming down on their side, regardless what side that might be. That was pandering without equal.)
In this case, those Iowans dependent on ethanol heard that their livelihoods wouldn’t be suddenly cut out from under them, while others heard that the ethanol subsidy had to go, eventually. My guess is that, under a President Walker, it wouldn’t last his first full term of office, and I could live with that.
“I did not appreciate Walker flipping on ethanol for his audience. It’s a bad sign.”
So for you, the biggest matter to consider for a presidential candidate is ETHANOL. You will vote yea or nay on the ethanol question. How about sh*tpaper? Shouldn’t we consider how many pieces of TP we get to wipe our butts? Let’s tally presidential candidates on how many rolls of TP we get.