Posted on 03/10/2015 1:32:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Iowa does not form a candidate's character as much as it reveals it. So far, this sunlight is not flattering for Scott Walker.
Walker, the second-term governor of Wisconsin, joined the parade of GOP presidential hopefuls last weekend at the Iowa Ag Summit, where ethanol mogul and GOP moneyman Bruce Rastetter asked candidates to pledge allegiance to the ethanol mandate and the wind tax credit.
The ethanol mandate is among the least defensible corporate-welfare boondoggles Washington has created (the sugar program, and the Export-Import Bank round out the unholy trinity). It forces drivers to put corn alcohol in their cars by forcing refiners to blend the stuff with real gasoline.
Ethanol is far less efficient than gasoline. It increases food prices by taking up cropland that could go to other crops. It makes animal feed more expensive, hurting ranchers and boosting meat prices. It places extraordinary stress on water supplies.
The ethanol mandate is not good for the environment or national security. It's bad for cars, drivers and eaters. And it's antithetical to free enterprise.
Walker knows that. In his 2006 run for governor, Walker stood alone in opposing a renewable fuel standard, calling it a "big government mandate" at the time. "Central planning will not help our family farmers, protect our environment or provide jobs," Walker wrote. "The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government."
That's how a conservative who believes in free enterprise speaks. It's not how Walker spoke last week in Iowa.
After saying "I'm someone who believes in a free and open market. I don't like a whole lot of government interference," Walker then said: "I'm willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard." The Iowa crowd applauded.
Walker's people insist "[h]e didn't shift his position" on ethanol. "He's been against mandates and is still against mandates," spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski wrote to theWashington Examiner editorial page editor Philip Klein. "What he's saying is he isn't going to get rid of it on day one because there's a level of certainty that these people depend on and we need to factor that in when phasing it out."
Here were his own words on that subject: "Long-term … my goal would be to get to a point where we directly address those market access issues and I think that's a part of the challenge. So that eventually you didn't need to have a standard."
It sounds like Walker wants to keep the ethanol mandate until ethanol can compete broadly with oil in a free market. Given ethanol's inherent shortcomings, that day may never come.
All corporate welfare recipients defend their favors as a remedy for some other market distortion. And most of them say they'll give up their government goodies when free-market nirvana arrives. It's hogwash.
If Walker will swallow the hogwash from Hawkeye Energy and Archer Daniels Midland, then there's no subsidy-suckler to whom we can expect him to stand up. He has indicated he opposes the Export-Import Bank, but what will he say when the Chamber of Commerce drags him onstage to discuss it?
If Walker really believes in markets and opposes the ethanol mandate, he should say that clearly, even in Iowa. Especially in Iowa.
Dismantling political privilege, rejecting all forms of favoritism, and ensuring equal opportunity — these must be at the heart of any conservative candidacy and any agenda of economic liberty. They provide the moral basis for free enterprise. Absent a fierce attack on cronyism, any talk of free markets is really just a cover story for big business shilling.
Walker doesn't need to imitate Jesus in the temple, overturning the tables of the money-changers. He could just follow the example of Ted Cruz.
Cruz, before the same crowd, acknowledged his was an unpopular view, but he flatly said, "I don't think Washington should be picking winners and losers." He put ethanol in the context of other types of corporate welfare, but also in the context of burdensome federal regulations: "I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that's how we got in this problem to begin with."
Some conservatives see the shameful ethanol cronyfest as an indictment of the Iowa caucuses. They're not wrong, but that argument misses the point.
The special-interest subsidy-sucklers do deserve our scorn for corrupting conservative politicians. But a candidate who believes what he says and cares about free enterprise can actually resist being corrupted — if he has the courage.Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.
I am not going to play a shell game with the gope like the last 2 potus elections. I have no idea what the gope has on Walker, or when they plan on using it, but judging by past primaries that is their modus operandi. That is why it is only Cruz or Palin right now for me.
We must quickly start getting wiser to the gope strategy, or go 3rd party. Pick one.
That's right. And when it is your sworn enemy it is definitely lying.
To hell with wind subsidies and ethanol subsidies and sugar subsidies and cartel control, etc.
If these billionaires can’t compete then F them.
Thanks
Good grief, without a halo over his head and wings..so called Repub;licaans had better get over crucifying their CONSERVATIVE candidates or we will end up with Bush.
The only thing Walker has not done to the democrats is offer them up as a sacrifice.
When asked if he would support the Renewable Fuel Standard he just said no. And then he put out some hard truths which seemed to earn him the respect a difficult answer deserved. “I recognize that this is a gathering of a lot of folks where the answer you’d like me to give is ‘I’m for the RFS, darnit;’ that’d be the easy thing to do,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, people are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians who run around and tell one group one thing, tell another group another thing, and then they go to Washington and they don’t do anything that they said they would do. "
So no, not hardly "the exact same position on the issue that Sen. Cruz" has.
Oh, good grief. Save your hysteria for someone who gives a rip.
Just because Walker is your current flame doesn't mean everyone else has to blindly follow. Walker would have lost his recall without the help from the other 50 states. Yes, he did well taking on the teachers unions, and may have done a few conservative things in Wisconsin, but he is still a light-weight on the national stage. He may be able to pull it together in the coming months, but right now he is just getting a taste of the national media.
Even though Senators have historically been poor choices for presidential candidates, Cruz is no light-weight.
Walker will either get it together, or the media will continue chipping away until he withers into the ether. If he cannot articulate a consistently conservative message, outside of Wisconsin, he will get eaten alive. This show is just starting.
Again, you sound like a broken record and a fanatic, and are repeating the self same points you have been posting ad nauseum on every Scott Walker thread. Plus you refused to address any of the points I raised in my post including why you keep insisting it’s only a 2 way race between Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, despite evidence for the contrary from 8 years ago and 4 years ago GOP primaries, where Giuliani for example, was far ahead of everyone in the polls this time 8 years ago, and ended up winning not even a single primary.
This is one of the things he said;
Walker on ethanol, March 7, 2015
However, it is clear to me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of this state...
The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.”
For some, it's enough. It seems to have become the latest litmus test with his detractors. Cruz is my first choice, but I won't jump the shark and make him the only egg in my basket until he's actually our candidate - per others here, that makes me a stupid RINO. One of these days, I'll tie half my brain behind my back and see what it feels like to be in their heads.
Both Cruz and Walker said the ethanol subsidies and mandates should be phased out.
Mince words however you want, but the same is the same.
Cruz is my first choice, and I plan to vote for him in the primary if he is on the ballot. But it’s foolish to run down the next best choice before we see if Cruz can make the cut.
“Cruz has introduced legislation that would repeal the renewable fuel standard over the next five years. The standard mandates that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by volume.”
http://www.votevets.org/press/ethanol-is-explosive-for-cruz-and-paul
The Cruz bill doesn’t repeal the mandate outright, it phases it out over 5 years, just like Walker said should happen.
I have to trust my instincts. He may be the guy but I’m not convinced yet... especially when he flip flops on something as straightforward as ethanol.
All you have is insults.
Who else has defeated democrats? No one . Well except Scott Walker. Walker has defeated democrats to pass conservative laws, lower taxes, balance the budget etc.
who else has defeated democrats?
Your harvard lawyer? when?
who has defeated democrats?
You are going to need to take a chill pill and stop foaming at the mouth. Who else has defeated Democrats? Ummm.. did you see the results of the 2014 elections? Republicans handed the Democrats their biggest defeats in nearly one hundred years at both the state and federal levels.
Talking about that “right to work” bill that Scott Walker just signed, other Republican governors and state legislatures have passed “right to work bills” over the last 5 years in other states. Scott Walker is a bit late to that party actually. Scott Walker is not the only man that has “defeated” Democrats is he?
And out of those RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT who has defeated democrats? No one . Only Scott Walker. Jeb bush, Christie and Huckabee helped democrats as these 3 are socialists who have grown government and gave illegals handouts. Rand and Cruz andSantorum, have not been able to defeat democrats. That leaves only Walker as the only conservative choice that created results, and has an unmatched record of conservative accomplishments
Same old nonsense huh?
You first shrilly insisted Scott Walker is the only one who has defeated Democrats, and when that was disproved, you now come up with even more rubbish that Scott Walker has defeated Democrats more than anyone, which is even more ridiculous?
Is this the same Scott Walker who failed to a push right to work bill while other GOP governors even in blue state Michigan had gotten right to work bills passed, and even then Walker’s only contribution was to simply sign the right to work bill after GOP state assemblymen had pushed and then passed the bill with zero contribution from Walker? Gimme a break!
and Beagle says: Cruz is my first choice, and I plan to vote for him in the primary if he is on the ballot. But it’s foolish to run down the next best choice before we see if Cruz can make the cut.
Jeb, Christie, Perry, Santorum, Huckabee, and their like, (who all confirmed that they would continue ethanol subsidies however reluctantly -- are zero threats in this primary, as they are all mostly interchangeable.
Walker -- who also confirmed that he'd continue ethanol subsidies (see link above), scares me because he is not so interchangeable with the above, and has the biggest potential to spoil it for Business as Usual -- GOPe choice. He is himself clearly willing to work with government as it is to "solve" at least a number of problems.
Erik, elsewhere, you wrote that you thought folks skeptical of Walker had little of "substance" to back up their doubts. Here is some, for example, in the link above. Ted Cruz was the ONLY guy who said, flat out, "No," when asked if he'd continue. Not "just for now until we can ease it out," but "No."
I know exactly where Ted Cruz stands on Obamacare -- he wants its full repeal. Where does Walker stand? Very much the same place he stands on ethanol -- that is, of being great at saying yes at the same time he says no.
I'm keeping my eye on the ball -- CRUZ. I wish even Walker's supporters would do the same and at least respect my motives for not joining them in their enthusiasm. I understand that their enthusiasm for Walker and hesitancy to embrace Cruz stem from sensible motives, though I may think their conclusions are in error.
It is very bad however, to think that a fellow conservative's motives spring from character weaknesses such as jealousy and hate, as one pro-Walker FReeper did on a thread recently, and which ardent Romney supporters, and ONLY Romney supporters, did with venom in 2008 and 2012. It is a bad mindset and is a warning, when one remembers that a candidate's ardent supporters speak volumes about the candidate.
If you ask me, Walker is poised to be the spoiler. Cruz is clearly the superior choice.
Cruz is my first choice, and I plan to vote for him in the primary ...
... that is, if he's still on the ballot and Cruz is not, correct? Or what if Cruz has dwindled by the time the primary comes to your state? Or if you're like me in California, your vote in the primary is merest vanity because the candidate has, for all intents and purposes, been fully decided after the rest have dropped out?
No. There's not room for both Cruz and Walker. There's only room for one, and THAT is how the primaries should be approached.
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.