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.
Levin and Rush are conservative.
Nobody should except a conservative not to cover this.
Can anyone find where ethanol gets “subsidies”? Can anyone find where Trump said “subsidies”?
I would say this, I do not except Cruz’s lame excuses for his TPA and corker bill votes or his flip flopping on amnesty. And I am the first one to call out Cruz supporters when they twist themselves into pretzels explaining why Cruz went out of his way to give obumber and the dems full control over trade policy and surrender to Iran. As Trump supporters, lets not fall into using twisted logic to explain his Ethanol subsidies. It’s a petty issue that will not matter one vote outside of Iowa. And it pails in comparison to TPP, Iran deal and amnesty.
Right, don't think for yourself.
So because I think ethanol subsidies are wrong and because I think Levin and Rush are conservative, I don't think for myself?
LOL.
As if I didn't think that ethanol subsidies were wrong before I heard Levin and Rush.
Your conclusion is embarrassingly illogical.
But, I suggest that you should get somebody to think for you, because you don't seem capable of it.
For ethanol? Where did he say subsidies for ethanol?
“Ted Cruz Battered On Fox News “
This is sure making the rounds. Several replays of Fox and many other places.
I’ve never heard of Cruz stuttering but he does a few times here. The optics don’t look good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM_tpq1i4M4
He didn’t....that’s all he said...he would look into ethanol and get back to us...this is the only ‘subsidies’ I could find...
I can’t find where he supports ethanol subsidies either. I also can’t find where government gives subsidies to the ethanol industry. So, why do we have this article?
It’s a good thing for Cruz that Trump is not making and running adds against him. Matched up with his current assertion that he never supported amnesty, this would be some pretty incriminating material.
Because you asked a question and that is the only answer there is...so I posted it to you...you then returned with another question...and I said he didn’t...he doesn’t believe in subsidies because of how much debt we owe...that is the reason for the article to prove he DIDN’T say it...
There is this that might help:
This has to do with government farm subsidies....
Sorry. I didn’t mean your article.
I thought ethanol subsidies were gone. Expired.
Unless someone can prove otherwise, the article is a fraud.
Well, I care about the issue for two reasons. One is government interference in what should be private business.
Two is I hate that ethanol has been forced on car drivers. It’s not good for cars.
That’s not to say it is a primary issue with me, but as it speaks to the mindset of government in business it is.
Greta was in full Megyn mode last night. She would not turn loose of her ‘letter.’ and she either could not or would not understand what Cruz was trying very hard to explain to her.
I got really annoyed with her. But my office-holding Republican-e friend on Facebook felt the opposite ... she liked Greta but not Ted.
“They” really do hate Trump and Cruz.
At the time this article was written, farm subsidies were still enacted:
Things are fine....:>)
Trump is a big government, corporate welfare supporter
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.