Posted on 12/12/2015 5:31:25 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% (R-Texas) attended the Iowa Ag Summit over the weekend and stood alone among attendees in his outright rejection of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the ethanol subsidies that have a significant impact on Iowa's agricultural economy. The Texas Senator appeared along with several other prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates. Despite the obvious risk of opposing the RFS at an event sponsored by the agriculture industry in a critical early primary state, Cruz was unequivocal in voicing his opposition to the RFS and the crowd applauded his comments.
-snip-
The Senator responded, "I support biofuels and ethanol. I think biofuels have a major role in the energy market and they're going to continue to have a growing role." However, Cruz continued, Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. "When it comes to energy, I think we should have an all-of-the-above approach, but it should be driven by the market."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cruz and Trump are both wrong. They should both reject ethanol production outright. It’s a very poor gasoline substitute for many reasons. It couldn’t survive in a free market.
Cruz deserves credit for opposing the subsidies, however. If he can get that passed in to law, it could free up a lot of corn for food. Trump needs to get on board.
Trump even attacked the religion of Cruz and his father...”not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba.”
LOL, I would respond that waving a Bible around onstage doesn’t prove one’s Christianity.
Trump is letting his liberal flag fly.
Even worse, we're voters who willingly ignore the information that's right in front of our faces.
Cruz knows that getting rid of the subsidies WILL KILL the ethanol industry.....thus he’s taking the right tactical approach here.
Trump is just way off the common sense conservative plantation on this one...
....so it's okay to throw away your principles and promote the ultimate in cronyism to win a state that normally doesn't have a damned thing to do with the ultimate nominee????? Yeah, that makes sense.
This is a huge opening, but it will be up to Cruz and his campaign and his super PACs to take advantage of it. With ethanol and Kelo, Trump has shown a pattern of supporting big government power picking winners and losers....and fighting against that, including with Obama Care, was the STARTING POINT for the entire Tea Party movement.
How some people will let a man crush totally obliterate their principles is astonishing....
In other words, he's pandering. That's what his "all of the above" nonsense is all about.
Cruz was applauded on subsidies for ethanol.....
Cruz had “managed to turn a disagreement with a crowd of Iowa businesses and farmers into an applause line,â€.... the audience’s applause after his comments about the RFS gave Cruz “the warmest welcome so far†that day.
(Cruz - is... ‘against subsidies’ ....for any industry - no subsidies oil, gas, wind, solar biofuels, etc)
....“I support biofuels and ethanol. I think biofuels have a major role in the energy market and they’re going to continue to have a growing role.†However, Cruz continued, Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. “When it comes to energy, I think we should have an all-of-the-above approach, but it should be driven by the market.â€
no he’s not pandering......you have no logical basis here: CONSIDER:
On a Constitutional level, if ethanol CAN SURVIVE in the free market, who the hell is any President to disallow it? Where the hell have you buried your limited government principles? Or did you ever have them?
Now as you said, ethanol is a flawed product that shouldn’t be produced. I agree, and if you and I are right on that, then it won’t survive the free market. But sorry, not a damned President’s duty to outlaw it.
I agree, and I think they will. I'm interested in seeing where they go from here.
"How some people will let a man crush totally obliterate their principles is astonishing...."
Man-crush describes it perfectly. When people continue with their blind support even in the face of such irrefutable liberalism, it's reached the point of lunacy.
preach it! BTW, see how I handled post 29......
I know farmers that grow nothing but corn now and it goes to the plant down the road.
I agree about ethanol and that is exactly what Cruz is saying let the free market decide, ethanol is winner only because the government chooses it to be a winner, take out the manipulation and other "all of the above" will crumble as well if and until it becomes practical and efficient, of course Trump will continue to attack that common sense approach as being in the pocket of big oil, this is exactly the type of division the Dems and GOPe dream of, you see no matter the issue those two remain united against common sense, reason and logic, they may feign dust ups over issues but ultimately they come to some faux compromise.
I fear we are looking at a repeat of 2012, conservatives are so independent they will push the self destruct button before they will unite and in the end the loser wins just like Romney.
Because of his ‘contributor independence’ or beholden to anyone,lots of people will not be pleased with his actual POTUS actions that might not actually reflect his campaign speeches.
This is frequently used as a reason to support Trump, the fact that he is not beholden to others financially. Trump has given massive amounts of cash to various candidates and campaigns over the years. When asked about donations to the leftmost of candidates and causes, his preferred recipients, he said he gave to everyone. It was so he could call in favors. Trumps explanation, not mine.
A man who has spent his life greasing palms to call in political favors now finds himself on the favor granting side of things. It is the only game he knows how to play. From his perspective, this is the only way to get anything done. He knows no other way.
It seems only natural that pay for play or outright bribery would be acceptable in a Trump administration, at least among underlings. As Trump has explained, it is how you get things done.
I think nowadays one has to lump all of the first three primaries together.
The R candidates show their appeal to conservatives (Iowa), and to moderates (NH), then in an open primary (SC).
Normally Cruz or Carson winning Iowa would be no more remarkable than Santorum winning it.
But anyone who can “BEAT TRUMP!” for the media this time will get a lot of bonus coverage they can use.
That may not be as much of a help as one supposes though.
It does seem like a slow fat pitch right down the middle for Cruz to take a swing at doesn't it?
So when is Cruz gonna get the bat off his shoulder?
I'm guessing some today, tomorrow, and certainly in the upcoming debate.
I never thought Trump would have a snowballs chance in hell of winning Iowa. I figured it would
be locked up for Cruz. You are correct that the three will give a synopsis of the appeal of each
candidate.
Nowhere did I say he should outlaw it. What a ridiculous implication for you to make. Don’t put words in my mouth, it makes you look foolish.
My point is he should reject it outright as an acceptable fuel source. Instead he clearly stated he supported it. That’s pandering straight up. It’s what politicians do.
He and Trump are both wrong on ethanol, but they both want Iowa votes. That’s really all there is to it.
Nevertheless, since the Almighty isn’t running for president, I’ll be content to vote a Trump/Cruz ticket in the general election. I can support either one or both.
“So Trump is for government subsidies..... “
No Trump is for winning. In Iowa you reject the Ethanol subsidy at your own peril. Trump isn’t willing to do it and frankly neither would I if I were running and I think making Ethanol out of corn is the wrong way to go. Sometimes you just have to get yourself elected.
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.