So the POTUS should be elected based on their stance on ethanol. Got it.
So the POTUS should be elected based on their stance on ethanol. Got it
____________________________________________________________
It is more than just a stance. Ted Cruz is a principled man who stood by the taxpayers. Trump bought votes from the ethanol lobby regardless of how it will affect the country.
Cruz did this to himself. If you are staking your entire campaign on Iowa, you play the game as Iowa plays it, and that’s ethanol. Because if you don’t get out of Iowa, nothing else matters. Cruz has a long list of flip flops, so backing ethanol from the start should not have bothered him. Really a stunning lack of political acumen by Ted. In the grand scheme, ethanol is a non issue. You say and do what you have to in Iowa to hopefully get the opportunity to solve greater problems, the way you want to when you get elected. Cruz picked the wrong hill to die on. And picking a public fight with the governor a week before the caucuses was just stupid. Ted is too green to play on the field he chose to play on.
The states all fight to secure their own interests - every one of them do this, and Iowa is no exception. That is the reality, whether we approve of such positions or not.
Do you think Senator Cruz or Mr. Trump could win PA if either candidate took a stand against the coal industry?
Could they win TX or OK by taking a stand against the oil industry?
Could they win Florida if they were against Orange growers?
Etc. Etc.
I hate ethanol. I am quite aware of how destructive it is, particularly for 2-cycle engines ... But, perhaps their are more ways to skin a cat. Just because Trump is not against subsidies for ethanol does not mean he won’t act to phase them out over time if he wins the presidency. Big Oil used to get massive subsidies too - and they were phased out in the 70’s - and Tax incentives are not subsidies. It is quite possible that the same incentives might be in the cards for ethanol ... But even that is still picking winners and losers. Perhaps the answer is to give such to start-ups but allow established companies to stand on their own legs, sink or swim.