Posted on 03/08/2015 9:18:56 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday we covered the acid test of prospective candidates for 2016 in Iowa when it comes to ethanol subsidies and the Renewable Fuel Standard. At that time I promised that I would report back to you on how the 2016 hopefuls did in this admittedly daunting challenge to conservative politicians. I’m sorry to say that, as the WSJ reported for us, the results were less than impressive in most cases.
Let’s start with the bad news. First up… Rick Perry.
[T]he former governor of a petroleum-rich state [Governor Perry] suggested he didn’t think it would be fair to end the RFS while oil companies continued to benefit from tax breaks. “I don’t think you pull the RFS out and discriminate against the RFS and leave all these other subsidies,” he said.
Jeb Bush acted like the RFS is a bad toy, but had no plans to put it back in the cupboard.
“The markets are ultimately going to have to decide this,” said Mr. Bush, who declined to set a firm deadline for ending the fuel standard imposed a decade ago by his brother, former President George W. Bush. “Whether that’s 2022 or sometime in the future I don’t know,” he said.
Chris Christie left no room for doubt.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was clearer about his position, saying he “absolutely” supported the fuel standard.
Mike Huckabee is at least consistent.
Mike Huckabee argued that support for ethanol is good national security policy, helping to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports. He then quipped his support for the corn-based fuel wasn’t about pandering to Iowans because of their important role in the presidential nominating process.
Rick Santorum also stuck to his unsatisfactory 2012 answer.
Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who won the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, said ethanol “creates jobs in small-town and rural America, which is where people are hurting.”
From the same Bloomberg article, Lindsey Graham just played to the crowd.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham expressed strong support for ethanol in his appearance. “Every gallon of ethanol you can produce here in Iowa is one less gallon to have to buy from people who hate your guts,” he said.
Perhaps most disappointing, Scott Walker:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker backed the RFS, saying that while he tends to oppose government intervention, a marketplace issue exists for ethanol. He said consumers do not have the same access to corn-based fuel as gasoline, and because of that there’s a need for the standard.
“Right now we don’t have a free and open marketplace, and so that’s why I’m going to take that position,” he said.
I’ve been building up some early hopes for you, Governor Walker, but I must say this was a big let down.
And then there was this guy…
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. And I think that’s a big part of the reason we have the problems we have in Washington, is there have been career politicians in both parties that aren’t listening to the American people and aren’t doing what they said they would do.”
And the crowd applauded, giving Cruz the warmest welcome so far.
Hot air reached out to the Cruz campaign about how he managed such an answer.
“Ted Cruz is straightforward about what he believes, whether he is in Iowa, Texas, or Washington DC. We need more leaders who tell the truth about what they will do and the response to that kind of honesty is very positive.”
I have to say, this was a potential game changer for me. I know that I probably put off some of you with my seemingly endless fascination with energy issues in general and ethanol subsidies in particular. It’s a sort of wonky subject, but I feel it’s an important one. And this forum in Iowa was, in my view, a test of character for the nascent candidates on a matter of vital interest.
I’ve expressed doubts in the past about the long term viability of Ted Cruz on the national stage, particularly given the horribly effective way the media has sold the “crazy wingnut” stories to the public. But this guy has demonstrated the kind of intestinal fortitude that is far too often lacking in GOP leaders, and he certainly showed those qualities once again in Iowa. Take this as a benchmark for the coming campaign. There weren’t many clear standouts here, but the Best in Show was clearly a winner.
He was busy kicking union ass and trying to eliminate a $3.2 billion dollar deficit. He knew that any illegal alien legislation would get caught up in both the courts and the Obola administration. That wasn't a priority for him then.
The fact that Walker would even threaten to use the power of his pen to veto an anti-amnesty bill speaks truth to how he governs.
Illegal immigration is a federal issue. Wisconsin is not a border state, so it's not prevalent as it is in say, Arizona.
So name the following pro-illegal legislation Walker has signed:
- Driver's licenses for illegals
- State IDs for illegals
- In-state tuition for illegals
- Sanctuary cities.
Answer: You can't.
WHAT NONSENSE! Your writings indicate that you understand Conservatism, but you fail to realize that Conservatism can only exist when it is based on principle.
To quote Ayn Rand: "A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.
The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.
To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one must compromise) and by panicky appeals to “practicality.”
But there is nothing as impractical as a so-called “practical” man. His view of practicality can best be illustrated as follows: if you want to drive from New York to Los Angeles, it is “impractical” and “idealistic” to consult a map and to select the best way to get there; you will get there much faster if you just start out driving at random, turning (or cutting) any corner, taking any road in any direction, following nothing but the mood and the weather of the moment.
The fact is, of course, that by this method you will never get there at all. But while most people do recognize this fact in regard to the course of a journey, they are not so perceptive in regard to the course of their life and of their country.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
“The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 144
Reagan was elected twice because he was a principled Conservative! Cruz will be elected twice because he is a principled Conservative! What Conservative principles has Walker run on? Union busting? That truly only benefits the Chamber of Amnesty.
What good is a Right to Work state when its very own citizens are passed over by corrupt, crony-capitalists who pick illegal invaders to run in their factories?
Cruz has the Constitutional fortitude and can out debate anyone the left throws at him because he’s a fact machine.
My worry about Cruz is he is unable to get anything done. He talks about wanting to get things done but hasn’t managed to get results. Walker can. No denying it. Of course if Cruz gets the nomination I will vote for him.
My assertions are backed up by presidential election results dating back to 1992, and preceded by various presidential elections from 1932 to 1980.
Your argument, so eloquently spins a subliminal establishment premise, that only their chosen pick can win because it is the 'practical' thing to do.
There's no establishment premise for you to refute. Walker is despised by the GOP establishment, just like Cruz is. The big difference, is that Walker can unite both the Tea Party and the GOP. You'll still need the Republican Party, in some shape or form, once you become the clear front-runner.
What Conservative principles has Walker run on? Union busting? That truly only benefits the Chamber of Amnesty.
Saving taxpayers billions of dollars benefits proponents of amnesty? Forcing school districts to innovate and save money helps the Chamber of Commerce, how?
What good is a Right to Work state when its very own citizens are passed over by corrupt, crony-capitalists who pick illegal invaders to run in their factories?
Nice non-sequitur. The amnesty debate has no bearing on this subject.
When jobs go to illegal invaders then we all get shafted. Stop the Cheap Labor Express, and American citizens can get back to fighting for the American Dream of having food to put on their table for their kids, of owning a home, of having a good quality of life in retirement.
By voting for politicians who HAVE A RECORD of choosing illegal invaders over American citizens, then we will have to sorrowfully watch America's flame of liberty and exceptionalism die out.
Inconvenient facts for you: BLS data show all net employment growth has gone to immigrants
With respect to “getting things done”, you cannot compare a senator to a governor, especially when said senator faces a president of the opposing party. No republican senator would have been able to get anything worthwhile done with Obama in the White House. Similarly, if Walker gets the nomination, I will walk over coals to vote for him over Hillary or any democrat.
Give a job to an illegal invader, who has no pride but in their La Raza, and you will get a worker that will illegally vote for the Democratic Party, for a woman like Hillary Clinton.
This is what happens when politicians, like Bush, Rand, or Walker, choose illegal invaders over American citizens, all because it is too politically impractical to address with legislative or judical actions, even when they have the power to minimize or stop the hurt put on their own constituents by the Chamber of Amnesty's Cheap Labor Express!
I want someone to dismantle the system - to veto spending bills, to cut cabinet expenditures, to kill agencies, to shrink the welfare rolls, to kill Obamacare.
Certainly there is something to be said about being a governor and the experience that brings to the table. Certainly Walker is a proven fighter. His rejection of a state exchange for Obamacare was also spot on.
But again, his waffling on amnesty is a concern to me. If he gets the nod I pray he doesn't run to the middle on that one.
Senate terms are six years long. Ever taken a civics class?
I trust Walker to secure the borders over all the other candidates, aside from Palin. Ted Cruz supports unrestricted legal immigration and increase in H1-B visas. You're bitching about illegals taking jobs; American workers are still going to be on the outs with legal immigration increases under Cruz.
Name one, ONE candidate from either party that supports limiting legal immigration. I’ll wait.
Ted Cruz supports massive increases in legal immigrants and H1-B visas to foreign tech workers. All these illegals going to do is go to the "back of the line" and just apply for permanent legal status under a Cruz presidency.
All of the potential presidential candidates have supported a "pathway to citizenship." Even Palin under McCain. Even Cruz. The question is, who can you trust to secure the borders going forward? So Walker's past statements mean squat. He didn't sign any pro-illegal legislation, he didn't lobby Congress, and he didn't declare his love for illegals like Jeb did.
Now I'm going to bed.
A term is a term. Walker served his term, and even won an election within that same term. Cruz should stay and finish his term.
Complain to Madison, I didn't make the rulebook.
Actually, it is. It just isn't a southern order state.
I can't. But Cruz is the only one cheerleading for an increase in legal immigration, H1-B visas and green cards. This will destroy American worker's jobs just the same as illegals are working under the table.
Um, no it won’t. I worked in the employment field for over 20 years. No it won’t. Plus, automation is coming into many of those fields, which will make it a moor point.
My bad, they gave most of the lake to Minnesota and da Yoopers...But on the right heading Canada is straight across the water.
“I want someone to dismantle the system - to veto spending bills, to cut cabinet expenditures, to kill agencies, to shrink the welfare rolls, to kill Obamacare.”
From your lips to God’s ears! For the last 50 years, we’ve had way too much “governing” going on.
Those machines can't make themselves.
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.