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.
“What had Abraham Lincoln ever run before he was elected president? His only government experience of any kind was as a one term congressman. Yet he somehow won a civil war. John Kennedy never ran anything bigger than a torpedo boat prior to his presidency, but he started us towards the moon.”
Good points. But it’s a straw man argument, and no matter what you say, it will be deemed irrelevant.
Do we want a RINO that has ran corporations or a state? We had that option last time. He lost against someone who not only never ran anything, but never had a real job either. So that constantly-harped on here argument is just a ploy to misdirect the conversation. And I will bring this up every time I see it ;)
I personally want someone with solid conservative values, that doesn’t flip-flop because it is politically expedient. Cruz has been tested in the corrupting environmental of DC and has proven himself to be incorruptible. That’s pretty impressive.
I think Cruz has quite a bit more depth than those guys.
Cruz is far and away the best conservative choice.
Great, I'm with you on the abortion question, but it seems to me Walker is treating the symptom, not the cause: government "serving" us by oppressing and enslaving us, and to the urgency of addressing that cause, it flies way over Scott's head.
Cruz is confirming that he is looking at the cause of all this malaise -- excess government that presumes to dictate to free people, in this case, ethanol. From my socially conservative point of view, Roe v. Wade is the same except it's life and murder as opposed to capitalism and its moral markets. RvW forced Americans to accept legally what they rejected morally. Anti-discrimination laws force them to do the same. Government meddling is a feeder of fiscal and moral malaise because it is amoral. The conservative understands the value of cutting back government now, and of using government with restraint -- conservatively.
Cruz understands that this ethanol nuttiness is a symptom of tyrannical government, and he is stating a fundamental philosophy that is one of limited government. I'll vote for that because that's what I want to win.
Ted Cruz is the only candidate who is truthful with the voting public. Go Cruz.
Walker is still studying polls and focus groups hedor deciding what his beliefs are. Cruz knows what he believes and it doesnt change much or very quickly.
Of course. Who else ran for President after serving a measly 2.5 years in the Senate?
Why can't Cruz stay in the Senate?
Lincoln was a lawyer for 20 years, a whig party leader, 12 years in Illinois hse of rep, one term in US Hse of rep, leader in new Republican party....before he ran for President.
Uh, Scott Walker has only been governor since 2011 (the year before Cruz was elected senator), so why can’t he stay in Wisconsin? If he is so effective there, won’t that state’s citizens get a bum deal if he leaves? See how that works?
Right.. I wasnt aware that Reagan shifted and evolved on major issues DURING a campaign. I think Reagan already had his beliefs without polls and focus groups. Walker is definitely not a Reagan.
“Today’s candidates have nothing on the Founders and the men who served in the early 1800s. Those men still had a wealth of experience and knowledge prior to getting elected to public office.”
How many times have you argued before the Supreme Court and won? I’d say it takes a wealth of knowledge and experience to do that, not just once but multiple times. Cruz knows Constitutional law, which is more than the Constitution-destroyer in the White House currently.
And now you’ll say that’s the wrong kind of experience... because the only answer you’ll accept is we put a flip-flopping pro-amnesty governor in the WH. Walker has done some great things, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t trust his last minute conversions. Haven’t we seen enough of that and been stabbed in the back enough? I escaped a beautiful but ruined state because of how the illegals have destroyed it and will not vote for anyone who doesn’t mind how the illegals steal benefits from citizens, refuse to assimilate and expect US to learn their language, and are here only to trash this country.
States rights to own human slaves. Sorry, I know the CW was not really and not only about slavery ... but in essence it was very much like abortion. It was righteous and it won. You want an America where abortion is prohibited by law, and so do I. I would have wanted an America where owning humans as slaves was prohibited by law -- the CW settled that question.
You must see that a strong stance nationally outlawing abortion (that would be preferable, but I'd be satisfied with Roe v Wade overturn) would be very much like what Lincoln faced.
Bottom line: Cruz gets that too much government is the problem and it must be reduced now. To me, Walker seems to say that poorly administered government is the problem and we need to tweak it better as it grows.
Amen and mega BUMP ...
Obama. Who has been one of the most effective Presidents at pushing his vision on America. Hopefully Cruz can be the antidote.
This means OUR TAX MONEY is going to fund the paychecks of unpatriotic, non-citizens who work illegally in America.
In addition, these illegal invaders' families are collecting welfare program monies, while the poor and famished Iowan families starve and beg for the leftover scraps.
This is collectivism for non-Americans at its best!
We also believe he would be better than Walker because Walker has already shown his allegiance to Corporate-Welfare-Queens, who do not support the citizens in America.
BTW, you really should stop kissing the ring on Walker's hand, it's...un-conservative to do so.
Your vampire analogy is the most ridiculous one ever posted here. After all, vampires are fictitious, and Washington politicians are real blood-suckers.
;-)
“Agree that Cruz is the top of the line candidate in all aspects.
Still doesn’t make sense to try to destroy the field yet”
Yes, I am keeping Governor Walker on my short list of two.
1. SENATOR TED CRUZ
2. Governor Scott Walker
Wow.
It’s really disappointing to see these republican hopefuls pandering to the Iowa voters on ethanol. Every Presidential election, we are forced to go through this same silly exercise in trying to straddle the fence on this issue, and I do not understand why such small states as Iowa and New Hampshire get so much say in who our nominees will be. Corn ethanol is just a bad idea for fuel, as it not only requires more energy to come up with a gallon of fuel than gasoline, but it also diverts corn from food supplies, badly needed across the world.
Now, cellulosic ethanol, i.e., sugar cane ethanol, may make more sense, but in general, I don’t see how we justify subsidies to generate ethanol fuel, except to buy votes in the Iowa caucuses. And, as to those candidates who felt they could not do away with the RFS because it would be unfair to Iowa, well, so what? Some fuels are superior to others from a national perspective, and choices have to be made. Kudos to Cruz for not pandering and holding his position.
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.