In Iowa, Cruz Takes A Stand Against Ethanol Mandates

Iowa plays a vastly oversize role in American politics every four years as the presidential primary season comes around. It's been so ever since the state secured the first in line spot for the primaries. Iowa corn farmers are also the primary beneficiaries of one of the great boondoggles of our time -- the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) that mandate our use of ethanol and that serve as the basis for subsidies to ethanol producers.

Ethanol, a fuel made from corn, was a bad idea from the start -- turn agricultural production of food and animal feed into an overly expensive and inefficient source of fuel. The greens pushed it for years, but then it came out that biofuel mandates were causing more CO2 production than it was saving. Moreover, and far more imporantly, this diversion of food production has caused rising food and feed prices, thus having a horrendous impact on poverty worldwide, as well as acting as a regressive tax on all Americans. You'll find a much more lengthy discussion of all of this here.

But, once the gravy train started rolling, it has proved impossible to stop. Republican presidential hopefuls, all of whom should look upon the RFS as a cancer in our body politic, have been loathe to tell Iowans "no more." Thus, it was quite refreshing to find that Sen. Tom Cruz, alone among the Republican hopefuls in Iowa for the first politically oriented convention of the 2016 election season, the Iowa Ag Summit, did just that. He told Iowan's "no more."

[A]s the 2016 race gets underway a thousand spectators gathered at the state fairgrounds to watch the party’s top contenders try to thread the needle on farm policy, especially when it comes to ethanol mandates. . . .

Ted Cruz got the Sister Souljah moment he came to Iowa for.

“How about we deal with the elephant in the room right away?” That’s how Bruce Rastetter, the agribusiness mogul who organized the summit and has a large financial stake in the continuation of the RFS, opened his 20-minute interview with the Texas senator.

Sitting on a brown leather chair, Cruz took a sip of his water and crossed his legs to show off a pair of black cowboy boots.

“The answer you’d like me to give is ‘I’m for the RFS, darn it,’” Cruz responded. “That’d be the easy thing to do. But people are pretty fed up with politicians that run around and tell one group one thing and tell another group another thing. Then they go to Washington and don’t do anything they said they would do.”

“I’m going to tell you the truth,” he added.

Cruz is the sponsor of a Senate bill to repeal the RFS standard over a period of five years, so it’s no surprise where he stands. But he did not try to nuance his position. He said he’s against corporate welfare of all kinds and against the government picking winners and losers. . . .

Good for Sen. Cruz. The man has the courage of his conservative convictions, a rarity among Republican politicians these days.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Fox Iowa Debate Recap

Overall -

This was a good debate, though Fox should take note of the format used by CNN.  We learn much more from the candidates when they have more than a minute to make their point.  There was no clear winner.  Romey and Perry both had very good performances.  Gingrich had highs and a low.  Bachman was throwing bombs and did poorly.  Ron Paul's answers should disqualify him with all but the remaining Ron Paul zealots.  Santorum and Huntsman gave good answers, but not enough to make big moves in the polls.

Gingrich -

He had the biggest applause lines of the night when talking about the UN, the Keystone Pipeline, and liberal judges altering the Constitution.  His weakest moment of the night came when Michelle Bachman kept harping on his work for Freddie Mac, characterizing his work as lobbying simply because he took a paycheck from Freddie.  Newt's answer was not strong.  Overall, I don't know if he helped or hurt himself - or a little of both with different constituencies.

Romney -

He had a very good debate, with his strongest answer coming when asked to defend his record at Bain capital, where he bankrupted several companies and laid off workers.  Romney responded that he did nothing more or less than what Obama did when he took over the running of GM.  He had no major weak moments, but the claim that he has "always been a conservative," holding the same opinions, was risible.  Fortunately for him, only Santorum attacked him for that.  Overall, he helped himself.

Bachman -

I dislike this woman more each time I see her.  She is not dumb, but she is one of those who, it seems to me, adopts the "conservative" view on every issue without having thought through the issue.  That and she is a bomb thrower who plays fast and loose with facts, willingly contorting facts to make her points.  She may have done herself some good tonight, but if so, I didn't see it.  She really is the Nancy Pelosi of the Republican side, and her voice is starting to effect me like fingernails scraped across a chalkboard..

Paul -

Fox nicely offered Paul a chance to push the self-destruct button.  Paul began hitting that button like it owed him money.  Paul's answers on Iran and his charge that America was responsible over 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths should put a stake in his campaign for all but the most zealous of the Pauline zealots.  

Perry -

He had another good debate, with his best moment coming when he compared his evolution of his debating skills with the evolution of Tim Tebow.  He also had another "Gingrich" moment when he came to Gingrich's defense over the question of whether Gingrich had "lobbied" for Freddie Mac.  Perry helped himself, but I think it is just too late for him to make a comeback.

Santorum -

He had good answers, as always, but he always seems a bit angry and lacks the buoyancy of Gingrich or, for that matter, Romney or Paul.  It is why I think his campaign never caught on.

Huntsman -

 Like Santorum, he had good answers, but nothing outstanding.  His decision to position himself from the start of his campaign as the moderate in the middle has left him as an asterisk in the primary.  Nothing that he did in the debate is likely to move him in the polls.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 26 January 2008

According to PM Maliki, "We defeated al Qaeda, now there is just Nineveh province where they escaped to, and Kirkuk," And as a new offensive is aimed at al Qaeda, it looks as if it may be an all-Iraqi operation.

In the world of hypocritical politicians, Charles Krauthammer thinks that John Edwards makes other hypocrites looks like pikers.

The Democrats are still refusing to reauthorize the Protect America Act. This is the law that corrects FISA to allow for eavesdropping on foreign communications without the necessity of a warrant. Even Time’s resident leftie Joe Klein thinks this is nuts.

There is a real possibility that Denmark will become the first Muslim country in Europe. This is a particularly troubling post.

Crusader Rabbit ponders why males are the happier gender.

Seraphic Secret discusses the ramifications of the Hamas foray into Egypt.

Bookworm Room seems to be taking a bit of sadistic delight in Andrew McCarthy’s shredding of the NYT.

Soccer Dad has an exceptional post that hits the nail on the head. "Islamist hatred of the West is not a grievance we can address. Attempting to accommodate the demands of Islamists only encourages them. For there to be peace between Islam and the West, there needs to be a change of heart in Islam. Anything else is useless." I couldn’t agree more, and have said so previously.

Do read CAIR’s action letter urging an end to the "illegal blockade of Gaza" by Israel. Not a word about rockets or attacks on Israel. And let’s not forget the Muslim Brotherhood’s chapter here in the US, the MAS, or the radical Deobandi organization, the MCB in Britain. Personally, I would support a blockade and far more – aimed at Gaza, CAIR, MAS and the MCB. I am just not feeling a whole lot of compassion for terrorists and their enablers these days.

Nor do I support "victory over those who disbelieve," or feel the need to ask God for "protection from the great Satan." I suspect most Iowans would agree, but that is a bit unclear at the moment.

The American Islamic Congress has launched a new Anti-Suicide Bombing Campaign. They have my support.

The FBI has given its Community Leadership Award for 2007 to M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD. "Dr. Jasser is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander. He is the founder and Chairman of the Board of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), based in Phoenix, Arizona. AIFD seeks to address the central ideological conflict in the war on terror." It is an award well deserved.

The Center for Islamic Pluralism has a fascinating textually based analysis of the appropriate punishment for those who chose to leave Islam or commit other acts of apostasy. It is a stinging criticism of the "oil jurists" of Salfi Islam.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Huckster & Obama Take Iowa

With 65% of the precincts reporting, Fox News has called Iowa for the Mike Huckabee with 31% of the caucus vote. Romney, who spent a large part of his budget for advertisements in Iowa, is well behind Huckabee in a second place at 23%. Thompson and McCain are in a near tie in third place at about 13% each.

On the Democratic side, its appearing that Obama has taken Iowa with 37%. Clinton and Edwards stand tied at 31%.

I do not see a Huckabee nomination in the cards. Our President's most important job will be foreign policy and, in that arena, Huckabee seems, to put it charitably, naive. Further, his personal ethics are very much in doubt after the incredibly transparent trick of a few days ago, holding a press conference to show attack ads that he then said he would not show. If he ever tried such sophmoric tricks as President, he would absolutely be eaten alive, and rightly so.
Huckabee's defining characteristic among Iowa voters seems to have been that Huckabee is a Christian conservative. Outside the realm of identity politics, Huckabee has nothing of substance to offer.

As to what this means for the Democrats, the aura of inevitabiity has been shattered for Hillary. For far too long, Hillary refused to answer any questions of substance and tried to straddle the fence on all issues, with the apex of these acts comining during a debate when, in answer to a question about NY Gov. Spitzer's driver's licenses for illegals, she made statements that contradicted themselves. She has been too clever by half. Whether she can overcome the storm of losing Iowa is now very much an open question.

In one way at least, I welcome Obama's victory in a largely white, rural state. Perhaps now we can start to bury the race card as a viable part of American politics.

Update: Arianna Huffington is ecstatic.

Update: With 98% of the caucusus reporting, it appears Edwards has taken scond place, with 30%. Clinton is in third place with 29%.

Update: Joe Biden has dropped out of the race.

Update: Ron Paul came in with 10% of the vote.

Read More...

Summary only...