Posted on 03/07/2015 11:57:58 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Des Moines—Only weeks after taking this key state in the presidential race by surprise, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defended his front-runner status in Iowa by pledging to support a federal ethanol mandate, shifting his position on renewable fuels at a Republican roundup on farm issues.
The GOP governor and a lineup of other major potential presidential contenders—including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush—took the stage before hundreds of spectators and media at the Iowa Ag Summit at the state fairgrounds here.
In the moderated discussion with ethanol magnate Bruce Rastetter, Walker dropped his previous flat opposition to ethanol mandates, offering a new stance that's well-suited to a state covered in cornfields. Walker signaled that he favors keeping the mandate for now and phasing it outin the future — without saying over what period.
"It's an access issue, and so it's something I'm willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard and pressing the EPA to make sure there's certainty in terms of the blend levels set," Walker said. "Now, long term — we've talked about this before as well — my goal would be to get to a point where we directly address those market access issues and I think that's a part of the challenge. So that eventually you didn't need to have a standard."
Walker, a past critic of ethanol, acknowledged in January that he would have to spell out his position on the issue as part of his likely presidential bid. In other key issues for Iowa, Walker said that he favored drawing down federal tax credits for wind power over time and opposed mandatory labeling of foods made from genetically modified crops.
"This is one of those where I believe it's served its purpose," Walker said of the credits. "I would support phasing that out over a period of time."
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Your dishonesty regarding Walker gives me no reason to trust you with a bet.
All the while ethanol ruins combustion engines.
There’s absolutely zero reason to tear down Cruz or Walker. They’re both good men as far as I can tell. Senator Cruz is nearly perfect on the issues, and Walker has a record of beating the left. Like I wrote, I like ‘em both.
Bump.
Walker modifies view on Ethanol mandate.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
There’s a number of ethanol processing plants employing a sizeable figure located here in Wisconsin and purchasing the material to make it locally. Which built up before he became governor. What would you do and say if you were the governor of such a state ? That’s the difference in approaching a bad policy which was created by the state by a governor and a legislator.
As far as investing goes. Stay away from government promotional schemes particularly offered by socialists . They almost allways go south eventually and you can expect big lo$$e$.
Let the flip flopping commence.
I'm a Cruz first supporter and have already donated to him. I prefer his stronger statements, but also understand that he may not end up being on the final ticket - I'll not destroy what might be our next best hope this early in the game and slide the door wide open for another 8 years of hard core Leftist destruction. That would be.......stupid.
I agree, build up your favored conservative candidate without tearing down another conservative candidate.
Cruz may well be the most conservative candidate running, he’s my first choice.
But it is beyond stupid to tear down Walker, who is my 2nd choice, and wind up with Jeb or Christie beating Cruz for the nomination.
I believe it means, that he doesn’t wish to slam the door on ethanol producers. That they should be given time to find alternative markets for their product here and abroad.
Just got my vote.
Cruz has a cut off date. Five years. Walker left it open-ended.
You got your panties in a real big twist from my two word post - LoL!
But you know what is really stupid?
Giving a pass to a weak candidate and keeping him vulnerable and untested till the democrats rip him apart because your emotional maturity level is that of a four year old.
Welcome to the big leagues, Kid.
So can a bill that is never voted on. Politicians draft legislation all the time to prove where they stand on an issue but with a firm assurance that it will never become law.
Thank you.
This is true. However, Cruz, through the bill, has set a solid timeframe of five years. Walker has not set a timeframe, only a nebulous “when access to markets are secured” to use his very own words. Who decides that access is sufficiently secured? What metrics will be used? It could be tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade, sometime after the heat death of the universe, etc, etc.
One must be suspicious of all politicians, no matter what party or ideology, who set such nebulous conditions. Perhaps Walker will later clarify what he means, but until then? Seems to me like another vague election-year promise that will be easily weaseled out of.
I’m not tearing down one at the expense of the other. I am simply observing that one has produced/promised a hard timeline and the other has not.
My answer to you is in post 37.
Nominate no flip-flopperd
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.