Thread: Republican Iowa governor wants Ted Cruz defeated

Iowa governor wants Ted Cruz defeated

By MJ Lee, CNN Politics and Finance Reporter
Updated 2:06 PM ET, Tue January 19, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

Altoona, Iowa (CNN)Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad called for Ted Cruz's defeat Tuesday, in a dramatic and highly public repudiation of the Texas senator just two weeks out from the Iowa caucuses.

Speaking to a small group of reporters at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit in Altoona, where several 2016 presidential candidates are slated to speak, Branstad labeled Cruz a "big oil" candidate whose victory would be "very damaging to our state."

"It would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him," Branstad said. "And I know he's ahead in the polls but the only poll that counts is the one they take on caucus night and I think that could change between now and then."

Asked by a reporter whether he wants to see Cruz defeated, Branstad answered: "Yes."

Branstad's attack on Cruz is an extraordinary intervention in the caucus campaign. The state's caucuses take place on February 1.

"I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Ted Cruz is going to win this state," Branstad told CNN afterwards. "Because as Iowans learn about his anti-renewable fuel stand, and that it will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income, I think people will realize that it's not in our interest."

He added: "I don't think that Ted Cruz is the right one for Iowans to support in the caucus."

Cruz's stance on ethanol subsidies has emerged a significant vulnerability for the senator in Iowa, a state where farming and agriculture are hugely influential industries. His rivals -- particularly Donald Trump -- have been hitting Cruz hard for his opposition to ethanol subsidies, and voters here have expressed concerns about Cruz's rejection of ethanol subsidies.

Branstad's son, Eric, works with the group America's Renewable Future, which has targeted the Texas senator.

Speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" last week, Branstad said Cruz has the best "ground game" in the Hawkeye State, but added that the Texas senator's stance on renewable fuels could "really hurt him here."

"He's opposed to the wind energy tax credit. He's opposed to ethanol and biodiesel. And we have tens of thousands of jobs and a lot of farm income dependent on that," Branstad said.

"And I know there's a lot of people working in those ethanol refineries and farmers that are not going to vote for somebody that opposes something that's so important to our state's economy."

Cruz has been leading in some recent Iowa polls, and Trump is his closest competition, and the real-estate mogul quickly pounced on Branstad's statement Tuesday afternoon.
"Wow, the highly respected Governor of Iowa just stated that 'Ted Cruz must be defeated.' Big (shocker)! People do not like Ted," Trump tweeted.


Iowa governors have typically stayed neutral in the caucuses, and Branstad did not endorse a candidate in the 2012 Iowa contest. In 2008, Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, did not pick sides between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politi...d-cruz-defeat/

Interesting.... oil and gas Vs ethanol? Iowa is a big corn and ethenol producer right?

W

Originally Posted by admin

Interesting.... oil and gas Vs ethanol? Iowa is a big corn and ethenol producer right?

W

1. (Largest to Smallest Capacity as of August 2015)
   

   Rank	State	Operating Production (Million Gallons Per Year)
   1	Iowa	3,785.0
   2	Nebraska	1,780.0
   3	Illinois	1,480.0
   4	Indiana	1,166.0

   25 more rows
   
   Ethanol Production Capacity by State
   
   www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/121.htmNebraska Energy Office

Originally Posted by admin

Interesting.... oil and gas Vs ethanol? Iowa is a big corn and ethenol producer right?

W

Yep, the governor's distaste for Cruz definitely comes from his coming out against ethanol subsidies. This is no different than any special interest group that comes out in opposition to someone simply because they don't support the groups agenda. Cruz is correct in his opposition to ethanol subsidies.

Excerpt:

One of the key reasons for the growth in ethanol production has been government subsidies for ethanol — $45 billion in tax credits giving 45 cents to ethanol producers for every gallon they produced between 1980 and 2011. This was a strange subsidy considering ethanol's inefficiency as a fuel, and given the fact that unlike other renewables, burning ethanol continues to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

http://theweek.com/articles/461619/t...anol-subsidies

I support the tax credits for renewable alternative fuels until they can develop technologies and systems to make it on their own. We do an equal or greater program for oil and gas companies.

My problem is that the addition of ethenol to consumer grade gasoline makes that gasoline perishable.

Making gas more perishable is a big financial boon to the oil companies.

However, it makes America and Americans weaker because it means we cannot create strategic fuel storage on a personal or local level. So if any war breaks out, an EMP goes off over the US, or major solar flare cripples our nation the perishable gasoline will go bad and we will be SOL _____ out of luck.

Adding ethanol to gasoline harms America's national security and the personal security of individual citizens.

W

Limbaugh, Levin weigh in on Trump’s flawed ethanol stance

POSTED AT 5:21 PM ON DECEMBER 15, 2015 BY JAZZ SHAW


Last week I brought up the sticky question of how King Corn was investing big dollars in going after Ted Cruz over his rejection of government subsidies for ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard and the fact that Donald Trump had taken a very different position on the subject. In fact, he not only seemed to come out in favor of ethanol subsidies, but used that as a line of attack against Ted Cruz. (One of the only candidates to consistently be on the right, conservative side of this question.)

Well, I wasn’t the only one to notice this. Two prominent conservative radio figures who both like Trump quite a bit noticed this as well and weighed in on it yesterday. First up, Rush Limbaugh.

“

…Now, Trump’s not trying to portray himself as a conservative, either. So it’s not a violation of that. But he’s clearly making himself out to be anti-establishment, yet he joins them here. And then he dumped on Cruz for being opposed to ethanol? In other words, we as Republicans must support government subsidies to corn farmers in Iowa if we’re to have any chance of winning Iowa? We’ve gotta stand for subsidies? And that, again, is not a conservative position.”

Rush wasn’t alone. Mark Levin chimed in with a very similar explanation of what’s wrong with this picture.

America’s ethanol requirement destroys the environment, damages car engines, increases gas prices and contributes to the starvation of the global poor. It’s an unmitigated disaster on nearly every level. Can we really as conservatives say that the right side of this is to continue to support this? Based on what conservative principle theory? And if we oppose it, we’re for Big Oil. What the hell does that mean? What does that mean – that our motives are bad? … So why did he go to Iowa, Trump, and promote this? So let me explain something, here’s the phrase I want to use, ‘populism without conservatism is liberalism.’ Even more precisely, populism without conservatism is statism. The state, the federal government, should not be in the fuel making process. The federal government should be dictating that we take food out of people’s mouths and put it into cars because the environmentalists want it. So why would we defend this, when in every respect it’s a disaster?

Some of our readers – who are frequently more astute than I – have regularly pointed out something about Trump’s strategy which is worth noting. Yes, he says some “outrageous” things from time to time, likely going way, way too far off the beaten path. But he does it for a reason. He gets people talking about the conservative position on subjects which are too often taboo. And once the conversation is begun, a surprising number of people wind up coming along, reluctantly at first, and the national conversation shifts. Look no further than the hold on Muslim immigration or the wall on the southern border for examples. I completely agree with this assessment, though I didn’t see it as soon as some of you did.

This is not one of those cases. Arguing in favor of ethanol mandates and the RFS for the sake of a few more votes in Iowa and doing so simply to attack Ted Cruz (who probably stands closest to Trump on the conservative ship this cycle) is a shallow, callous move which doesn’t move the ball forward. He should rethink this position and get away from King Corn. That’s one monarch who will never save you in the end.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/1...thanol-stance/

Gov. Branstad says he wants Ted Cruz defeated in Iowa On Politics Donnelle Eller and

Originally Posted by admin

Interesting.... oil and gas Vs ethanol? Iowa is a big corn and ethenol producer right?

W

About Us - Iowa Farm Bureau
https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/About
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Iowa farms grow more corn and soybeans, raise more pigs, and produce more eggs than any state in the nation. They also rank fourth in cattle marketed, tenth in ...

The Motley Fool Criticizes Ethanol Subsidies That Don't Exist
Blog ››› April 6, 2015 4:53 PM EDT ››› DENISE ROBBINS

biofuel

The multimedia financial services company The Motley Fool criticized ethanol for allegedly relying on government subsidies -- despite the fact that subsidies for corn ethanol, which comprises the vast majority of ethanol used in the country, ended years ago.

In an April 5 Motley Fool post that was posted on USAToday.com, two of their "energy experts" discussed the viability of ethanol -- which currently comprises about 10 percent of the nation's gasoline supply - as an energy source and concluded that ethanol is overly reliant on government subsidies. Travis Hoium wrote that ethanol "requires government subsidies to exist," and Jason Hall agreed that ethanol is "not cost-competitive without government subsidies."

But the renewable fuel currently used in our gasoline supply is almost exclusively made from corn, and corn ethanol subsidies no longer exist; they expired at the end of 2011.

The Motley Fool may have conflated subsidies with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which does not provide a monetary tax break but does require refiners to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels into the nation's motor fuel supply. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), "[fuel] suppliers would probably find it cost-effective to use a roughly 10 percent blend of corn ethanol in gasoline in 2017 even in the absence of the RFS." So even if you (wrongly) considered the RFS to be a "subsidy," The Motley Fool's claim that ethanol needs subsidies to exist simply doesn't hold water.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the RFS plays a vital role in lowering greenhouse gas emissions and reducing dependence on foreign oil.

Meanwhile, immense subsidies are still being handed out to the polluting oil and gas industries -- a fact that was conveniently overlooked by The Motley Fool. President Obama has repeatedly proposed eliminating $4 billion in annual oil and gas handouts from the federal budget - only to have these proposals die in Congress.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04...dies-th/203183