Don’t look now, but Ted Cruz just caved on ethanol (Updated)

posted at 4:41 pm on January 6, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

(See update at bottom of post)

You know, it was just the other day when I was telling you about how effective Ted Cruz has been in Iowa in spite of his opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard and related mandates by the government, particularly in the energy sector. I seem to recall using words like brave, or perhaps heroic. It was, I concluded, a potential game changer in terms of the power of King Corn and the ethanol lobby.

Well, there’s a sucker born every minute and apparently this time it was me.

During a bus tour stop in Sioux Center, Iowa last night, Senator Ted Cruz expressed support for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) through 2022.

Responding to a question from an ethanol investor from Iowa about whether he would allow the landmark energy program to continue through its current expiration in 2022, Sen. Cruz responded by expressing support for the RFS through 2022.

And it wasn’t just the RFS. Oh no! Ted came out with a promise to break the blendwall. Limiting the total blending of ethanol to 10% is the only thing keeping the flood gates partially shut on this mess as it is. What are you talking about Senator Cruz?

At first I thought such a stark reversal of the Senator’s previous position on the RFS might be a mistake. But just to make sure I’d gotten the message, Cruz penned an editorial for the des Moines Register further clarifying his position.

By this point in the campaign, many readers will have seen the furious coordinated effort being waged by Democrats and big-money lobbyists, who are together spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to convince Iowans that I oppose ethanol. Their charges are utter nonsense.

One of the reasons that Iowa’s own Rep. Steve King — a ferocious advocate for Iowa farmers — is enthusiastically supporting my campaign is because, although I oppose government subsidies, I am a passionate supporter of a free and fair energy marketplace…

The lobbyists’ sole focus is on the RFS, because as long as there is a federal government mandate, Washington remains front and center. Under a Cruz administration, that would change.

I know there are going to be some staunch Cruz defenders who will try to spin this as being “what he said all along” but that’s thin gruel at best and it’s simply not true. Here’s what Cruz had to say less than a year ago regarding the RFS.

Don’t expect U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to shuck his opposition to the ethanol-friendly Renewable Fuel Standard when he comes to the Iowa Ag Summit next weekend.

“Ethanol producers in Iowa have demonstrated that there is a real demand for their product and that demand will exist without the federal government getting in the middle,” Cruz said in an interview during the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Oh, and about that blendwall thing? This is the same Senator Cruz who last year was opposed to there being a minimum amount of ethanol blended in our gas.

Cruz has opposed the federal regulation that sets a minimum amount of renewable energy that must be blended into motor fuel. Iowa officials of both parties, including Gov. Terry Branstad, have insisted the standard is vital to the industry and have bitterly opposed a move by the Obama administration to roll it back.

That’s the exact opposite of what he’s saying now.

To be clear, some of what Cruz is saying here absolutely is what he’s been saying from the beginning: no subsidies, level playing field and all of that. I agree! But that’s not the question at hand. The real issue here is absolutely the RFS and the fact that after having previously said that he opposed the standard and would work to eliminate it, he’s now taking the same “talk out of both sides of your mouth” approach that Christie, Jeb Bush and – eventually – Carly Fiorina took. (I’ll leave Trump out of this since he sold out on the RFS and ethanol as soon as the first question was tossed to him.) So Ted wants to just “extend” the RFS to 2022, eh? How convenient that he wants to “phase it out” but that wouldn’t happen until two years after he won his reelection were he to become President. And this stand on the blendwall is an absolute pander to the ethanol lobby of the worst sort.

If you read the rest of his editorial he goes into some of the worst and most deceptive marketing pablum put out by King Corn in support of knocking down the blendwall.

If allowed to reach the market, mid-level ethanol products like E25 or E30 could prove quite popular with American consumers, who are increasingly concerned with fuel economy. Ethanol is an effective fuel additive because it increases octane and decreases harmful tailpipe emissions.

That, my friends, is complete and utter crap. Please pardon my French, but I’m extremely disappointed right now. I’ve been saying for a long time that Cruz has very likely been the candidate who has impressed me the most this season and one of the biggest things in his favor was his position as the lone voice in the field standing strong against the ethanol lobby. I don’t know how many more votes Ted thinks this is going to pull in the Iowa caucus, but I sure hope he thinks it’s worth this level of a sell out. And don’t let them tell you that because some of what he’s saying here is the same as his previous stand that “he’s been saying this all along.” He’s on the record many, many times with the best, most conservative stand of anyone in the race right now on the ethanol question in terms of the specifics which really count and now he’s done a 180 degree flip flop on the key points. I hope he didn’t strain his neck with that bit of acrobatics.

UPDATE: (Jazz)

Since this has produced even more than the predictable firestorm on social media (and in the comments) let’s expand on this a bit. First of all, it’s true that the statement from ARF was misleading in its wording, particularly in saying “support” the way they did. It’s worth noting that other writers, such as Robert King at the Washington Examiner had gone whole hog on the RFS “support” thing and have since updated to specify that the Cruz campaign is calling for a phase out over five years. Fair enough, but I will remind those demanding a “retraction” that I already noted in the original article here that Cruz was talking about a five year sunset. What’s the difference? The difference is that I clearly compared this position to the one Ted Cruz has taken with us at various stops, including CPAC, where there was no talk of a phase out. He said repeal and received well deserved accolades for it. And if you don’t think that Cruz has been doing that, don’t take it from me. Take it from Amanda Carpenter who is pushing back on this the hardest.

CarpenterCruz

There’s a big difference between a repeal and a phase out, as I said. Take from that what you will.

But beyond the details of ending the RFS and the how and the when of it, I also correctly noted that there was a big change on the blend question. At that same CPAC appearance (along with others) Ted Cruz agreed with many ethanol lobby opponents that blended gas causes problems in certain engines and the E10 blend mandate should be removed, not just because mandates are bad, but because ethanol can be problematic, and so people could easily get ethanol free gas if they wanted it. Now go read that editorial that Cruz published in Iowa again and pay attention to the part where he talks about ethanol being an effective additive.

Because of this EPA wall, the market is currently dominated by low-level ethanol blends, such as “E10” (10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline). That has prevented mid-level ethanol fuels, such as E25 or E30, from reaching American consumers.

If allowed to reach the market, mid-level ethanol products like E25 or E30 could prove quite popular with American consumers, who are increasingly concerned with fuel economy. Ethanol is an effective fuel additive because it increases octane and decreases harmful tailpipe emissions.

For those trying to twist my words, I never said he was calling for an E25 mandate, but that he was suddenly very flattering toward it as an option. If you don’t want to admit that this is a very different tone and essentially a quick spin around the dance floor with King Corn, I don’t know what to tell you.

And finally (thank God) I hope we can just drop the idea that any criticism of someone’s favorite candidate on a single issue amounts to a declaration of war or a call to drop him out of the race. Any regular readers who are being honest know that I’ve published one favorable article after another about Ted Cruz and come as close to endorsing him as I have any of the candidates. Should I remind you that I began this article with a link to an extremely glowing piece I published about Ted Cruz on this very issue way back… oh, when was it again… oh, yes. YESTERDAY. If you want to pretend that I’m now suddenly some sort of fifth column agent working to destroy Ted Cruz, I’m not going to take you seriously.

While this is a big, pet issue of mine (take a moment to browse through the endless list of articles I’ve written on ethanol) it doesn’t change the fact that Cruz remains close to the gold standard for conservatives among the candidates currently in contention. While I’d rather see the tougher stance on ethanol that Ted Cruz has taken in the past, this would absolutely not be enough to drive me away from supporting him or cause me to refuse to vote for him. It’s one issue of many and he’s right on far more of the rest of those issues than his competition. But when he makes a change like this on a topic of great interest to me (and it is absolutely a change) then I’m going to speak up about it. How much weight you give the issue is obviously up to you.

cruz-irs


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

BoxHead1 on January 6, 2016 at 9:46 PM

American Thinker is a good site.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 PM

Just to be sure I understand properly… you acknowledge his longstanding opposition to a government mandated minimum of Ethanol in fuel blends… and now that he also opposes a government mandated maximum, you think this is some kind of hypocritical contradiction?

I’ve got news for you: consistent opposition to ANY level of mandate is CONSISTENT. I oppose censorship of free speech, and I also oppose government subsidizing partisan mouthpieces like NPR. I oppose gun control, and I also oppose mandated firearm ownership. I support equal civil rights for all races, and I oppose affirmative action. NONE of these positions are contradictory.

There’s a big difference between a repeal and a phase out, as I said.

What if the phaseout was 1 year instead of 5? 1 Month? 1 Week? 1 day? The “big difference” is subjective at best, but it takes some pretzel logic to conflate supporting the phaseout of a mandate with supporting the mandate.

If someone opposes say, the death tax, but would vote for a bill sunsetting it over 5 years instead of killing it tomorrow, to you that is the same as “supporting” the death tax?

Sorry Jazz, you’re just wrong on this one.

CapnObvious on January 6, 2016 at 9:56 PM

Thanks. I only know about Conservative Tree House because of HA commenters. I just started reading it a couple of weeks ago.

BoxHead1 on January 6, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Gay Patriot is worth a read as well. I am straight, but I love V the K’s scathing take on leftists and SJWs.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 9:57 PM

All that is true, but you know what he didn’t do? He didn’t make immigration an issue, and in 2016 immigration is the only issue, and Trump owns it. Watch this amazing video, and realize what is coming.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:37 PM

Prior to his change of heart a couple of weeks ago, Cruz wanted to double the number of legal immigrants (with the biggest increases for mexico, India and china, the majority of whose immigrants vote Democratic), increase H-1Bs by 500% and legalize illegals.

bw222 on January 6, 2016 at 9:58 PM

And finally (thank God) I hope we can just drop the idea that any criticism of someone’s favorite candidate on a single issue amounts to a declaration of war or a call to drop him out of the race.

Amen, brother!

… when he makes a change like this on a topic of great interest to me (and it is absolutely a change) then I’m going to speak up about it. How much weight you give the issue is obviously up to you.

As well you should. I’m a Cruz supporter but I don’t expect perfection from anyone. The fact that he hasn’t been 100% consistent doesn’t bother me because he is by far the most principled and consistent guy out there. He’s a shrewd and skilled politician who has been inside the GOPe’s OODA loop for quite a while now. Politics ain’t bean bag, this is war. He’s better than they are, he’s smarter than they are. (No, he’s not perfect, but who is? Get real.) We need someone with exactly his qualities.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM

bw222 on January 6, 2016 at 9:58 PM

He has explained his change of heart on this issue, and Jeff Sessions backs his story up. He and Sessions introduced a bill that stated you had to have a degree higher than a Bachelor’s Degree, and the company must pay you at least $100,000 yearly. He also wanted a two year hiatus for Visas for companies that had laid off people. I don’t see the problem with that, and the fact that Sessions sponsored the bill with him makes it even more credible in my eyes.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:05 PM

And finally (thank God) I hope we can just drop the idea that any criticism of someone’s favorite candidate on a single issue amounts to a declaration of war or a call to drop him out of the race.

Amen, brother!

… when he makes a change like this on a topic of great interest to me (and it is absolutely a change) then I’m going to speak up about it.

As well you should.

How much weight you give the issue is obviously up to you.

I’m a Cruz supporter but I don’t expect perfection from anyone. The fact that he hasn’t been 100% consistent doesn’t bother me because he is by far the most principled and consistent guy out there. He’s a shrewd and skilled politician who has been inside the GOPe’s OODA loop for quite a while now. Politics ain’t bean bag, this is war. He’s better than they are, he’s smarter than they are. (No, he’s not perfect, but who is? Get real.) We need someone with exactly his qualities.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 10:05 PM

As well you should. I’m a Cruz supporter but I don’t expect perfection from anyone. The fact that he hasn’t been 100% consistent doesn’t bother me because he is by far the most principled and consistent guy out there. He’s a shrewd and skilled politician who has been inside the GOPe’s OODA loop for quite a while now. Politics ain’t bean bag, this is war. He’s better than they are, he’s smarter than they are. (No, he’s not perfect, but who is? Get real.) We need someone with exactly his qualities.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM

Bingo!! I also appreciate that Trump is in the race, because he has taken the focus off of Cruz, but I don’t understand some of the visceral dislike that some Trump supporters have for Cruz. Trump hasn’t been consistent either.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Headline still a lie.

To “cave,” his position has to have changed, and it hasn’t.

This is not a close call or an “interpretation,” it’s crap.

Merovign on January 6, 2016 at 10:08 PM

don’t sweat it Jazz.you’re doing a great job. you come a long ways from weekend posts about coddled eggs. I am really enjoying your work these days. keep it up.

wolly4321 on January 6, 2016 at 10:10 PM

Oops. Sorry for the double tap.

I’m having page loading issues (here only) for some reason. I thought the first version didn’t post.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 10:12 PM

Big deal Ted caved in to King Corn.

He’s just triangulating with his finger in the wind.

Dan333 on January 6, 2016 at 10:15 PM

wolly4321 on January 6, 2016 at 10:10 PM

I’m with you, wolly.

Keep up the good work, Jazz, it’s well-appreciated.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 10:16 PM

He supported both of those things, even those he has since backed away from them, with part of his response being due to pressure from Trump’s presence as a candidate in the race. lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 8:31 PM

I’ve read this opinion on other websites also that you’ve stated here. Nothing wrong with it, since it’s true that Donald Trump has spoken clearly about many topics. And that has caused other Candidates to modify their previously held positions.

That causes me to have the opinion that had Donald Trump not entered the Presidential race, Senator Ted Cruz would not have changed his positions on H1-B, Immigration, TPA and others. The fact that he did, tells me he wants to be President for the wrong reasons, otherwise what would be the reasons for changing?

Donald J. Trump wants to be President for the right reasons; our Country and the American People.

If you want a great website that is factual & 99% troll free, I’d recommend http://theconservativetreehouse.com/ They are Pro-Trump and even if you don’t register there, it’s uplifting and most informative just to read.

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:17 PM

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:05 PM

He also explained his change of heart on ObamaTrade – Mitch McConnell “lied to him.”

You have to be pretty dumb not to realize that ObamaTrade is bad for the United States and middle class Americans (NAFTA on steroids), even if Mitch McConnell lies to you. You have to be pretty dumb in 2013 not to realize that the vast majority of H-1Bs are run-of-the-mill programmers who are taking the jobs of US citizens and depressing IT wages.

Ted Cruz is not dumb.

bw222 on January 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM

While this is a big, pet issue of mine (take a moment to browse through the endless list of articles I’ve written on ethanol) it doesn’t change the fact that Cruz remains close to the gold standard for conservatives among the candidates currently in contention. While I’d rather see the tougher stance on ethanol that Ted Cruz has taken in the past, this would absolutely not be enough to drive me away from supporting him or cause me to refuse to vote for him.

Awesome, I didn’t think you’d do something like that intentionally.

As for the mid-level grades “could prove quite popular” statement I’m thinking he’s just blowing smoke up their exhaust pipes.

In a free market without subsidies and govt interference, even crap flavored lollipops “could prove popular”.

But with what the mid level grades will do to our engines, the mid grades and the lollipop will most likely fail.

Saying they could be popular is telling them what they want to hear without actually supporting it. No one wants to hear their product is a bad idea.

Oxymoron on January 6, 2016 at 10:22 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:17 PM

Thank you for the site recommendation!

And I’ve wondered the same thing about the path that Cruz would have taken if not for Trump’s presence.

Anyway, it’s definitely going to be an exciting election season.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 10:22 PM

He Presidential candidate Cruz and Sessions introduced a bill that stated you had to have a degree higher than a Bachelor’s Degree, and the company must pay you at least $100,000 yearly. He also wanted a two year hiatus for Visas for companies that had laid off people. I don’t see the problem with that, and the fact that Sessions sponsored the bill with him makes it even more credible in my eyes.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:05 PM

Was Cruz interested in protecting US jobs from foreign workers before becoming a Presidential candidate? Not so much.

bw222 on January 6, 2016 at 10:25 PM

Was Cruz interested in protecting US jobs from foreign workers before becoming a Presidential candidate? Not so much.

bw222 on January 6, 2016 at 10:25 PM

Maybe, maybe not, but not one candidate including Trump hasn’t changed a political belief. I fully expect to be disappointed by anyone who is elected, but I also think Cruz is the most consistent conservative of the bunch. I don’t necessarily trust Trump, but given our field, he is my number two pick. All of them have flaws, but I don’t get the Cruz bashing. He is 1000 percent better than our last two GOP nominees.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM

Sundance puts a lot of work into the posts, and does good research/analysis. Even if you aren’t pro-Trump, you can learn a good deal, especially about how the GOPe has set up the primary schedule and rules.

Buckshot Bill on January 6, 2016 at 9:30 PM

Sundance works very hard and I don’t know how he ever rests. It’s the best researched site I’ve found & his analysis is very insightful. I find the commenters are very knowledgeable also.

Redstate don’t believe in free speech:-)

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:35 PM

Bingo!! I also appreciate that Trump is in the race, because he has taken the focus off of Cruz, but I don’t understand some of the visceral dislike that some Trump supporters have for Cruz. Trump hasn’t been consistent either.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Does this help?

Wow, you howler monkeys are even more goddamned stupid than you appear.

Happy Nomad on December 30, 2015 at 8:28 AM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:37 PM

Maybe, maybe not, but not one candidate including Trump hasn’t changed a political belief. I fully expect to be disappointed by anyone who is elected, but I also think Cruz is the most consistent conservative of the bunch. I don’t necessarily trust Trump, but given our field, he is my number two pick. All of them have flaws, but I don’t get the Cruz bashing. He is 1000 percent better than our last two GOP nominees.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM

It’s funny, I never see you call out the Trump bashing.

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:37 PM

But when he makes a change like this on a topic of great interest to me

Please Jazz, you really sell yourself short here.

Great interest = # of ethanol articles multiplied by number of words used in each said article approaching an approximation of Avogadro’s number.

/s

I kid, I kid.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 6, 2016 at 10:38 PM

Gay Patriot is worth a read as well. I am straight, but I love V the K’s scathing take on leftists and SJWs.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 9:57 PM

Oooh. Honey, do you have a linky, please?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:39 PM

I’m pulling quotes from the last time Trump ran for office. The fact that NONE of you trumpeteers think that he thought the GOP was TOO RIGHT IN 1999 is a problem. He is running to the right of everyone now, but suddenly being right wing is okay./Facepalm

He supported abortion, assault gun ban, universal healthcare, and hate crimes, something that should be abhorrent to most conservative voters.

I never thought I would see our side lionizing someone to the point that legit. criticism is scoffed at. The right wing hasn’t been right win in frickin 30 years, and that is pushing it. He truly is the right wing’s Obama.

melle1228 on December 14, 2015 at 8:08 PM

I don’t get the Cruz bashing.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:42 PM

It’s a veritable crap storm! The “debate” was crap and a blot on Fox and it’s three interrogators, the pouting, petulant teenager Trump is beyond crap and Ms. Peyser’s column is a whipped froth of crap as a topping.

Mason on August 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM

+1000

melle1228 on August 10, 2015 at 1:48 PM

I don’t get the Cruz bashing.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM

It’s funny, I never see you call out the Trump bashing.

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:37 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:45 PM

Trump also have the self-awareness of a potato.

melle1228 on December 15, 2015 at 7:17 PM

I don’t get the Cruz bashing.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:49 PM

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:17 PM

Thank you for the site recommendation!

And I’ve wondered the same thing about the path that Cruz would have taken if not for Trump’s presence.

Anyway, it’s definitely going to be an exciting election season.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 10:22 PM

You’re welcome and I’m sure you’ll enjoy it!

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:50 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Good job:-)

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM

He wants to… remove the requirements and restrictions on ethanol.

He wants to remove the subsidies AND the limits on the amount of ethanol that can be added. If this is caving, can he find any other issues to cave on? He seems to have moved further right here.

FlareCorran on January 6, 2016 at 11:02 PM

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:39 PM

heh.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 11:03 PM

FlareCorran on January 6, 2016 at 11:02 PM

There are no subsidies.

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 11:03 PM

repeal or phase out. liberty and taxpayers win.

J.B. Say on January 6, 2016 at 11:12 PM

He wants to… remove the requirements and restrictions on ethanol.

He wants to remove the subsidies AND the limits on the amount of ethanol that can be added. If this is caving, can he find any other issues to cave on? He seems to have moved further right here.

FlareCorran on January 6, 2016 at 11:02 PM

Right. He’s pitching a market based system to people dependent on government subsidies and making it look good to them. End the subsidies but eliminate government regulations that restrict market access and let the product rise or fall based on its economic utility.

Seems reasonable to me.

novaculus on January 6, 2016 at 11:15 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Yep, you caught me, but I also was found on several threads sticking for Trump as well. I believe one of those threads had to do with his Syrian refugee comments. Best you put my quotes in context.

Oooh. Honey, do you have a linky, please?

Walter L. Newton on January 6, 2016 at 10:39 PM

http://www.gaypatriot.net/

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 11:30 PM

fossten on January 6, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Good job:-)

bluefox on January 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM

Bravo, you found three quotes. One from August, and two from December. Like I said, if you look back, you will also find me sticking up for Trump as well.

I was pretty clear that I don’t get the Cruz bashing for a change in policy or position, since ALL of the candidates have done it.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 11:33 PM

This post is inexcusably sloppy. Jazz Shaw has had all day to fix it. It’s a stain on the site that he has not.

Patterico on January 6, 2016 at 11:42 PM

Cruz or Trump…I won’t vote for anyone else.

#destroythegop

#burnittotheground

PappyD61 on January 7, 2016 at 12:06 AM

Breaking News: “TRUMP CAVED ON CORN SUBSIDIES FROM THE WORD GO!”

TRUMP supports ethanol subsidies! So does Marco Rubio. Cruz ONLY candidate to fight ethanol subsidies! How about that for a headline Jazz? It’s more fair than the one you wrote.

Cruz DID NOT CAVE ON ETANOL SUBSIDIES.
His BILL said he wanted to PHASE out ethanol subsidies over 5 years! It’s the way the bill originally went in to Congress. It gives the farmers time to rotate their crops out and get used to losing the subsidy. Cruz is getting rid of the subsidy whatever way he can.
The Conservative Treehouse is a groupie site for Donald Trump and I no longer read it for any objective reports on the election.

searcher on January 7, 2016 at 12:18 AM

trump fans complaining that cruz is (supposedly) inconsistent… hahaha wow the irony is strong

Sachiko on January 7, 2016 at 12:58 AM

Jazz – You have an uncanny ability to ALWAYS spout off with an opinion without first getting the facts straight. You’re an embarrassment to HA.

sixchickensleft on January 7, 2016 at 1:43 AM

Cruz has fallen from my number one choice to my number two choice precisely because of flexibility with some of his positions. At first I thought Trump was a big joke, but he has led this race all the way not just in the polls, but in every important way, and this is after all about choosing a leader.

claudius on January 7, 2016 at 1:49 AM

I don’t have a number three choice.

claudius on January 7, 2016 at 1:49 AM

Cruz is a leader. He’s been fighting for conservatives ever since becoming a Senator.

Trump wrote a few books, changed parties five times and thinks his anti-life sister would make an awesome Supreme Court Justice.

BlameAmericaLast on January 7, 2016 at 2:12 AM

Oops! Looks like Hotgas has been called out YET AGAIN for promoting a false smear…what’s this ? Number 4 or 5???

Oh well…carry on Hotgas/Politico/Buzzfeed/Vox

winston on January 7, 2016 at 2:56 AM

Ethanol is the welfare check for the red state conservatives….Cruz should run for Prime Minister of Canada instead.

Bradky on January 7, 2016 at 4:22 AM

I was pretty clear that I don’t get the Cruz bashing for a change in policy or position, since ALL of the candidates have done it.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 11:33 PM

One of the major reasons supporters of Cruz claim he is better than Trump is due to his being a rock-solid, unbending conservative who has never flip flopped or changed his stance on subjects based on public opinion or due to electoral concerns unlike the “lying Trump.”

So now that Cruz is suddenly looking more like a traditional politician, Trump supporters are enjoying some schadenfreude at their expense. That’s what a lot of this is.

Doomberg on January 7, 2016 at 4:31 AM

The politicians pander to that damned State to get primary votes
Even Man-bear-pig admitted as much.
Iowa, thanks for screwing up gasoline, starving the poor, thus becoming the political toilet bowl of America.

kregg on January 7, 2016 at 6:02 AM

Sounds like this is just pretty much a big “wah” from JS

WordsMatter on January 7, 2016 at 6:55 AM

Oops! Looks like Hotgas has been called out YET AGAIN for promoting a false smear…what’s this ? Number 4 or 5???

Oh well…carry on Hotgas/Politico/Buzzfeed/Vox

winston on January 7, 2016 at 2:56 AM

You should have seen Ed and Allah scramble during the Giffords shooting. They became trolls on their own website… lol

WordsMatter on January 7, 2016 at 6:56 AM

Come on Jazz, shoot it straight! You lay out what he has done accurately in your update…had you accurately done so in the original post you would not have gotten your “expected firestorm ”

Your headline cites “CAVE”…which implies the worst in a politician but your updates says changed…how about alters or revises or backs off or softens or clarity’s?

You got the clicks and you painted Cruz as a run of the mill flip flopper….it only serves to weaken one of the most conservative in the field.

winston on January 7, 2016 at 7:21 AM

You got the clicks and you painted Cruz as a run of the mill flip flopper….it only serves to weaken one of the most conservative in the field.

winston on January 7, 2016 at 7:21 AM

It’s as if the pundits and bloggers are waiting for the shoe to drop on Cruz, i.e., for Cruz to flip flop/cave on something. I have to ask if said pundits/bloggers have been awake and watching Cruz over the past three years? I mean, this guy is as solid as they come in his conservative bonafides. Baffling.

WordsMatter on January 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM

It’s as if the pundits and bloggers are waiting for the shoe to drop on Cruz, i.e., for Cruz to flip flop/cave on something. I have to ask if said pundits/bloggers have been awake and watching Cruz over the past three years? I mean, this guy is as solid as they come in his conservative bonafides. Baffling.

WordsMatter on January 7, 2016 at 7:25 AM

Every last right of center blog and outlet opened fire with their biggest guns for weeks on end at Newt in 2012 to make way for Romney. I will not be surprised if it does not happen for someone with 10 times the wealth this go round. They claim to be conservative, but when it matters most, like our congressmen, they backstab you. At least they updated it.

Constitutionalist on January 7, 2016 at 7:55 AM

I don’t think jazz understands there are people’s livelihoods at stake in this. To end the subsidy day one would be irresponsible and cruel to the people that make up this business. A phase out gives people time to figure out what to do.

wheelgun on January 7, 2016 at 9:08 AM

And finally (thank God) I hope we can just drop the idea that any criticism of someone’s favorite candidate on a single issue amounts to a declaration of war or a call to drop him out of the race.

Alright, Jazz.

Here is your first mark I will give against you.

Although Cruz is my first choice in the GOP field, one thing I won’t tolerate is a deceptive headline and a false narrative that misrepresents something my candidate does.

I DO have the right to call you out on it. Period. You brought the thunder, so deal with it.

As far as the rest of the update goes, I don’t have any issues with it. And kudos to you for getting the facts out in the update.

However, “Don’t look now, but Ted Cruz just caved on ethanol (Updated)” is a blatantly inaccurate headline, so I recommend the following:

Remove it.

Turtle317 on January 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM

Jazz this is blatantly stupid on your part or purposefully manipulative lying.

Neither is a good answer so which one is it?

There is no cave there.

brainpimp on January 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM

Ted Cruz is the only guy who isn’t all for ethanol mandates. If he wants to phase it out, ok by me. What’s not ok though is doing it over 5 years. It needs to be DEAD and buried BEFORE the end of his first term. Otherwise, President Elizabeth Warren will ramp the subsidies back up in year 5. Make sure it’s dead before your term is done Cruz!!!!!

Free Indeed on January 7, 2016 at 9:37 AM

Cruz is pandering in Iowa. That’s the simple fact of the matter. Raising ethanol levels does not improve milage —just the opposite. I have been paying a considerable premium to keep that stuff out of my vehicles, and I shouldn’t have to. If I drove more miles I simply couldn’t afford to. Let’s eat the corn and feed it to our livestock, not put it in our gas tanks.

claudius on January 7, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Remember how long we paid farmers not to grow tobacco. Brilliant!

Cindy Munford on January 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM

Cruz is pandering in Iowa.

claudius on January 7, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Um, did you read to the end of Jazz’s post?

WordsMatter on January 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM

After reading Tim Carney’s retraction over at the Washington examiner his position is fine.

I originally took it to be basically to not renew the RFS in 2022:

1st-4th year nothing.
5th year cut totally.

Were the above the case it would never get cut. Kicking the can down the road in Washington never solves anything.

Cutting it by a 5th every year is alright I guess. By the end of his theoretical first term it will have been cut 80% if he stays true. WAY better than any other candidate running. He tried the full stop approach and got nowhere, so doing it gradually is the only way forward.

clement on January 7, 2016 at 9:53 AM

Eh, so what. Whether we call it repeal or phase-out or hodinkum, they were never going to just shut down ethanol subsidies overnight, that would be terribly disruptive.

Ted’s struck a pretty good balance between free market solutions and Iowa interests.

BTW, what everyone seems to have missed is Cruz’s hint that he will open the US to Brazilian ethanol, which is actually cost-effectve.

TallDave on January 7, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Jizz, the joke. Always looking to screw the conservative.
Pour Jizz is gonna have to vote for the Dem again. Just can’t have a Nazi like Cruz or Trump.

steelhawk on January 7, 2016 at 10:52 AM

In terms of pure sciences, our country needs to know how to create ethanol and other biofuels, it needs to know how to make electricity from solar panels and wind panels and nuclear fuel, but it does not need the government to prop up the industries, because the government would only do that in an emergency, for a temporary amount of time. We don’t need ethanol, we only need to know how to use it and convert to it in dire circumstances. Ethanol does not satisfy the Carbon Nuts, but they pretend to want it because it is called a biofuel, it takes a lot energy to cultivate ethanol, and it takes a lot of money and energy to create solar panels and wind turbines. One of the best sources of naturally occuring energy is hydropower, and the environmentalists go ballistic over that, because making a dam is a sin against god and nature…oh right, they don’t believe in god.

I don’t care if there is a little ethanol out there, maybe they want to use more of it in the midwest where it grows. But we should not have to have it mixed in our gas if we don’t want it, it is the law mandating it that needs fixing, then let the market dictate, expensive ethanol or petroleum gas.

Fleuries on January 7, 2016 at 11:05 AM

I guess it would be too much for Shaw to read the WSJ or the AJC to see that the ethanolindustry in Iowa is doing everything it can to defeat Cruz. No, on this site Cruz is not the candidate of choice and just like FNC nothing is ever mentioned positive about him. I have never seen so many “Independent” and “Unbiased” sites show the opposite as in this primary. FNC positively hates Cruz and Trump. They spend about 3/4’s of their news day blasting them. They love them some Rubio and Bush but no one else.

inspectorudy on January 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Jazz Shaw wrote, in his update above, “There’s a big difference between a repeal and a phase out, as I said.”

No. No, there’s not in the real world.

Jazz, would you want the ethanol subsidies repealed retroactively? Let’s do a clawback and bankrupt all those Iowa farmers who — free market-loving or not — benefited in any way from them.

So if we’re not doing it retroactively, we’re doing it prospectively. That’s the way actual legislative repeals work, my friend. Always, no matter how wadded your panties may be. Even in civil contexts, “ex post facto” laws are exceedingly rare — the sort of thing you saw in the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, not in the sort of reprise of the Reagan Revolution which we now so badly need.

So if we’re going to give those who’ve been relying on, and complying with, existing law for so many years any grace period, we’re going to have a phase-out. That’s implicit in any realistic repeal program.

Try another update, one that actually corresponds to the way legislative repeals have been accomplished throughout American history. Be gracious instead of thin-skinned this time. Concede that it was you who missed the point, and that you may well have misled some of your readers. I’d respectfully suggest that you change the post title and put at least a bolded warning and internal link to your update up at the very top, to prevent even more readers from being misled.

I’m a long-time fan and regular reader, but you’re hemorrhaging credibility. It’s hard to regain.

Beldar on January 7, 2016 at 4:06 PM

JAZZ! You gave me a freaking heart attack with that headline! It’s hard enough not to be cynical in this election season environment. Please change the headline – it isn’t accurate.

WynDCynD on January 7, 2016 at 4:52 PM

JAZZ! You gave me a freaking heart attack with that headline! It’s hard enough not to be cynical in this election season environment. Please change the headline – it isn’t accurate.

WynDCynD

This.

In fact, this is the only kind of ‘compassionate conservative’ action I can tolerate.

Knott Buyinit on January 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM

I’m a long-time fan and regular reader, but you’re hemorrhaging credibility. It’s hard to regain.

Yes — and the longer you just ignore it, the worse it gets.

Patterico on January 8, 2016 at 12:03 AM

I see that Patterico has found a new windmill named Jazz. What a long way he has come from bemoaning Obama’s lack of executive experience and fitness for the Presidency to shining Ted’s knob as the only hope for the republic.

B.A. Moderate on January 8, 2016 at 4:54 AM

48 hours later – and Jazz still hasn’t retracted his lies.

Disgusting.

Jazz owes Ted Cruz and Hot Air readers an apology.

Pork-Chop on January 8, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4