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

Is there a difference between having an apple now or having one 5 years from now?

Is there a difference between having an apple now or having one-fifth of an apple 5 years from now?

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:20 PM

Yes, four-fifths.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:25 PM

So, why did he imply differently at CPAC, and then make the statement he has as a candidate in the month prior to the primary in Iowa?

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:24 PM

He may very well have implied, or intended it to be inferred, that he meant immediate repeal when he said repeal. Wouldn’t make Jazz’s headline correct, though.

Further, why would a candidate have less generic and more specific policy prescriptions a month prior to elections? Uh. That’s what always happens.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

…han what he said in 2013.

*posted too soon by accident*

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:24 PM

No worries. I do that alot too! :)

I think the point though is that although he wants it gone immediately he’s refined his strategy to make it more doable. The end goal is the same but it’s just a smoother path for all parties involved.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

Misleading statement: Ted Cruz just caved on ethanol

Non-misleading statement: The New Jersey Jets caved on Sunday.

So glad the Bills kicked your Jets azzes.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

The 2013 bill to immediately end RFS was going nowhere; you can’t yank a subsidy program out from under an entire industry. It was a rookie offer made by a rookie Senator. It wouldn’t pull 10 votes in the Senate then, now or tomorrow.

A 5-year wind-down with a 20% reduction each year is an aggressive schedule that Cruz has adhered to and pushed since 2014. Meanwhile everyone else – including Rubio – wants RFS left untouched and running at 100% through 2022. So too The Donald.

What’s amazing is the crap thrown in the air over the ethanol industry. Once Cruz – assuming he can get the legislation he needs – phases out their subsidies, do posters here suggest that the industry just collapse? Would you make the production of ethanol from corn illegal? Or would the industry be allowed to compete in the open market, free of government intrusion, as Cruz has suggested?

Once again, as the dust settles, Cruz is the smartest guy in the room.

Jumpintimmy on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

So a candidate repeating the same position he’s been promoting and still promotes is a flip? Okay.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:15 PM

Well, since 2014, anyway. Kind of like being against legalization since a couple of weeks ago.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

Obviously. But if I say, I will give you an apple, and don’t say whether I will give you one now or in 5 years, I satisfy my promise whether I give you one now, or in 5 years.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:23 PM

If it were exactly the same the concept of “interest” would not exist.

Time has a monetary value, so an apple today has more value than an apple 5 years from now.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:29 PM

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

ROFL. Yeah, especially when they know they won’t be office in 2022.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:29 PM

I think the point though is that although he wants it gone immediately he’s refined his strategy to make it more doable. The end goal is the same but it’s just a smoother path for all parties involved.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:27 PM

I agree, it’s politics.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:31 PM

Is there a difference between having an apple now or having one 5 years from now?

Is there a difference between having an apple now or having one-fifth of an apple 5 years from now?

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:20 PM

Yes, four-fifths.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:25 PM

Wouldn’t it be more like having an apple now and having 1/5 next year, 1/5 the year after … 1/5 in the fifth year? And, yes there would be! Because the the first 4/5 of the apple would be rotten by the fifth year. But, then again government spending cuts don’t rot.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:31 PM

Jazz caves:

It’s on the top of the page and will be for hours longer

Jazz Shaw on January 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM

At which point it will be phased out over 5 hours. Thanks!

kcewa on January 6, 2016 at 7:31 PM

And Cruz has a superior immigration plan.
Trump: Bring the good ones back expeditiously.
Cruz: Do not let them come back.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 6:26 PM

If that were true it could make a difference in Iowa.

But…

Although further clarification from Trump could not hurt, the consensus is that once a deported illegal is deported by Trump then even Trump wouldn’t have the power to bring him back except through the arduous legal process. Get in line like the rest.

It’s good that Cruz says he won’t bring him back, but the problem is that Cruz has said he opposes Trump’s mass deportation plan (and supports mass legalization instead). You can’t bring back those that you don’t deport.

Further, as far as whether Cruz’s immigration policy is superior to Trump’s, the inescapable fact is that Cruz REJECTED Trump’s blanket ban on Muslim immigration:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-on-trumps-proposed-muslim-ban-no-thats-not-my-policy/article/2577822

Cruz says it’s about terrorism and doing a limited ban from just a few select countries. Not good enough, and it’s not just about terrorism. It’s about that we don’t want this country to turn into Europe, and Cruz’s non-blanket ban leaves the brunt of the frighteningly high levels of Muslim immigration in place. How can we “vet” the future children of the the millions of future Muslim immigrants? We can’t.

Cruz has always been pro-immigration and a globalist. Trump is the answer for this election cycle so we can deal the most effectively with the critical immigration issue. Cruz can come later.

anotherJoe on January 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM

I agree, it’s politics.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:31 PM

Indeed, it is.

Cruz is far too shrewd for it to be simply coincidence for him to bring “phasing it out” into the situation within a month prior to the primary in a state that is highly dependent on those subsidies.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM

I think he wanted it to be repealed immediately but it wasn’t a doable scenario for whatever reason.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:17 PM

Looking forward to your ringing defense when the Machiavellian genius Ted Cruz “walks back” his adamant position on legalization and citizenship because that harsh position was not “doable” for whatever reason.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

Well, since 2014, anyway. Kind of like being against legalization since a couple of weeks ago.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

Sure thing. Except for the being true part.

I get it. You don’t like that Trump has the most inconsistent record on policy of any of them, that even on his flagship issue, he supported keeping the good illegals on a merit based system until he suddenly changed his mind a couple months into his campaign.

So it’s important for you to try to paint everyone as being a worse alternative.

The problem is, Cruz, with all his flaws, is still the most consistent small government Constitutional Conservative running. He’s still got a stronger record and agenda, without all the bluster.

So yes please do keep harping on the fact that Cruz refined his get rid of ethanol strategy in 2014 to a 4 year plan because that totally makes ethanol pandering Trump look like a better candidate in comparison.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

If it were exactly the same the concept of “interest” would not exist.

Time has a monetary value, so an apple today has more value than an apple 5 years from now.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:29 PM

All political promises come with a time indeterminate quality unless otherwise noted. If a candidate says I will give you amnesty and gives you amnesty in the 6th year of his candidacy, he still fulfills that promise.

And, I’ve already said that “apple now” is different from “apple in 5 years.” You don’t have to continue to argue that they are different. Nevertheless, they both satisfy “apple.”

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM

Looking forward to your ringing defense when the Machiavellian genius Ted Cruz “walks back” his adamant position on legalization and citizenship because that harsh position was not “doable” for whatever reason.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

You mean like how Trump walked back his keeping the good ones here on a merit based system because trying to deport everyone was inhumane? That kind of walk back? Naw. I’ll leave that to your guy.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM

“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.

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.

Cruz suggests he’s all for renewable energy as long as the government isn’t involved. “I think anytime government tries to pick winners and losers, it’s a mistake,” he said.

Cruz’s entire argument is in defense of ending the subsidies. Everything positive he had to say about ethanol was just another part of his argument that no subsidies are required.

Axe on January 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM

So this article will be phased out 20% per hour? Poetic justice.

BlameAmericaLast on January 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

ROFL.

Sorry. Cruz lost me completely where his position on immigration is concerned when he supported TPA.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM

ROFL. Yeah, especially when they know they won’t be office in 2022.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:29 PM

Presumably, this would be one of those automatically expiring spending things. Otherwise, it wouldn’t fulfill the promise. Then again, we’d probably have people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan chomping at the bit to spend more money and would bring back all of the spending and then some as soon as Cruz was out of the way. But, that would be irrespective of whether the repeal of was immediate or phased.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM

Wouldn’t it be more like having an apple now and having 1/5 next year, 1/5 the year after … 1/5 in the fifth year? And, yes there would be! Because the the first 4/5 of the apple would be rotten by the fifth year. But, then again government spending cuts don’t rot.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:31 PM

No, it would be like having a full apple now, 4/5 of another apple next year, 3/5 of another apple the year after that and so on until they get no more apples.

Marco is proposing giving them a full apple every year until 2022.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:37 PM

The problem is, Cruz, with all his flaws, is still the most consistent small government Constitutional Conservative running. He’s still got a stronger record and agenda, without all the bluster.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 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

Is there a difference between having an apple now or having one 5 years from now?

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:20 PM

You won’t have an apple in 5 years. You are going to have half an apple next year, a quarter of an apple in 2 years, an eighth of an apple in three years, and so on, until there is no apple left in 5 years.

Gelsomina on January 6, 2016 at 7:37 PM

So which AMNESTY SHILL RINO is Jazz Shaw supporting??? ALL OF THEM????? Hey, let’s talk about Bill Clinton looking old and giving North Koreans the bomb…..

Realdemocrat1 on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

It’s a shining example of Cruz’s Machiavellian brilliance that he pulled the big flip on ethanol a few years ago, so that by election time no one would notice. You’ve got to get those panders out of the way while you’re still under the radar!

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

Politicalspeak:

Donate to my campaign and Ill support a phase out, don’t and I’ll push for a speedy repeal.

Scottie on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

UPDATE: (Jazz)

But, you still have not explained why you falsely claim that Cruz has ‘caved on ethanol’ – even though you yourself, as well as multiple commenters, have posted plenty of evidence that his position is basically the same as it has always been.

It makes no sense.

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

So, why did he imply differently at CPAC, and then make the statement he has as a candidate in the month prior to the primary in Iowa?

You don’t think the timing of his statement are significant?

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:24 PM

CPAC he was probably just getting associated with the law. I do not even know which CPAC it was you guys are saying.
But his position has been the same since 2014, identical to what it was in 2014.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

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

This is why I like Cruz.

When I read the headline, I confidently KNEW there was more to the story.

I haven’t been able to trust a Republican candidate to be a true conservative and not pander insincerely and have the guts to do what’s right since Reagan.

God bless Cruz. This country needs him.

Elisa on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

ROFL.

Sorry. Cruz lost me completely where his position on immigration is concerned when he supported TPA.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM

It wasn’t my favorite thing either and I wish it hadn’t happened. Even with that unforced error, he’s still the best, most consistent of the lot running though.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

If a candidate says I will give you amnesty and gives you amnesty in the 6th year of his candidacy, he still fulfills that promise.

And, I’ve already said that “apple now” is different from “apple in 5 years.”

But if he says “I will give you amnesty now” it isn’t the same.

I don’t think this is some horrible betrayal, but I also don’t think it’s necessary to scream “TAKE THIS POST DOWN NOW!!!”

Obviously he changed his position a little bit in 2014 with an eye on winning the Iowa caucus.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Looking forward to your ringing defense when the Machiavellian genius Ted Cruz “walks back” his adamant position on legalization and citizenship because that harsh position was not “doable” for whatever reason.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 7:33 PM

You mean like how Trump walked back his keeping the good ones here on a merit based system because trying to deport everyone was inhumane? That kind of walk back? Naw. I’ll leave that to your guy.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM

Cruz’s position of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appears to be more hardline than Trump’s at this point. But, I can certainly appreciate Trump for the publicity that he brought and his significant moving of the Overton Window on the issue.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

Yes, he did.

Cruz led people attending the CPAC to believe that he would pursue repeal from the get go.

Now he’s saying phase it out.

And as Jazz said, this is an issue he takes personally.

So, yeah, from his perspective, it was a cave.

Because very rarely, if ever, do Republicans succeed in their good intentions to phase things out.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 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

Yes he did and I’m glad that Trump pushed that issue. And even then Trump got it wrong for awhile there what with his merit based idea to keep the good ones and so forth. If only Trump were a small government constitutional conservative.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

i read the Carney piece, and this whole thing smelled like
a hit piece from the America’s Renewable Future…a group
who will no doubt do any thing to bring down Cruz

So today they are cheering Ted….and hoping to
get the gullibles to Dump Ted for anyone..say Marco

Claire did this well in MO couple of years age, you
play in the RINO sandbox.

r keller on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

No, it would be like having a full apple now, 4/5 of another apple next year, 3/5 of another apple the year after that and so on until they get no more apples.

Marco is proposing giving them a full apple every year until 2022.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:37 PM

LOL. Guess it depends on what you’re considering the “apple.” I was considering the “apple” to be the cuts, not the government handouts. To me, the goody is the cut, not the handout.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:42 PM

Cruz’s position of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appears to be more hardline than Trump’s at this point. But, I can certainly appreciate Trump for the publicity that he brought and his significant moving of the Overton Window on the issue.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Yeah for sure. That’s my feeling as well. Were it not for Trump, this issue might have been ignored so that’s a great thing he’s done this cycle.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:42 PM

If only Trump were a small government constitutional conservative.

conservageek on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

decisions, decisions

DFCtomm on January 6, 2016 at 7:43 PM

In any event, this is why it is good to have candidates who challenge each other and force each other to remove as much wiggle room as possible in their promises to us. They will leave themselves nuances and outs if they possibly can.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:43 PM

Meh. Cruz is the best in the field.

Vince on January 6, 2016 at 7:44 PM

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Not buying it. Even if I tried to, I probably would’t regain trust in him quickly enough to change my mind either.

He supported TPA, and talked about how he wanted to increase H1B visas, even after he withdraw his support for TPA.

With all the millions upon millions of Americans we have unemployed, and he wants to bring immigrants in here to take what jobs we do have.

Not buying his shift in positions now. Sorry.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:44 PM

LOL. Guess it depends on what you’re considering the “apple.”

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:42 PM

I’m considering the “mandate” as the apple:

In 2014, he introduced a broad energy bill that would wind down the mandate over five years, slashing the federally mandated volume of renewable fuels (including corn ethanol) by twenty percent every year for five years.

Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:46 PM

The 201316 bill to immediately end RFS Obamacare was going nowhere; you can’t yank a subsidy program out from under an entire industry. It was a rookie offer made by a rookie Senator. It wouldn’t pull 10 votes in the Senate then, now or tomorrow.

Jumpintimmy on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

If that’s the case, nothing will ever end…

nextgen_repub on January 6, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Cruz led people attending the CPAC to believe that he would pursue repeal from the get go.

Now he’s saying phase it out.

And as Jazz said, this is an issue he takes personally.

So, yeah, from his perspective, it was a cave.

Because very rarely, if ever, do Republicans succeed in their good intentions to phase things out.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:41 PM

I don’t know about the former, but the latter is certainly true. Obviously a promise of “repeal later” is much weaker than “repeal now.” But, automatic repeal later, but instituted now, is better than “I’ll get to it later.”

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM

Phasing it out is a joke, like a 10 year budget that gets balanced down the road but the cuts never materialize.

Wigglesworth on January 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM

Cruz’s position of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appears to be more hardline than Trump’s at this point. But, I can certainly appreciate Trump for the publicity that he brought and his significant moving of the Overton Window on the issue.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Concur!

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:49 PM

http://goo.gl/nZ3AmG

Proof Ted is not weak on immigration

in other news today my Patent Attorney confirmed I was able to get a USPTO Screener to approve a portion of my application. We will separate it out and use it as an individual patent, and push with a revisement to the other portions.

I am about to be the Patent Holder for using color to encode/store data. A deck of cards, costing under $2.00 can hold 3.5 terabytes of data. I am going to form a PAC with some of the money from this patent, and I am going to be supporting Ted Cruz.

I will push that video above to counter the lies, I will push other aspects to show the path Ted Cruz is doing.

In reference to this story… I get it, we get a slow phase out and they fight less hard. I have proposed such on some other things as well, including smoking, where we raise the age one year for every two years that pass. In fifty years the age would be 43 years of age. Instantly stopping something usually is going to get the strongest effort to prevent it… Where phasing something out usually will get less opposition.

OregonPolitician on January 6, 2016 at 7:50 PM

Not buying it. Even if I tried to, I probably would’t regain trust in him quickly enough to change my mind either.

He supported TPA, and talked about how he wanted to increase H1B visas, even after he withdraw his support for TPA.

With all the millions upon millions of Americans we have unemployed, and he wants to bring immigrants in here to take what jobs we do have.

Not buying his shift in positions now. Sorry.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:44 PM

Up to you which candidate you want to support. Promising “repeal” and having the specific of that mean “phase out” are certainly not the best “repeal” option. But, personally, this issue is relatively small potatoes as far as I’m concerned.

As for the TPA, I’m with you. His support for that was ridiculous.

For H1B Visas? Yeah, well he doesn’t anymore, except with full employment. I agree with that position, and thank folks like Trump, et al for forcing him into it.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 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

Yeah, the video:

New years eve 2015, Immigrant riots in Cologne Germany – An eyewitness account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TOdMzOH1U

The amazing thing is that in light of all the craziness in Europe, AND San Bernardino, Cruz still rejected a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

Plus, from yesterday, read about Trump as the ultimate fighter .. and slayer .. of political correctness. It is Trump that has fought a in the trenches fight against political correctness, not Cruz. Indeed, Cruz’s lawyer-speak and double talk often sounds like a bow to political correctness.

anotherJoe on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM

OregonPolitician on January 6, 2016

You’re video is from prior to the time that he supported TPA and the drastic 500% increase in H1B visas.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:52 PM

Phasing it out is a joke, like a 10 year budget that gets balanced down the road but the cuts never materialize.

Wigglesworth on January 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM

It’s sort of like that, except the spending in the out years of the 10 year budget isn’t actually law. It’s more like the Doc Fix. Those cuts were actually law, but congress kept the spending up, year after year, until our stalwart limited government conservative pols in the GOP (/s) finally just got rid of the cuts altogether (sort of like Ryan just did with the remainder of the sequester cuts).

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:54 PM

The amazing thing is that in light of all the craziness in Europe, AND San Bernardino, Cruz still rejected a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

Plus, from yesterday, read about Trump as the ultimate fighter .. and slayer .. of political correctness. It is Trump that has fought a in the trenches fight against political correctness, not Cruz. Indeed, Cruz’s lawyer-speak and double talk often sounds like a bow to political correctness.

anotherJoe on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM

What is amazing is that Trump is only going to stop Muslim Immigration for a short term period.
Cruz will however stop Muslim Immigration from every place it matters for however long it takes.

Trump: A few months of No Muslim Immigration and then back to more or less the same.
Cruz: How ever long it takes ban on immigration from nations that have large populations of radicalized Muslims and terrorists.

Trump, Iffy value.
Cruz, Strong

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

As for the TPA, I’m with you. His support for that was ridiculous.

For H1B Visas? Yeah, well he doesn’t anymore, except with full employment. I agree with that position, and thank folks like Trump, et al for forcing him into it.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM

At least we agree on that much.

He was about the only one of them I trusted, other than Jeff Sessions, and when Sessions started sounding the alarm about immigration, it was Trump that took it seriously, not Cruz or Rubio or any of the rest of the current candidates.

It just broke what thin thread of trust I had left in any of them, and I don’t know that I’ll ever get it back.

Don’t know that I even want to do so, to be genuinely honest with you.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

if your job and family livelihood was tied to ethanol Jazz you might be against him on this issue.

gerrym51 on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

You’re video is from prior to the time that he supported TPA and the drastic 500% increase in H1B visas.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:52 PM

Well, he doesn’t support TPA anymore, or that 500% increase in H1B Visas. And we can thank the other candidates, such as Trump for forcing him to clearly and unequivocally denounce that policy.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Up to you which candidate you want to support. Promising “repeal” and having the specific of that mean “phase out” are certainly not the best “repeal” option. But, personally, this issue is relatively small potatoes as far as I’m concerned.

As for the TPA, I’m with you. His support for that was ridiculous.

For H1B Visas? Yeah, well he doesn’t anymore, except with full employment. I agree with that position, and thank folks like Trump, et al for forcing him into it.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM

I agree 100%.

The one thing is though, guys like Dave Weigel or whoever are defending Cruz not because they like him and want him to win, but because they don’t want Trump to win IA.

They think that Rubio or whoever will be able to get the electoral votes in the blue states, and, crucially, Florida which is winner take all.

The fact that Trump can win states like NY and FL is why the GOPe has been so insanely against him.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

It’s sort of like that, except the spending in the out years of the 10 year budget isn’t actually law. It’s more like the Doc Fix. Those cuts were actually law, but congress kept the spending up, year after year, until our stalwart limited government conservative pols in the GOP (/s) finally just got rid of the cuts altogether (sort of like Ryan just did with the remainder of the sequester cuts).

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:54 PM

Reading is for morons, just spout off on things you do not understand shows your total awesomeness and stuff.

He will phase it out 20% each and every year. So, if it is 100 today, First year in office it becomes 80, next year 60, Third year 40, Fourth year 20 and as long as we elect him again, then it is gone for good.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Trump, Iffy value.
Cruz, Strong

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

Trusting any pol is “iffy.” I think Cruz is a better bet than Trump, and that Trump is a better bet than the rest, but, really, that’s a pretty low bar.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM

Well, he doesn’t support TPA anymore, or that 500% increase in H1B Visas. And we can thank the other candidates, such as Trump for forcing him to clearly and unequivocally denounce that policy.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

I do, other wise he would never get any support from me.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM

The one thing is though, guys like Dave Weigel or whoever are defending Cruz not because they like him and want him to win, but because they don’t want Trump to win IA.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

I think you’re right. I want this thing to get positioned into a two-man race between Trump and Cruz, so that no matter who wins, the schadenfreude will be fantastic!

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:00 PM

Reading is for morons, just spout off on things you do not understand shows your total awesomeness and stuff.

He will phase it out 20% each and every year. So, if it is 100 today, First year in office it becomes 80, next year 60, Third year 40, Fourth year 20 and as long as we elect him again, then it is gone for good.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Considering that the latter is what I’ve already said, the former is confusing.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM

Hey IOWA! Did you catch that “Tail Light Guarantee” from CRUZ on Ethanol Subsidies? Just another Goldman Sachs cash money collector. Who owns Ted Cruz probably his largest donor Goldman Sachs where his wife works.

Nat George on January 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM

It just broke what thin thread of trust I had left in any of them, and I don’t know that I’ll ever get it back.

Don’t know that I even want to do so, to be genuinely honest with you.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

They’re pols. I don’t think trusting them is in the cards. Or, it shouldn’t be at least. We can leave the politician and government worshipping to the lefties.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:05 PM

I think you’re right. I want this thing to get positioned into a two-man race between Trump and Cruz, so that no matter who wins, the schadenfreude will be fantastic!

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:00 PM

Once again I agree.

The establishment plan all along has been on either ¡Jeb! or Rubio winning FL, with its huge amount of winner takes all delegates.

Redstone on January 6, 2016 at 8:07 PM

They’re pols. I don’t think trusting them is in the cards. Or, it shouldn’t be at least. We can leave the politician and government worshipping to the lefties.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:05 PM

Oh, I’m definitely a realist on that much.

Willing to blow it wide open and take a chance on Trump all the same.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 8:08 PM

Nice try Jazz. Cruz proposed a bill in 2014 that would end the ethanol subsidy and phase it out in 5 years. He has not changed his position at all. Of course he isn’t against ethanol. He is against the government funding it.

http://m.therightscoop.com/no-no-no-ted-cruz-is-not-flip-flopping-on-ethanol/

fight like a girl on January 6, 2016 at 8:09 PM

Considering that the latter is what I’ve already said, the former is confusing.

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM

I am sooo sorry, I must have grabbed the wrong quote, I was reading someone saying that phasing it out is the same as doing nothing sort of thing…

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:13 PM

Lineholder he was against illegal immigration in 2011, he was against amnesty, against legalization, and he was for a wall no matter how that wall had to be built.

With the slander going on, the lies, the efforts to make him look weak on illegal immigration it deserves a 10 million dollar commercial buy by me. I will make that go away, I will make the NWO claims go away, I will make the birth crap go away as well. It. Will. End.

OregonPolitician on January 6, 2016 at 8:13 PM

I am sooo sorry, I must have grabbed the wrong quote,

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:13 PM

No worries. :)

besser tot als rot on January 6, 2016 at 8:14 PM

Thanks Jazz. I appreciate your candor and your writing.

ronval912 on January 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Nat George on January 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM

Catch up.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 8:18 PM

FIVE YEARS, by David Bowie Ted Cruz

Pushing through the Des Moines square, so many farmers sighing
News had just come over, we had five years left to buy in
News guy wept and told us, jobs were really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying
I heard telephones, fax machines, a Twitter symphony
I saw goys, Sheldon Adelson, and Sean Hannity
My brain hurt like a storehouse, it had no room to spare
I had to change so many things to get everyone in here
And all the sad rural people, and all the corn-fed people
And all the GOP people, and all the donor class people
I never thought I’d need so many people

A candidate my age went off his head, scared some TV newsman
If the Secret Service hadn’t a-pulled him off, I think he would have killed him
A farmer with a broken arm, fixed his stare through the window of my Cadillac
Trump knelt and kissed the feet of a priest, and Steve King
Threw up at the sight of that
I think I saw Trump in an ice-cream parlor, drinking milk shakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine, don’t think
You knew you were in this song
And it was cold and it rained so I felt like an @sshole
And I thought of DC and I wanted to get back there
THAT face, this race, the way I must talk
I kiss you, your kid’s beautiful, I want you to walk

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years, what a surprise
Five years, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years, what a surprise
Five years, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

Five years
Five years
Five years
Five years

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 8:20 PM

I am sooo sorry, I must have grabbed the wrong quote, I was reading someone saying that phasing it out is the same as doing nothing sort of thing…

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:13 PM

What’s with this habit you’ve developed of attacking people who agree with you? It’s especially amusing when you preface the attack with some variation of “DON’T YOU READ!!!????”.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Anybody who thinks any of the candidates aren’t going to disappoint us sometime is delusional. If we can get close, maybe we can get better next time. Cruz certainly is miles better than Romney and McCain.

I don’t think you can repeal much in Washington, especially subsidies. I think the easiest way to get rid of things in Washington is scale them back a little at a time.

This is the way Democrats get things done. They do things incrementally and then suddenly we wonder how we got there.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM

I’ve been too busy today to keep up with any of this business, unfortunately. So is this a nothin’burger or a triple-with-bacon?

Buckshot Bill on January 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Buckshot Bill on January 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Depends on you listen to. Best to try and figure it out on your own.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 8:29 PM

What’s with this habit you’ve developed of attacking people who agree with you? It’s especially amusing when you preface the attack with some variation of “DON’T YOU READ!!!????”.

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM

I take full responsibility for that. I was reading something else and copied the wrong post. In my defense, can I blame my malfunctioning mouse for just a tiny bit of it? No? That is ok. Either way, I should have verified that I got the right post copied and pasted.
As for people who agree with me… I would tend to argue otherwise.
A person who is unwilling to admit that Enforce the Law = Deport them but is arguing that i want them out = deport them all is not someone agreeing with me.
It shows a complete lack of rational thought on the part of that person.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:30 PM

With the slander going on, the lies, the efforts to make him look weak on illegal immigration it deserves a 10 million dollar commercial buy by me. I will make that go away, I will make the NWO claims go away, I will make the birth crap go away as well. It. Will. End.

OregonPolitician on January 6, 2016 at 8:13 PM

Saying he supported TPA, and through it TiSA, is not slander.

Saying that he supported a 500% increase in H1B visas is not slander.

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.

ALL of the candidates who had CoC sponsors have had to make compromises on these issues in order to secure funding for the election season. That’s just how it is.

Cruz included.

lineholder on January 6, 2016 at 8:31 PM

If you want total ideological consistency, Rand Paul is your guy.

TBSchemer on January 6, 2016 at 8:33 PM

I wonder what Cruz’s internal polls are looking like at the moment. This doesn’t seem like something he’d be doing unless he was worried. Maybe a “flame out” is starting?

Doomberg on January 6, 2016 at 4:52 PM

I think you might be on to something. Are there some IA polls out soon. We’ll soon find out.

BoxHead1 on January 6, 2016 at 8:50 PM

Misleading statement: Ted Cruz just caved on ethanol

Non-misleading statement: The New Jersey Jets caved on Sunday.

So glad the Bills kicked your Jets azzes.
.
Pain Train on January 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM

.
You don’t have to “sugar coat” it … tell ‘im how you really feel.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2016 at 8:54 PM

Depends on you listen to. Best to try and figure it out on your own.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2016 at 8:29 PM

Fair enough then. I hate ethanol and wish politicians would quit encouraging it. Or at least that the industry used an efficient source, like sugarcane, instead of corn. Corn has too many legitimate uses to waste on undrinkable alcohol. Like drinkable alcohol, for starters.

But ultimately, the ethanol subsidies issue is at best #99 on my top 100 issues list. It’d be nice to cut government funding to this, but there are far more important issues to me.

Buckshot Bill on January 6, 2016 at 8:54 PM

five years eternity, by David Bowie Ted CruzDonald Trump

Pushing through the Des Moines square, so many farmers sighing
News had just come over, we had five years eternity left to buy in
News guy wept and told us, jobs were really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying
I heard telephones, fax machines, a Twitter symphony
I saw goys, Sheldon Adelson, and Sean Hannity
My brain hurt like a storehouse, it had no room to spare
I had to change so many things to get everyone in here
And all the sad rural people, and all the corn-fed people
And all the GOP people, and all the donor class people
I never thought I’d need so many people

A candidate my age went off his head, scared some TV newsman
If the Secret Service hadn’t a-pulled him off, I think he would have killed him
A farmer with a broken arm, fixed his stare through the window of my Cadillac
Trump knelt and kissed the feet of a priest, and Steve King
Threw up at the sight of that
I think I saw Trump in an ice-cream parlor, drinking milk shakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine, don’t think
You knew you were in this song
And it was cold and it rained so I felt like an @sshole
And I thought of DC and I wanted to get back there
THAT face, this race, the way I must talk
I kiss you, your kid’s beautiful, I want you to walk

We’ve got five years eternity, stuck on my eyes
five years eternity, what a surprise
We’ve got five years eternity, my brain hurts a lot
five years eternity, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years eternity, what a surprise
five years eternity, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years eternity my brain hurts a lot
five years eternity, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years eternity, stuck on my eyes
five years eternity, what a surprise
We’ve got five years eternity, my brain hurts a lot
five years eternity, that’s all we’ve got

We’ve got five years eternity, what a surprise
five years eternity, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years eternity, my brain hurts a lot
five years eternity, that’s all we’ve got

five years eternity
five years eternity
five years eternity
five years eternity

Joseph K on January 6, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Well, 5 years of constant reductions until gone is better than eternity with Trump.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 8:57 PM

I’m with Amanda Carpenter on this. Subsidies are like crack. You can’t break the addiction all at once. You have to sunset. Progressives are winning because they are progressive, willing to take a little and keep pushing for me. We are the right are far too all about all or nothing. Cruz’s stance is the most conservative in the field, and I can live with that. Now, if he welches out when he is running for re-election and breaks his promise to push for sunset on these subsidies, I’ll be disgusted, PO’d and ready to tar and feather him.

idalily on January 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM

Correction: I meant “pushing for MORE”, not “pushing for me.” Darn typos.

idalily on January 6, 2016 at 9:07 PM

Do whats right for Canada!

VorDaj on January 6, 2016 at 9:08 PM

Cruz is looking like a Camelcan, a candidate designed by a committee of Special Interests.

VorDaj on January 6, 2016 at 9:10 PM

Ask not what Canada and Cuba can do for you, but what you can do for Canada and Cuba!

VorDaj on January 6, 2016 at 9:12 PM

If you believe that the RFS will be “phased out”, you’re Goofy enough to believe the Mickey Mouse Protection Act will be “phased out”.

corona79 on January 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM

Nice job on the Bowie song Joe K.

O/T on the DL.

Election Guide to RW blogs Around the web – no order.

TheRightScoop: Cruz central – the go to web site for Cruz – Scoop and 95% of comments are pro Cruz. They HATE Trump.

Hot Air: Owners and Talent (minus Jazz) are depressed and anti Trump – Pro nihilism. The Readers are a mix – probably mostly Cruz – the commenters are mostly Trump but it’s a mix.

Breitbart (biggest circulation by far): Owners and Talent are Cruz fans but entertain and pander to their substantial Trump fan audience. They are making money.

Reason: Owners Talent and their 6 readers Hate Trump. They wanted to like Rand but … even they don’t like Rand. BTW I Like Rand.

NRO: Owners and Talent HATE Trump – HAAAAATE Trump. They want to back Rubio or Christie but they can’t because they are too busy HATING Trump. The commenters are mostly pompous and they make fun of Trump’s hair and his mannerisms. There are a few Trumpkins though. There is not much to see there.

Red State: Dead state. It’s a wasteland. 12 comments is a good day for them.

The Conservative Tree House: Political nerds that love Trump. It’s a Trump lovefest.

ACEofSpades: Who knows. Ace is in flux. The comments vary I think. I haven’t been there this month.

Power line: the author of this post doesn’t go there.

Town Hall: the author of this post doesn’t go there.

BoxHead1 on January 6, 2016 at 9:14 PM

Despite the purposely misleading headline – Cruz has not changed his position – he has consistently opposed the RFS, ethanol subsidies and mandates.

Meanwhile … Trump holds the exact opposite position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6wZPvWx3s

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2016 at 9:20 PM

BoxHead1 on January 6, 2016 at 9:14 PM

Redstate is insane; half or more of the comments on any article are just mods bragging about banning someone who disagreed with their premise.

Anyway, nice list, overall a very accurate assessment. I’ll add that the Conservative Treehouse is one of the few places where I still read the articles entirely before moving on to the comments. 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

Hey, next time you call an exterminator, and he says “I’ll get rid of the termites”, wait five years, because he meant that he wants to “phase them out”.

corona79 on January 6, 2016 at 9:31 PM

I’m with Amanda Carpenter on this. Subsidies are like crack. You can’t break the addiction all at once. You have to sunset. Progressives are winning because they are progressive, willing to take a little and keep pushing for me. We are the right are far too all about all or nothing. Cruz’s stance is the most conservative in the field, and I can live with that. Now, if he welches out when he is running for re-election and breaks his promise to push for sunset on these subsidies, I’ll be disgusted, PO’d and ready to tar and feather him.

idalily on January 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM

This ^^ Exactly this. Democrats are effective because they are incrementalists who make their changes palatable. That is how they can get GOPers to be labeled extremists. Conservatives are want major overhaul, and this is great in principle, but not in reality.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Hey, next time you call an exterminator, and he says “I’ll get rid of the termites”, wait five years, because he meant that he wants to “phase them out”.

corona79 on January 6, 2016 at 9:31 PM

Or call Trump and he will increase their numbers.

Constitutionalist on January 6, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Cruzzers are in serious denial…. Attacking poor Jazz.

Grow up… This will not be the last time you see this about Cruz. Wait until the general election (if trump lets him get that far)

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 6, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2016 at 9:20 PM

Don’t point that out to Trump maniacs. Trump is the only candidate in their eyes that can legitimately change his positions over the last few years, and us plebs aren’t supposed to question his motives, because he is building a wall or something.

melle1228 on January 6, 2016 at 9:36 PM

CRUZ CORRECTS FALSE ACCUSATIONS FROM ETHANOL LOBBY ON RFS

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-corrects-false-accusations-from-ethanol-lobby-on-rfs/

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM

Buckshot Bill on January 6, 2016 at 9:30 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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4