Gotta Give Pawlenty A Look
Not just because of the announcement video, which was really good stuff.
But because of this…
Tim Pawlenty announced his candidacy for president in Iowa Monday afternoon under the banner of ‘truth,’ presenting himself as someone whose campaign would not just be made of empty promises, and who will instead be willing to tell the truth, even if it makes him unpopular.
To show how serious he is, in his announcement speech in Iowa Pawlenty did just that, telling Iowans the unspeakable: that their beloved ethanol subsidies must come to end.
“I’m here today to tell Iowans the truth, too,” he said. “… The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.”
“Now, I’m not some out-of-touch politician,” he said. “I served two terms as governor of an ag state. I fully understand and respect the critical role farming plays in our economy and our society.”
“But even in Minnesota, when faced with fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies,” he concluded.
Pawlenty’s video made it clear his campaign’s all about saying the stuff no politician will say. The ethanol subsidies statement is a brilliant way to kick that off.
And it’s also brilliant in Iowa.
Yeah, that’s right – I said it. It’s brilliant in Iowa.
Why? Because regardless of how popular ethanol subsidies might be for corn farmers there, and the public perception among the majority is that those farmers need ethanol subsidies, it’s anything but suicide to attack those subsidies.
Because you don’t need to get a majority of the vote in Iowa to win the caucus. You need 20-25 percent in a large field of candidates and you win.
Everybody else in the race will either dodge the question or they’ll do like Newt Gingrich and whore themselves out to the ethanol lobby in search of a constituency they can build.
But ranchers and hog farmers in Iowa don’t like ethanol subsidies; ethanol subsidies make animal feed outrageously expensive since those guys use corn to feed their livestock. And there are easily enough people who aren’t beholden to those subsidies to acquire a constituency of, say, 20-25 percent. So if you’re the one candidate willing to take a strong position against subsidies, which is probably the most important presidential campaign issue in Iowa, that quarter of the population really doesn’t have anywhere to go but to you.
Not to mention that the rest of the country is so sick and tired of Iowa and New Hampshire getting to pick who our presidential candidates are and exacting campaign promises from politicians – Iowa is the main reason we have those stupid ethanol subsidies in the first place – and there will be lots of people who are refreshed to see a candidate go to Iowa and take a stand most of the folks there won’t like.
Aggressively going after those subsidies, which would wipe out $30 billion in federal corporate welfare, will be wildly popular elsewhere in the country. Sure, other farm states like Kansas and Wisconsin won’t like Pawlenty’s stance. But if you don’t win Wisconsin because of this, you probably win Florida. And Florida’s more important than Wisconsin. (Kansas isn’t voting Democrat regardless of the subsidy issue).
It’s a ballsy statement, even if he waters it down by saying those subsidies should be phased out, and it’s a smart one. All Pawlenty needs is some dirty jokes or an F-bomb or something to add some sizzle, and he might start getting over this “too boring for prime time” image after all.
Ethanol production produces a co-product known as DDGS (distillers dried grain solids or distillers dried grain solubles depending on end product) this provides a higher protein feed for livestock (beef, pork & dairy), poultry or aquaculture than corn. There are some conflicting reports about it’s effectiveness (over milled corn feed), but nonetheless, dry milled grain ethanol is not economic, even with subsidies, without the sales of this co-product.
Most of the metal fabrication and commercial/industrial construction in Iowa (outside of windmills) is for dry milled grain ethanol plants. In order to get the state sponsored subsidies, these ethanol plants are actually majority owned by the farmers themselves, not Cargill, Poet, or other ethanol conglomerates. The individual plants are then operated by whatever “ethanol producer” has their name on the sign, and the productS (yes with a capital S) the same company, and/or others markets for the individual facility.
So, YES, this could be a killer in Iowa, and ALL OTHER major ethanol producing states, but not East, West and Gulf coastal states.
T-Paw has hired some of the best and smartest campaign operatives around. His announcement, and then this today, are pure brilliance. ”Truth” is a great theme, and a great contrast to “hope.” Of the people currently in the race, I’m now definitely for him.
I was holding out some hope for Herman Cain until he totally blew the Palestinian “right of return” question on Fox News Sunday — he didn’t even know what Chris Wallace was talking about. When you are running as an outsider and have no record in public office, and especially when you have no foreign policy credentials of any kind, you have to understand the basic issues involved. Cain basically disqualified himself, in my opinion.
I’m not going to give up on Cain yet, as I think most of his answers beyond the right of return question were good. That said, the Wallace interview did show he has a ways to go before he’s going to be ready for the nomination. Pawlenty, though, gave a very good account of himself that showed he’s ready to assume first-tier status even though he still could use some borrowed sizzle.
I’d be inclined to give Cain a pass if this were the first incident that indicated a problem, but this comes on the heels of his recent statement that he can’t come up with a position on Afghanistan because he doesn’t have access to classified information, which is utter hogwash. When these things are taken together, they strongly suggest that Cain simply hasn’t really studied the international challenges that we face — that he isn’t a serious candidate when it comes to foreign policy. Unfortunately, since he has no experience in elected office to reference for comparison, I can’t give him the benefit of the doubt.
I didn’t mind that statement, because having talked to several national security experts there is no answer on Afghanistan that’s any good – and Obama’s position on the subject as a candidate led to a presidency which completely repudiated it.
@BarackObama sorry to interrupt the European pub crawl, but what was your
Medicare plan?You have to admit that this is a pretty awesome tweet from Pawlenty today.