Gov. Scott Walker's Changing Ethanol Stance Sign Of Greater Issue For GOP Hopeful

by Cameron Aubernon

Updated: June 13th, 2023 Published: March 18th, 2015

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s flip-flop on the issue of ethanol may be just the tip of an iceberg that could affect his chances for the 2016 GOP hopeful.

Autoblog reports several memos linked to the still-unofficial campaigns of the other GOP presidential candidates have noted Walker’s shifts on positions on issues like ethanol, immigration et al. The broad pattern of flip-flopping, as well as his status as an unknown among his state’s voters, means he’ll have a hard go at convincing Republicans that he is their candidate for President of the United States.

On the issue of ethanol, he once denounced the mandate of adding the corn-based variant into gasoline in his 2006 gubernatorial campaign, citing the harm such mandates would impose on “Wisconsin’s working families.” While his team says he still supports that stance, Walker was among those at the 2015 Iowa Ag Summit in Des Moines, Iowa to support the federal renewable fuel standard that allows corn ethanol to be added into gasoline.

#2016PresidentialCampaign #Ethanol #Flip-flopping #ScottWalker #Wisconsin

Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments

Join the conversation

11 of 60 comments

Xeranar on Mar 18, 2015

Walker's popularity in Wisconsin is low, eeking out a second term on a bad off-year election cycle isn't exactly cruising to victory in 2016. But again, he's the most extreme candidate that has been willing to court huge money in this cycle so he has a chance of being relevant atleast through the first couple of votes. He's unlikely to get the nomination though as his stances on unions & the working class in general is so jarring compared to the soft-shoe corporatists like Romney who atleast try to not admit they hate everybody below a 6-figure salary. The way the blue wall has worked since 1996 would mean that for another Bush II to work we would either need complete shenanigans (Florida 2000 & Ohio 2004) or for upwards of 20% of the population to be disenfranchised. Given the current makeup of the states and how Virginia in an off-year election elected a fairly liberal senator the Democrats have a very easy road to 270 which makes the Republican primary more of an argument of who will set the agenda for their opposition position than who will be president in 2016.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- Pch101 on Mar 18, 2015
  
  He won the 2014 election with a spread of almost 6%. I know that he's on the other side, but get real.
  
  Like
- Xeranar on Mar 18, 2015
  
  @Pch101 As pointed out (so you can keep being the 'balanced one'): A margin of 6 points in a turnout with 600K less voters or roughly a 20% decline in a state that voted the same margin of victory for Barack Obama in 2014 isn't a good position to be in. You don't want governors from opposing states that have no way of winning their home state when people show up at the polls. It's 6% in a world where if he was in good electoral shape should have been 10%.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on Mar 18, 2015
  
  @Xeranar Lol
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Mar 18, 2015
  
  @Landcrusher Yeah, I had to smile too. The guy was elected three times in four years! For crying out loud. It is immaterial whether we like or dislike Scott Walker. He's still standing, his detractors are not.
  
  Like
- Xeranar on Mar 18, 2015
  
  @Xeranar 1 election as a city official in an off-year election. 1 recall (which historically fail hence why the Gray recall in California was considered spectacular news) 1 re-election in an off-year election. Conservatives are dedicated in off-year elections. So what part of this aren't you getting or do you feel you're more qualified to discuss this because I admit to being a partisan? Just a little food for thought, the blog is a bit more neutral than I am but it points out the same flaws. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/upshot/scott-walkers-electoral-record-is-less-impressive-than-it-looks.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 PS: I'll be laughing the hardest in 2016, my dear dear friends. :)
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Mar 18, 2015
  
  @Xeranar Xer, in case you missed my comment at the top, this is my sentiment: "Don’t worry, barring divine anointment, Scott Walker doesn’t stand a chance of getting elected as the next US president by ANY majority, even with the help of ALL the Independents. The unions would go bankrupt financing a negative campaign against him. At this juncture in America’s political journey, neither the ‘crats nor the repugs have a viable candidate." You can start laughing now. It's America that will do the crying.
  
  Like
- Xeranar on Mar 19, 2015
  
  @Xeranar See, I'm not a believer that 'unions ruin the world' or any such malarkey as that because I can read economic reports and understand that simple basic fundamental shifts in how we treat workers in our economic system will actually make our economic system healthier. There is a reason why Walker and Wisconsin lag behind ultra-progressive Minnesota. I mean, even if we're going to get truly partisan-agnostic, it would mean that neither approach has as big an impact on general GDP and job growth. The difference would be in average salaries and income inequality. But whatever keeps you happy, HDC. You're not my department head and I am certainly not your educator. I'm just interested enough to keep putting out an accurate reflection of our collective knowledge on the studied matter.
  
  Like
Gzuckier on Mar 18, 2015

gotta admit, if you could just fill your gas tank with corn likker, moonshine running would have been a lot easier.

Like Reply
Sobro on Mar 18, 2015

"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s flip-flop on the issue of ethanol may be just the tip of an iceberg that could affect his chances for the 2016 GOP hopeful." Or not. The update to the Autoblog post states "UPDATE: Walker is claiming he never flip-flopped, and that he was originally referring to state and not federal ethanol rules. His old ads, though, mention both" So there's that, FWIW. I'm assuming this is just poor writing, editing, or both: "The broad pattern of flip-flopping, as well as his status as an unknown among his state’s voters, means he’ll have a hard go at convincing Republicans that he is their candidate for President of the United States." Yeah, winning three statewide elections in 4 years make one's status unknown in that state. Of course, with better writing that could mean "his status as a flip flopper is unknown among his state's voters", but that could be true since he doesn't have a "broad pattern" of flip flopping just because someone says so and one ethanol statement does not a broad pattern make. Xeranar's omission of "public" when using the word "unions" as a scare tactic is the same as the omission of the word "dioxide" when some talk about "carbon pollution". As far as his decrying of Walker's use of campaign money, maybe Xeranar should take that up with the US Supreme Court. Anyone who complains about Citizens United will be asked to defend the US Government's testimony at the Supreme Court that the Federal Elections Commission could indeed ban books within two months of an election under then current election law.

Like Reply
Kosmo on Mar 18, 2015

Obama has done plenty of flip flopping and he not only got elected, but re-elected. You can keep your health care; Guantanamo will close; we'll have a transparent website detailing every single thing my administration does; Presidents should not use executive powers; unsanctioned drone use is wrong; etc., etc.

Like Reply