We received the following communication in response to our post Wednesday
It is from a Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) State Central Committee member.
The vote was unanimous. I was there and can say there is no one on the RPI CC that was “pressured” . Anyone with any knowledge of the current SCC would know this group has been sharply divided on some issues this past year and I know of none that could or would feel pressured.
Your points are weak attempt to cover the obvious reasons that Northey has hold on his nomination by one Senator that represents the oil industry. He is the one holding up good nominee and made it personal by doing so .
A couple of other comments were received but not through the comment channel. We responded in short order to his in the comment section as follows ( his is there as well):
We were also informed that not every member was in attendance and that the matter was not circulated beforehand.
Apparently we were too subtle as you don’t see the “weakness” of your own view. A personage who pretty much represents the ethanol industry is to be preferred no matter what as if that is unbiased?
We do not oppose Bill Northey but we also see no fault in seeking a better good for the nation’s consumers, including Iowans, or in recognizing that larding up bureaucracies with disguised or undisguised ethanol mandate proponents does not bode well for ever getting a handle on that boondoggle that hurts another industry (supposedly the same industry).
We do see fault in a Republican state central committee letter that is not a little more circumspect about what it says given that Cruz’s position is more in keeping with the Iowa Republican platform, current and previous iterations(ed note — see our post documenting that).
The “pressure’ I mentioned might have been better specified as the presumption to protect the shadow platform — all things ethanol — even when it does not align with the platform of the grassroots Republicans.
Growing corn to be used as a mandated component of gasoline, reducing mileage by the way, is just stupid. If science and economics is on the side of corn-based ethanol why don’t proponents rise to the challenge of removing mandates if it is so efficient and useful? The market will then say yes, give me that gasohol, my car misses it and it is cheaper.
Is Northey being victimized? No more than taxpayers and consumers and the environment by reliance on corn-based ethanol to meet RFS standards, — “standards” that are not warranted now if they ever could be. All Cruz has asked for is more flexibility.
R Mall
It is hypocritical I might suggest to say Cruz was “unfairly ” chided and then propose his treatment of Northey is fair and appropriate.
The SCC vote was unanimous among those in attendance and I believe also included the votes of three members via conference call. Strong Cruz supporters on the Committee were in attendance and voted with the majority.
To suggest the RPI platform more favors Cruz’s big oil stand than Iowa agriculture is laughable.
I also take offense in suggesting that the very diverse RPI SCC needs any extended time to address an issue that they all have been very aware before the meeting. They simply were asked to vote on a simple B&W proposal . The idea that they are not capable of addressing such is insulting to all members of the SCC and a weak attempt to somehow disparage the vote.