Re: Radio "Ad" Rips Green on Ethanol

The only 'truth' in that "ad" is that Green supports the ethanol mandate, an issue I believe he is wrong on, but not willing to go psycho on the guy like some of you seem so overjoyed to do.

Belling's been wrong from DAY ONE that this is all "Archer Daniels Midlands" doing. A quick look at the usual sources of data for who got money from whom shows that the only Wisconsin politicians who sought state offices who took ADM cash were Tommy Thompson and Mary Panzer.

Since Green was a Federal Candidate from 1998 to 2004, I looked there too. Nothing in 2004 for Green, nothing for 2002, nothing for 2000 & 1998.

If you want to go ADM's National PAC, check here, here, here, and here. The answers there are nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing. John Gard's not on their list for 2006 for those interested BTW.

(I haven't figured out how to look at WDC's PAC database yet, so I couldn't check there.)

So, if ADM - Belling's self-created bogeyman - isn't the man behind the curtain, who is pushing the Ethanol Mandate that's not connected to the ethanol industry?

The answer is simple, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation. The 800 lbs. Gorilla in agriculture issues in Wisconsin and a longtime friend of the State GOP. The other farm group pushing it is the smaller Wisconsin Farmers Union. It is much more left-leaning and friendlier to state Democrats.

It's the support of groups like the Farm Bureau that was the reason for Walker's line about farming on his blog. If he wins the primary, he's going to need the support of groups like them, and it was a subtle way of saying, "Hey, no hard feelings."

My own Assemblyman, who voted "no" on AB 15, told me something similar happened to him moments after the vote when he was approached by a WFB representative who said, "You know we're still friends after this right?" and that was it. One issue, not the end of the civilized world as we know it.

Finally, there's another thing at work here besides "Free Market vs. Mandate" and that is rural vs. urban or the east side of the state versus the west side of the state. The vote in the Assembly broke that way, and it could go that way again in the State Senate. That deals more with the reality that more urban areas of the state like Milwaukee and the rest of SE Wisconsin have plentiful economic opportunities, while places like Rice Lake, Chippewa Falls, or Superior don't and see ethanol production as a viable option. Look at who signed that letter. The overwhelming majority are from the western side of the state or rural districts.

We here might not see it that way, but for a corn farmer out west, the E10 Mandate looks like help to him and his family. The BBA's lack of understanding on rural issues not involving DNR tyranny is a gaping blind spot in my opinion.

I could go on, mainly on the 'selective prosecution' some of you have on this issue, but Daniel @ GOP3 hit on that yesterday. Or on why I was the only one critical of Walker on the Luxury Suite story given the fact that Ethics is suppose to matter this year - or so we keep pointing out on the things Doyle does. Or like Owen, I too have problems with the Walker plan on 2/3 school financing when the state's looking at a $2.12 B dollar hole thanks to Doyle's budget shenanigans.

It's unrealistic, especially with the possibility of a $500 M increase he'd likely have to do, no matter what Team Walker says about the "Three-Legged Stool of School Funding," it's money the state doesn't have.

There, I've spoken my peace. It's late and I really like too many of you as people too much to go off on the phoniness some of you have at times.