I have been skeptical of Terri McCormick’s congressional ambitions ever since they started in 2006.
Back then, I wondered if she truly believed she had a shot at taking down John Gard – or if she was just trying to blow up his chances of winning a general against Steve Kagen by poisoning the well in Appleton so badly that a Gard victory would become a demographic impossibility. She succeeded tremendously.
But McCormick didn’t go away when Gard did. In 2010, she’s back – and she’s remade herself as a small-“l” libertarian candidate of the TEA party right.
Is this an honest representation of her governing philosophy? I would argue that it is not. Luckily, McCormick served in the legislature for several years in the early 2000’s and left a voting record for us to examine.
On her website, McCormick states the following in regard to alternative energy:
The ultimate goal of reducing energy costs, eliminating dependence on foreign oil, and increasing efficiency for the consumer can only occur with less government intervention, more competition, and fewer taxes on producers.
I agree. However, her voting record tells a different story. On December 13, 2005, at 6:52 p.m., Assembly Representative Terri McCormick voted in favor of Assembly Bill 15, legislation that, if enacted, would have resulted in a statewide 10% ethanol mandate on 87 octane gasoline.
I don’t need to explain that government mandates like this one are not a particularly libertarian position. But this is a particularly egregious mandate considering the economics of ethanol, an industry whose lack of economic viability has been laid bare over the last few years. Consider what the REAL libertarians at Reason Magazine said about ethanol in 2007:
Evaluating the scientific and economic claims being made for bioethanol can be vexing, but a few urgent questions come to mind: if bioethanol is such a good energy deal, why must refiners and consumers be forced to use it? Again, if it’s such a great idea economically, why does the federal government offer a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline?
All mandates are bad, but ethanol mandates are worse than bad. McCormick should be forced to account for her support of this ethanol mandate – and the Republican Liberty Caucus should explain why they support a candidate with such an egregious blemish on her record.
I think I’ve made it clear that I am a big-tent Republican. Conservatives simply cannot win elections and govern without the consent of the political center. But it is important for candidates to honestly represent their worldview when campaigning. Bait-and-switch politics is partly responsible for the crisis of political confidence plaguing our state and country today, and that’s why it is important to expose duplicitous rhetoric like McCormick’s.
Ethanol isn’t McCormick’s only problem with Republican primary voters. She also has serious problems when it comes to taxes, spending, and life issues. More on that – soon – in a future edition.
I can’t speak specifically about the legislation or about her logic for voting for it. The Republican Liberty Caucus evaluates candidates based on their legislative records and based on their platforms. Our Wisconsin chapter Board of Directors became familiar with her after she addressed one of our meetings. Read the RLC Statement of Principles at http://www.rlc.org/about/statement-of-principles/.
McCormick has a legislative record filled with real accomplishment, a sterling resume, and will listen to northeast Wisconsin voters. Attacking her for a single vote ignores everything else she has fought for: educational choice, small business reforms, and term limits.
The RLC doesn’t like doing homework, they just like backing anyone they think is not supported by the party or mainstream party activists.
And I say that as a conservative who holds McCormick and Gard in equally low regard.
They are presently stuck on Westlake and Neumann, simply because the party endorsed Johnson and Walker.
At least Westlake and Neumann can point to a record (in Neumann’s case) that supports their libertarianism. McCormick cannot. I’ll be talking more about this in the weeks ahead.
It wouldnt be right to only tell the “half -truth” If you read closely this was a Republican leadership proposed bill led by Gard who wanted Republicans to vote for it. You make this seem as though this was all Mccormick.
Keep in mind that during this period the legislature was controlled by Gard– therefore all bills up for votes passed his approval first.
Jack
Jack – who cares if it was a GOP-run bill? It was a bad bill – period. McCormick voted for it. The fact that she complied with Gard – then ran against him as the anti-Gard – makes what she did all the worse, and makes the representations of her as a “libertarian” all the more disingenuous.
[...] Voting “for” ethanol mandates while in the Wisconsin State Assembly [...]
Ultimately this site among others are ‘hit pieces’ that worked – you got a national lobbyiest in the congressional seat who would follow orders.
McCormick in later pieces said that it was not a good bill “pro ethanol” however, the blackmail that petroleum users were using against it to manipulate the market needed to be offset.
If anonymous is this website’s deal – anything posted on it should be suspect …. in fact your trying to give McCormick a black eye – makes me like her more as an independent voice.
Too bad you ALL blew it and she didn’t get in to stop the corruption that Gard and all of the machine candidates so readily provide to their “masters” with “money” …. quite comical this site.