Republican candidates were invited to speak at the Agriculture Summit in Iowa, sponsored by Bruce Rastetter.  Rastetter is the Darth Sidious of ethanol, who wants all the candidates to kiss his ring and promise to keep subsidizing ethanol, also called the "Renewable Fuels Standard."  For the most part, the candidates complied.

Here now are my ratings of the candidates who came to Iowa.

Jeb Bush: F

"At some point, we'll see a reduction of the (federal Renewable Fuels Standard) need because ethanol will be such a valuable (product) for our country," Bush said. 

Why do I feel that "some point" will be in his son's George P's third term?

But Jeb Bush primarily came to Iowa to talk about an act of love:

"Imigrants [sic] that are here need to have a path to legalized status," Bush said at the Iowa Agriculture Summit. "What we need to do is make sure people pay fines," Bush said. "That they learn English. That they work. That they don't receive government assistance.

You know, like the current "immigrants" who learn English, and work, and don't go on welfare.

That they earn legalized status over the long haul. That they come out from of the shadows[.]

Is there any way we can get Bush to go back into the Shadows?

Rand Paul: D

Rand Paul didn't show up.  Perhaps he was busy working with Al Sharpton to release criminals from jail, or penning another editorial calling to decriminalize large-scale drug dealers.

Rick Perry: B+

Rick Perry is against ethanol subsidies.  He also bragged about how he sent national guard troops to protect the Texas border (but not to detain illegal aliens in any way) – an increasing need, given those who flock to his state for the heavily subsidized in state tuition he provides to illegal aliens.

Scott Walker: F-

I wish there were a lower grade I could give Scott Walker.  Because not only does he support ethanol subsidies, but he used to be against them, as recently as 2006.  Now that he is running for president and wants votes in Iowa, he supports subsidies, betraying the taxpayer, the free market, and his own principles, all at the same time.

In the moderated discussion with ethanol magnate Bruce Rastetter, Walker dropped his previous flat opposition to ethanol mandates, offering a new stance that's well-suited to a state covered in cornfields. Walker signaled he now favors keeping the mandate for now and phasing it out in the future — without saying over what period of time.

By the way, Walker also said he supported phasing out wind subsidies, using that magic phrase again, "over a period of time," without saying what that time period was (a week? a year? in his third term as president?).  But given how he has "evolved" on ethanol, and "evolved" on amnesty, by the time he makes this decision, I don't doubt he will have evolved again.

Rick Santorum: F

Rick supports ethanol subsidies.  But his corporate masters have no use for him because he has no chance of winning.  Maybe he can get a job as a K Street lobbyist after the election.  If not, perhaps there's a water board in Pennsylvania he can run for.

Chris Christie: F

Chris Christie supports ethanol, too, but you won't hear him saying it directly.

"The law requires the president to establish RFS [ethanol], and he should," said Christie.

Well, if the law says that, the law is the law, and it can't be changed.  And I love how he says it in the third person!  So passive!  So un-Christie.

"I think crop insurance is a good idea," he said later. "It provides the right kind of safety net."

Does he support a similar safety net for grocers and doctors and small business people?  If not, why must the government be involved in the insurance business?

Mike Huckabee: F-

I think I am entirely justified calling Mike Huckabee "Friar Huckleberry."  He's quite possibly the worst of the worst.  He supports high trade barriers, and he supports amnesty.  In other words, he doesn't want foreign goods coming into the country, only foreign people.  How messed up is that?

Lindsey Graham:  F+

I wasn't sure at first if he went there as a candidate or as the afternoon's entertainment, like a clown or magician you might hire for a children's party.  But no, Lindsay Graham is seriously testing the waters.

Every barrel of ethanol is a barrel less of oil the U.S. has to buy "from people who hate our guts," he explained.

And every barrel of ethanol contribute to the billions in extra food and energy costs for U.S. taxpayers.

He also vigorously defended his role in the Gang of Eight, along with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (who canceled his appearance at the event to attend a family wedding), that passed an immigration bill through the Senate.

Amnesty.  Lindsey really has no chance – certainly not in a socially conservative state like Iowa.  There are more rumors about Lindsay's personal life than there are about Tom Cruise.  He wouldn't stand a chance here.  But I give him an F+, a higher score than others, for at least being honest, and also because I'm a big fan of Lindsey Wagner, the Bionic Woman.

Marco Rubio: D

He didn't attend, for "family reasons."  The more events he fails to attend, the higher and higher I will rate him.

Ted Cruz: A

Ted Cruz said he wanted to phase out the requirement that ethanol be used in cars over the next five years.  That's not immediate, but at least he set a date.

Cruz is the sponsor of a Senate bill to repeal the RFS standard over a period of five years, so it's no surprise where he stands. But he did not try to nuance his position. He said he's against corporate welfare of all kinds and against the government picking winners and losers.

So Ted Cruz went to farming country, confronted the crony capitalist who sponsored the event, and told him, "No, I don't support further subsidies for you."  That's leadership.  He would have gotten an A+ if he had called for ending them immediately.

Why is any of this important?  Who cares about ethanol?  Ethanol is specially pernicious because it raises costs to you, the consumer, in three ways.  First, ethanol is directly subsidized by the U.S. government, meaning you, the taxpayer.  Second, the price is gasoline is higher because the ethanol put into it costs more than the gasoline.  Third, ethanol needs corn, a lot of it, resulting in corn shortages which raise prices on not only corn, but hundreds of kinds of processed food that rely on corn and corn sweeteners.  So here's a product whose production involves subsidies, higher energy prices, and higher gas prices.

It's also important because if candidates can't stand up to ethanol, what can they stand up to?  Opposing ethanol doesn't open a candidate to charges of hurting the poor, or minorities, or children, or old people.  If a candidate can't oppose ethanol, it tells me that there is very little in the way of spending that he will oppose.

I like Ted Cruz.  I'd like other free-market, limited-government, and secure-borders candidates if I could find any.  They don't even have to be Spanishy.  If you like a different candidate and felt he distinguished himself at Iowa, let me know in the comments section.

Pedro Gonzales is the editor of Newsmachete.com, the conservative news site.