McCain backpedals on ethanol
April 14th, 2006 at 09:22am Freeda
It looks like John McCain is setting himself up for a presidential bid in 2008. Yesterday, McCain spoke in Cedar Rapids to help fundraise for Nussle–but also it seems to start ingratiating himself in a state that receives tax credits and subsidies that he has repeatedly criticized.
McCain acknowledged that he was considering running in 2008, and that in order to win Iowa he would need “an army on the ground.” He didn’t seem to care much about Iowa in 2000, when he skipped campaigning here altogether to focus on New Hampshire. However, now it appears that he wants our support. To that end:
“At $10 a barrel (for oil), I don’t think ethanol was a very viable option,” he said before an appearance to bolster the Republican gubernatorial campaign of Jim Nussle. “At $60 or $70 a barrel, I think it needs to be examined. There’s also national security implications.”
This is a big ol’ about face from the days when he called ethanol tax credits and subsidies “outrageous” and a “boondoggle.” Given that he is announcing this while in Iowa and campaigning for Nussle, it is hard to believe that his reversal is due entirely to economics and not politics, as he said that it was.
Related Posts
- Ethanol is as ethanol does
- John McCain TV Commercials On Air in Iowa
- Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! (A Rant)
- The Ethanol Quandary
- MILLIONAIRE JEFF LAMBERTI endorses John McCain
Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Searches: national security implications, jim nussle, john mccain, gubernatorial campaign, boondoggle
4 Comments Add your own
1. Lee | April 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
It hardly seems fair to criticize McCain for flip-flopping on this issue. When he initially came out against ethanol, there was a cheaper alternative substance called MTEB. McCain thought (correctly) that ethanol subsidies were being given out to farmers backhandedly as further agricultural welfare. Since then, MTEB has been shown to be environmentally disastrous. It is now obvious that gasoline additives are necessary, and ethanol is the best option at this time. Sure, McCain is helped politically by this move, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong to make it. It is unhealthy (especially as democrats) to accuse someone of switching opinions in this manner because it gives an air of validity to this method of political debate – a politician should be allowed to make the best decisions that they can. McCain screwed up the first time around on ethanol; I have no problem with him changing his opinion. If we want to complain about McCain we should bitch about him supporting the president or going to Falwell’s university, not changing his mind about this.
2. Freeda | April 14th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I take your point, and it is true that politicians should make the best decision they can given the information that they have at the time. However, I think that it is blatantly political for him to make this change now–espeically since he contextualized it by stating that he is considering a presidential bid. It is true that ethanol is looking more and more attractive, but without the subsidies and tax credits that he criticized maybe we wouldn’t have been able to develop them to the point they are at right now–which is still far short of production levels that would actually be significant environmentally. It is fine that he is supporting them now, but I don’t think he deserves much credit for it given his political motivations.
I don’t think that there is much difference between his changing his position on ethanol and his support of the president or his address at Liberty University. Those are both moves that will help him in 2008. As far as Liberty goes, this is also a reversal of position, since during his run in 2000 he criticized Bush for pandering to the Religious Right.
3. Lee | April 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
“I don’t think that there is much difference between his changing his position on ethanol and his support of the president or his address at Liberty University. ”
…there is a huge difference: supporting ethanol is the right thing to do.
4. Freeda | April 15th, 2006 at 9:05 am
I’m suggesting that the intentions behind his actions are equally important as the actions he is taking. Especially because if he is motivated solely by political considerations, maybe he would switch back after he was elected. Supporting ethanol may be the right thing to do, but if he is doing it for the wrong reasons it doesn’t provide much assurance.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed