Comments on: McCain backpedals on ethanol http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/ Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:33:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Lee http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-73 Lee Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:05:39 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-73 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. 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.

]]> By: Freeda http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-74 Freeda Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:39:44 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-74 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. 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.

]]> By: Lee http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-76 Lee Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:42:08 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-76 "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. “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.

]]> By: Freeda http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-77 Freeda Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:05:46 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2006/04/14/mccain-backpedals-on-ethanol/#comment-77 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. 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.

]]>