No, not really.
Mitt spoke Flattery To Leeches.
Mitt Romney wouldn't stand up to the Iowa Ethanol Producers at gunpoint. He doesn't have enough starch in his sacred Mormon undergarments:
Mitt spoke Flattery To Leeches.
Mitt Romney wouldn't stand up to the Iowa Ethanol Producers at gunpoint. He doesn't have enough starch in his sacred Mormon undergarments:
It was an odd setting for a policy pronouncement, but on the sidewalk outside the Historical Building here, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney embraced ethanol subsidies. It came just days after and blocks from where his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty, said the subsidies should be phased out.Here's the truth on ethanol, from Saint Albert, The Goracle Of Music City, Tennessee:
“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” Iowa leads the nation in the production of corn, a main source of ethanol.
Al Gore says his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment.When Al Gore makes more sense on harmful fuel subsidies than your leading presidential candidate, your political party has a problem.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Gore said at a green energy conference in Athens, Greece, according to Reuters. First generation refers to the most basic, energy-intensive process of converting corn to ethanol for use as a motor vehicle fuel additive.
On reflection, Gore said the energy conversion ratios -- how much energy is produced in the process -- "are at best very small." "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee," he said, "and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."
2 comments:
Frankly, I don't care what empty promises Romney makes to anyone.
The greatest threat to American liberty is losing a majority on the US Supreme Court.
For several years now, too many rulings have come our way or gone the other way by 5-4 decisions. Justice Kennedy is the most powerful man in America.
Kennedy and Scalia are both in their 70s. Ginsberg is in her 70's. If My Hero, Zero gets to appoint a replacement for a conservative judge, it will be DISASTROUS to liberty for a quarter-century.
Even if he merely replaces Ginsberg, he will rejuvenate that seat for another 25 years with a solid leftist vote.
As long as the next president appoints a solid conservative or libertarian, I don't give a damn what his other policies are. He will still have to contend with the House and Senate. And Clinton, Bush, and Obama learned that having both chambers of Congress from your party is not necessarily a slam dunk for your agenda.
In addition to the Supreme Court, the next president will make dozens of federal judge appointments. We cannot allow Obama to make those choices. Even with a Republican Senate, he will merely choose a stealth liberal.
Like you, I'm appalled at ethanol subsidies, but in the grand scheme of things that is small potatoes. It's easy to have line-by-line objections to this policy and that, this law and that. But it's really HARD to hold the reigns of power and get all that done.
A leader has to be a political pragmatist to some degree. He must compromise to the extent necessary. He must choose his battles wisely. Moreover he must TIME them properly so that the more unpopular but necessary measures fade from the public consciousness by the next election.
I would prefer that our leaders govern by principles and LEAD the people. But we live in a country where entitlements and pork are the bread and butter of two-thirds of all households. Taking that away will not be quick and will not be easy. Some correct decisions have high political costs, and handing power to your enemies isn't an effective way to make changes.
We can afford to be ideological purists on a blog. A politician dare not be.
You've got a point about The Supremese. But I almost think it would be worthwhile for the Statists to have their way for about 8 years.
It would be an excellent learning experience for us all (after the Depression, the upheaval, the riots, and mega-inflation).
Post a Comment