Friday, May 27, 2011

Romney panders AGAIN...goes all in on ethanol subsidies

Look on the bright side. At least he didn't flip-flop this time.

From The Wall Street Journal:
....“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.

Mr. Romney and a crowd that had come to see his first Iowa speech of the year had been evacuated from the Historical Building by a fire alarm. Amid the tumult, a woman asked if he was going to take any questions. He said given the circumstances, the question and answer part of the program appeared out of the question. So she presented him a typed out note demanding his position on ethanol, one she had intended to present at the presidential forum that had just abruptly ended.

His answer, delivered without hesitation, adhered to the orthodox position of politicians vying for Iowa votes. But it came just days after former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty officially announced his candidacy and said the nation could no longer afford to subsidize ethanol, a position that he said backed up his claim to be the truth teller in the race....
Read the entire article HERE


Anonymous said...

Not exactly earth shattering news.

But I do agree with Tim Pawlenty--ethanol subsidies might have been fine at one time--which is debatable, but they are not fine now.

I'd love for Romney to be able to convince me otherwise. I don't remember if there was anything in his book about this.


Sam from MA said...

RW, you are embarassing the intelligence of the readers.

Mitt supported ethanol subsidies in 2007.

If he said he no longer supported them, would you make a post called "ANOTHER FLIP FLOP BY ROMNEY"

I think you would.


Right Wingnut said...


That's why I gave him credit for not flip flopping. However, this is one issue where I wish he would.

Doug NYC GOP said...

What is the "Energy Expert"'s position on this?

Googling turns up nothing.

Right Wingnut said...


I've come to notice that you rarely come up with facts, or a credible defense when your candidate's past or present policy issues are challenged. It seems you're only capable of producing snark. I think you're smarter than that. It's most likely just laziness.

Anonymous said...

Doug, interesting question! Here's Palin on 'the ethanol':

"harnessing alternative sources like the wind, and the solar and the biomass and the geothermal and the ethanol."

Ha ha. Remember when McCain/Palin flip-flopped on ethanol at the last second? They went from opposing ethanol subsidies to supporting them.

Where Palin is at the moment is anyone's guess. As you know, she's can't be bothered too terribly much with policy. She's all big picture, big rhetoric, big bus tours and movies, etc.


BTW - Sam is right. Everyone would just loooove it if Romney would only flip on a few issues.

Doug NYC GOP said...

How is it "pandering" when you are being consistent?

You know what pandering is?

Posturing yourself as the Heroine of the Constitution and sucking up to the Talk Radio crowd.

Crowing to the flock, from a feathered FOX News nest, is not Leadership.

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - What facts am I supposed to contest? Romney supports Ethonal Subsidies. You post a snarky post and we Romney supporters are supposed to produce mountians of evidence in support.

You called me lazy and snarky.

It's you who are guilty of this.

Why not write a post detailing why Romney is wrong to support ES, rather than just post a snark?

You are NUMBER 1 for hurling out accusations and charges. You act like the sanctimonious District Attorney of this site, when Palin is questioned, but you offer no serious posts outlining your oppisition.

If I only post snark, as you claim, it's because that is all that's required, considering what is asked.

Anonymous said...

Doug, absolutely. Time for Palin to put herself out there and show us what-if anything she brings to the table. - Martha

Anonymous said...

RW loves posting these supposed hit pieces on Romney but he's the one that gets all riled up and cries like a bitch and curses and threatens to leave the site when palin is attacked. Hes as thin skinned as his queen palin is.

Anonymous said...

RW loves to dish it out but he cant take the heat when it comes back to him. Grow some cojones. Doug your absolutely right, palin is the perfect example of a panderer as well as a media whore. Im afraid all this is a show for her to be in the spotlight but she will not run. At least she knows she doesnt stand a chance. I do hope she runs so her obsessed supporters like RW dont commit suicide.

Troy said...

While I am 100% for Mitt I don't agree with him on this one. Farm subsidies are good as a buffer in case other countries start gauging us with high food prices. In order to provide for our own it is good to make some food in the good ol' US of A. However, ethanol is hard on automobile engines and is less efficient and more costly than normal fuel. I think that it has to be close to $5.50 a gallon for regular gas to see its benefit. In all actuality it might be cost effective in a few years so it might not be that bad in end.

Libertarians and policy wonks don't like the distortions on the market and "choosing winners and losers" in any market. I believe that fits in this situation.

This is not a make it or break it thing for me. Mitt is better than any other candidate out there, even if he does some shameless pandering here and there. Even the best get caught up in it.

He made the right call though and sticking to his past positions. From here on out I guarantee he won't be changing any positions. He will need to demonstrate consistency from his last campaign in order to have any credibility.

Mitt 2012!

Bill589 said...

Why does Palin get brought into a Mitt post?
You can find “Palin on the issues” at C4P.

My understanding is that subsidizing ethanol is a bad idea, but I tend to be a ‘free-market’ capitalist kind of guy. Drill baby drill. Eat the corn.

Anonymous said...

To RightwingNut, you just love to criticize Romney, don't you? I know you from praising Palin all the time. Don't you think Sarah Palin is known for pandering before she became governor of Alaska? Look at it, she promised to serve the Alaskans one full term but she didn't. Why the hypocrisy? At least with Romney, things get done most of the time.

Anonymous said...

I would rather subsidize alternative energy for the American people than to subsidize foreign enemies where US imports its oil.

Pablo said...

I want to add my name to the chorus of Romney supporters who disagree with Romney on ethanol subsidies. RW is right. He is pandering to Iowans.

For me, this issue ranks about #345 in level of importance, so I don't really care that much. But Pawlenty deserves credit for telling the truth, while Romney deserves criticism for pandering.

CraigS said...

Look, I am personally not in favor of ethanol subsidies because
a We need the ethanol stock to eat
b. We can't afford the subsidies

HOWEVER, ethanol is a domestic substitute for foreign imported oil. If we didn't use ethanol, we would buy yet more oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Mexico. So, I can certainly see why there is a place for ethanol in a energy policy ( if we had one ).
As a consequence, I agree with BOTH Romney and Pawlenty. I can support the ethanol subsidies NOW as we work to get more domestic sources of oil so we can phase it out later on.
How am I pandering ? Isn't this a realistic position to take. If Romney was against ethanol, wouldn't RW accuse him of " flip flopping ?" In fact Romney is one of the few folks running who isn't flip flopping from past positions. That must be distracting to folks like RW who would, of course, find fault with ANY position Romney took

hamaca said...

A glance at Mitt's book tells me that it's probably not Iowans he's so much concerned with (doesn't even mention them), but rather it's the nation's energy needs and specifically as one of many options, which, combined with others, can lead us away from such extensive dependence on foreign oil.

He goes on to discuss concerns that need to be looked at, e.g. subsidizing one industry can artificially boost that industry at the expense of other, potentially competing industries. So, it seems that while he favors ethanol subsidies currently, it's part of a strategy to achieve energy independence from foreign sources while at the same time proceeding cautiously with how the subsidies are implemented.

Anonymous said...

The problem with ethanol is the subsidies to Iowa corn not the ethanol. It was an uninformed promise from the outset. They now know that switch grass is a better ingredient for ethanol but the pandering to the first caucus gave a stranglehold of political pandering to Iowa.


Anonymous said...

Hey RW, you did not GIVE an answer as to what the 'energy expert' says about this. But you were sure quick to try to kill the messenger.

so how bout it? what's the 'energy experts' stand on this?


Anonymous said...

I'm with Craig S. If we are ever going to wean off of foreign oil from oppressive governments and dictatorts we need to explore all sources. How many have called for the "all of the above" approach. Explore wind, solar, coal, oil, and yes ethanol should be included. Some things we can't afford but we cannot NOT afford to have a robust energy policy. Ethanol may yet prove worth the investment.


larry said...

I must be missing something. I don't see the pandering.

I see Romney including ethanol in his overall plan to energy independence.

He's been consistent on this.

hamaca said...


It'll be interesting to see if the distinction you describe is discussed in more detail by any of the candidates.

Anonymous said...

larry, the pandering is not in his support of's his support of corn based ethanol, especially since the corn is grown in Iowa. Do some research on corn based ethanol and the effects it will have on our food supply and the exports of corn. Unfortunately corn is a non-starter in reasonable ethanol production.


Anonymous said...

How can it be pandering if this has been his position last time? And it seems to be unpopular to the conservative base. If he was pandering, shouldn't he get more praised and less criticism?

Anonymous said...

Well it is either pandering or a lack of understanding. Which would you rather...pandering or uninformed?


Anonymous said...

Of course Romney was always a fan of subsidies.


Anonymous said...

To be more clear...and less snarky...Romney is seeking the praise from the Iowa voters...not necessarily the entire Republican...more specifically the Tea Party portion of the base.


Doug NYC GOP said...

Now that we got the Romney slams out of the way...anyone care to GUESS what the "Energy Expert" has to say about ethonal subs?

Surely, she has an well thought out opinion on this highly charged and most important subjects, considering the consternation from her crowd.

Or did Kudlow and Co. not brief her yet?

Anonymous said...

OMG Doug, every single negative critique of Romney forces you closer and closer to hysteria. Once again...this post isn't about's about Romney.


I, personally, don't know her position on Iowa, corn-ethanol subsidies but if she agrees with them, then I will say she is pandering as well. If she doesn't agree with them, then she understands the issue more than Romney does, or at least, decided not to pander to the First Caucus.

So, I'm not really sure what your end game is here?


Doug NYC GOP said...

Jersey - RWN posted this little item to be imflamatory. I'm just using well worn Palinista "dodge and deter" tactics to rebutt it.

Perhaps reacting like a Palinista is why I seem "hysterical" to you.


Anonymous said...

You've lost me about we just act like adults and discuss the topic at hand. Do you think Romney is pandering to the Iowa corn farmers?


Doug NYC GOP said...

JR -

No to the pandering.

Romney has supported the subsidies in the past and Hamaca/CraigS gave good accounts as to why. So he is being consistant.

If he came out against the subsidies, especially after Pawlenty did, then he'd be pandering to the Conservative/TP sector.

Everybody "panders" in their own way, when they tell voters what theya re going to do. If I only voted for politicians who didn't espouse policies I like and agree with, I'd vote a straight Democrat ticket.

The only reason folks are slapping Romney now, is because the "small government" shtick is in high gear.

We have to gain control of government, before we can re-organize and shrink it.

Anonymous said...

Doug, the problem with this issue, for all candidates, is it is a no-winner on all fronts...damned if you do scenario. If you pander to the Iowa Corn Farmers you're pandering or you don't understand the scientific realities of ethanol production...if you don't're alienating a major portion of Iowa and could lose the Caucus support.

My snarkiness is really just an attempt to show that a lot of Romney supporters will support him or spin his positions no matter what his position is...I undertand a lot of Palin supporters will do the same thing...I am probably guilty of that on occasion.

I just hope we can talk about the issues, there are already plenty of libs, on this site, that will spin the truth to fit their tormented and demented narrative...I just hope we regulars can do better?