Presidential hopeful former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., speaks to the media in a warehouse at the Lincolnway Energy plant in Nevada, Iowa, on Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007. (AP Photo/Kevin Sanders)
Posted on 10/03/2007 1:31:04 PM PDT by Plutarch
NEVADA, Iowa - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.
Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process.
Meeting with reporters, Thompson acknowledged that he had switched his position on subsidies for ethanol.
"I have voted against subsidies in the Senate," said Thompson. "But I think it's a matter now of national security and we've got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture."
Carrie Giddins, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, was quick to point out that Thompson opposed such subsidies as a senator....
Hmmm... I was going to send him some more money this afternoon. This is not a position I like to see him take.
And so the pandering begins; the subsidies waste billions, continue our dependence on foreign oil imports, reduce engine efficiency, and generally help corporate farming the most.
There are no government subsidies in a free market.
I was hoping he would be the “hydrogen economy” guy, with real plans to get replace oil as our primary fuel for transportation.
I guess not...just a pander, increased food costs, no vision.
Maybe some interesting independent will run for Prez. Thompson looks like “more of the same.”
Srike One on Fred.
Ethanol—the other white meat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905376/posts
The price of ethanol has fallen by 30% over the past few months as a glut of the corn-based fuel looms, while the price of ethanol’s primary component, corn, had risen. That is squeezing ethanol companies’ profits and pushing some ethanol plants to the brink of bankruptcy.
I’m trying to decide between Thompson and Duncan Hunter. This campaign position takes a point away from Thompson on my scorecard.
Strike one, yes...but nowhere near enough for me not to vote for the guy.
However, just to be safe I’d like to hear the entire context.
“And so the pandering begins; the subsidies waste billions, continue our dependence on foreign oil imports, reduce engine efficiency, and generally help corporate farming the most.”
It’s a shame, and there is no “loyal opposition” to challenge the dominant party - they’re in on it too. They all see a good target - ending our “addiction to oil” as Bush says, and their buddies see a way to hitch a ride and derail the project, corporate farm profits on one side, global warming/carbon credits on the Dem side.
First position he has taken which I think is crap. Need to send his campaign an email suggesting a re-think. Ethanol is not a good option. Get the oil locked in the tar sands in the northern US and the shale in the Colorado green river basin. That would make much much more sense.
Is he the next flip flopper??? What is wrong with these candidates. Decide one thing and stay with it. And if you must switch you principles than at least don’t do it at the very place that the flip flopping is taking place.
But I think it's a matter now of national security and we've got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture."
I don't like the idea of subsidies at all, but I understand the need to move off of foreign independence. The subsidies are probably one way to speed up that process. The problem with subsidies, even in the short term interest (such as national defense interest as Thompson is referring here) is that people and industries are never really weaned off of them.
Well, the fact is, no candidate can be against ethanol subsidies and take Iowa.
I was worried he’d start pandering. He’s already got a gay marriage “compromise” out there...
>Jmmm...I was going to send him some more money this afternoon. This is not a position i like to see him take.<
The first of many, I fear.
Better idea—Nuclear Power.
I understood that. I'm wondering if Iowa is worth the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.