Thompson backs ethanol subsidies

AP ^ | October 3, 2007 | MIKE GLOVER

[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....

[org.whodat]

Hmmm... I was going to send him some more money this afternoon. This is not a position I like to see him take.Pandering

But then who on the pubs side hasn't endorse this BS.

[Rick_Michael]

I hate to use those as gauges, because almost every organizations method is at odds with the average conservative constituent. I prefer to think being conservative is just about having common sense and values.

That simple...many candidates fail at that, at times. But you hope they all have it most of the time.

[mnehring]

I wasn’t even talking about Paul this time, but he does seem to throw around the CFR & NeoCon bogeyman more than most.

[Rick_Michael]

“I wasn’t even talking about Paul this time, but he does seem to throw around the CFR & NeoCon bogeyman more than most.”

I know...just something I notice with everyother Paul supporter. The internet sure has spawned quite a few ‘theories’.

One hopes that we don’t allow such conspiracies in here, and we remain as reasonable as possible.

[EGPWS]

"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."

Sounds reasonable.

I don't see a focus on Ethanol as a focus by Fred's statement.

[steveab]

“Our need to move toward energy independence has become absolute,” said Thompson. “So much of our energy depends on troubled spots in the world. It’s just a different environment.”

At least he did’t throw in the CO2 induced global warming climate change angle.

[Shermy]

“Are you really that dense?”

OK prove me wrong. Go tap the crude oil below your property and pour the liquid into your vehicles’ gasoline tanks then drive. If you get far, please tell!

[Petronski]

Hydrogen is just a battery. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the resulting hydrogen will store.

Oil is a fuel. It takes less (far less) energy to produce gasoline than the resulting gasoline will store.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies...

No rigidity. Great. I hope he reverses his position on Tort Reform, Campaign Finance Reform, the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Border Fence, the Human Life Amendment and the No New Taxes Pledge too.

[elizabetty]

Your tagline and your current problem with Mr. Thompson seem to be at odds.

[Ingtar]

How is that? I am uncomfortable with Fred changing his position on this to one that seems to be popular at the moment. I am uncomfortable with Romney because he changed many positions to suit the moment. But I see no viable alternative. The donation goes to Fred.

[thackney]

Go tap the crude oil below your property and pour the liquid into your vehicles’ gasoline tanks then drive. If you get far, please tell!

There are engines that burn crude oil as fuel. There are no engines that burn water as fuel.

[redgirlinabluestate]

He changed from pro-choice to pro-life. Many positions?

[JohnBovenmyer]

After looking at all the candidate ratings listed there Thompson got the highest one, but another nearly equaled him. McCain received a 40.5 score. The other end of the spectrum came closer to being "perfect." Kucinich scored 2.8. Of course the numbers are artificial and depend on their definition of what is the conservative/liberal position on various issues. Not everyone defines such the same. For example hard core Duncan Hunter fans include some protectionists who insist their position is "conservative" instead of the free trader position. They'd probably rate Hunter a "9 or 10" instead of a "1" on Foreign Trade and likewise flip Thompson's pro-free trade 9 to a 1, thus making Hunter the "most conservative" by their rating and moving Thompson, and most of the other pro-free trade GOP candidates, lower. My example here isn't intended to push up or down any particular GOP candidate, but rather to point out the limitations of rating systems. That this one has Kucinich closest to a zero shows it's not all bad!

[fweingart]

Energy subsidies are fine if they're limited to drilling oil in the USA. Growing corn to convert to 'energy' is just plain stupid. Food costs are rising to the sky now due to the corn crops being diverted to refine expensive ethanol. Further, as I've previously stated, the increased corn crops being grown by the states that border the Gulf of Mexico are ruining the shrimp and fishing industries by the drain off of corn crop fertilizers creating dead zones.

I'm glad Tom is only a 'guest' expert at the CFR.