Posted on 01/31/2011 7:54:17 AM PST by freespirited
The last time these columns were lambasted by a presidential candidate in Iowa, he was Democrat Richard Gephardt and the year was 1988. The Missouri populist won the state caucuses in part on the rallying cry that "we've got to stop listening to the editorial writers and the establishment," especially about ethanol and trade. Imagine our amusement to find Republican Newt Gingrich joining such company.
The former Speaker blew through Des Moines last Tuesday for the Renewable Fuels Association summit, and his keynote speech to the ethanol lobby was as pious a tribute to the fuel made from corn and tax dollars as we've ever heard. Mr. Gingrich explained that "the big-city attacks" on ethanol subsidies are really attempts to deny prosperity to rural America, adding that "Obviously big urban newspapers want to kill it because it's working, and you wonder, 'What are their values?'"
Mr. Gingrich traced the roots of these supposed antipathies to the 1880s, an observation that he repeatedly tendered "as an historian." The Ph.D. and star pupil of futurist Alvin Toffler then singled out the Journal's long-held anti-ethanol views as "just plain flat intellectually wrong."
Mr. Gingrich is right that ethanol poses an intellectual problem, but it has nothing to do with a culture war between Des Moines and New York City. The real fight is between the House Republicans now trying to rationalize the federal fisc and the kind of corporate welfare that President Obama advanced in his State of the Union. We'll dwell on this problem not merely because Mr. Gingrich the historian brought it up, but because it and he illustrate so many of the snares facing the modern GOP.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Either of them can be anything you want them to be.
Burn our food. Stupid policy!
Be fair to Newt. He turned down a very lucrative opportunity to speak at the Communists of America Convention and it was not just because of his booked engagement at the Gay and Lesbians for Good Government Meeting.
Any day now I expect to see this glandular little fellow arrested for digging up his mother and charging kids in the neighborhood $.50 for a peek.
Hysterical shouts of ‘burning our food’ in 3..2..1...
Farmers just want some kind of added-value ag processing outlet for their product. They don’t care if it’s ethanol or something else. It doesn’t have to be subsidized. They just don’t want it rotting on tarps on the ground.
I never did like this guy. For some reason I always felt like he was a phony. And I was right.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe Newt Gingrich is a paid shill for one or more “alternative energy” lobbying groups. So his support for ethanol isn’t based on sound policy — it’s based on what he’s paid to do.
Newt is so...yesterday.
Yep! That moment killed any good feelings I had toward Newt!
If he honestly believes in subsidies then he is a statist progressive. If he doesn’t he is merely pandering.
Either way he is not very attractive.
This is the last last straw for me. I will now actively work against Newt.
There are occasions when Newt makes sense - usually when he’s talking about something he actually knows something about - like history.
But when he starts prognosticating on technology, markets, or finance, he’s WAY out of his water.
Anyone supporting ethanol subsidies is either pandering for midwest votes or has their finger in the ethanol pie. Ethanol, like coal tar sands, hydrates, solar, and wind has got to stand on it’s own economic feet.
Actually, McCain has been against ethanol subsidies for years, but he seems to have some other liabilities...........
The trouble is the "added-value" is coming from the taxpayers' pockets by way of a subsidy. If ethanol makes no sense without a subsidy, then it just makes no sense.
Neah.
For one thing, Newts smarting (in an intellectual sorta way) than Mitt. His problem is ethics. Anybody who has divorce papers served on his wife while she’s undergoing cancer treatment doesn’t need to run for office. But, if the choice were Mitt or Newt, I’d take Newt. As far as i can tell, he’s not ideologically wedded to anything - he’ll try to do what he thinks will work.
Mitt is a lying PoS who won’t take his share of credit for MassCare, the Big Dig, and other garbage that happened, in part or in whole, under his governorship. He’s more of an opportunist than Newt (which saying a LOT) - Mitt will do whatever is good for Mitt.
Corn ethanol is nearly a religion in Iowa so Newt cannot bad mouth this sacred cow there. Farm state members of Congress likewise have to embrace this scam.
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.