If you go read the candidate’s comments that ethanol group quotes, it becomes very clear that by questioning E85 subsidies - the ‘picking energy winners and losers’ - the lobby was able to convince quite a few Iowans that Perry was out to gore their ox.
A normal politician would have lied and said ‘SURE! We must support the development of alternate fuel with any gov help necessary’ but he didn’t. He pointedly said he was uncomfortable with the subsidies.
In addition, Santorum was quoted in ‘08 as supporting ethanol subsidies to the extent of requiring flexfuel E85 by 2010, and voila!
Iowa knows what side their bread is buttered on, and they made rational choices. For themselves.
Now we have to worry about which Virginians’ oxen are going to be gored with proposed Department whackings, which I approve. If he winds up on the ballot.
Are there any SC oxen that might be gored we should consider?
Agreed, Perry refused to pander, he stood on principle.
Newt,Mitt, Santorum, not so much. They perfectly willing to endorse Big Government subsidies, hardly a conservative position.
A lot of Iowans like the union employees at Deere & Co
maybe.
The ethanol lobby was passing out leaflets at the caucus locations pointing out that Perry opposed subsidies. He was the ONLY one they mentioned. With 41% of the voters undecided tghe weekend before the vote how many votes do you think that may have swung against Perry?
The ethanol lobby was passing out leaflets at the caucus locations pointing out that Perry opposed subsidies. He was the ONLY one they mentioned. With 41% of the voters undecided the weekend before the vote how many votes do you think that may have swung against Perry?