Sunday, October 30, 2011

Romney: "Pretzel Candidate," But Still Frontrunner

From George Will's Washington Post column today (Mitt Romney, The Pretzel Candidate"):

"Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.  Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.

In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly.

Romney said that he once favored subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.”  But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels.

Got it?

What would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?" 
 

MP: The chart above shows the current Intrade odds for the Republican nominee, with Romney (68%) still far ahead of both Perry (11%) and Cain (8%).

17 Comments:

At 10/30/2011 11:16 AM, Blogger Don said...

Romney should have been able to parley his experience into becoming an acceptable president, but every time he opens his mouth he demonstrates that he is every bit Obama's equal in terms of stupidity, incompetence and ignorance.

Regards, Don Lloyd

 
At 10/30/2011 11:29 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"...but every time he opens his mouth he demonstrates that he is every bit Obama's equal in terms of stupidity, incompetence and ignorance"...

Well damn! You've read my mind...

I think your take perfectly accurate description of the situation...

 
At 10/30/2011 11:44 AM, Blogger AIG said...

Looks like all the "good" Republican candidates are staying out of this presidential race. Maybe they know something we don't.

 
At 10/30/2011 12:11 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

In 2008, Obama won the Democratic nomination by saying nothing more than (a) "change you can believe in", and (b) tax the rich.

During the nominating process, we shouldn't expect a level of sophistication beyond what an elementary school student can understand.

 
At 10/30/2011 2:09 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

See?
Solyndra=bad
Ethanol=good

I am glad we have "free marketeers" like the GOP.

BTW, Solyndra was a one-time scam. Pinko-ethanol is a scam every year.

Oh, btw, cotton farmers have received pinko cash-handout, giveaways of $32 billion since 1995. After centuries of production in the USA, cotton farmers are still wards of the state.

I am sure the GOP will put an end to this when they recapture the White House.

 
At 10/30/2011 2:24 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey pseudo benny, nice to see you're as uninformed as usual: "I am sure the GOP will put an end to this when they recapture the White House"...

From the Hill date June 14: Thirty-four Senate Republicans voted Tuesday to advance a proposal eliminating a $6 billion ethanol tax break, which one GOP leader said struck a blow against the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

But the measure fell 20 votes short, 40-59, as most Democrats voted against proceeding
...

 
At 10/30/2011 2:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

as bad as some might think Romney is... on the ethanol question - what would the other contenders say?

does anyone really think that the answers coming from Perry, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich would be any more/better understandable, trustworthy?

funny how the self-professed libertarians are willing to sign on to these Republicans over Obama when these guys are clearly not going to appeal to anyone other than the right wing.

All Romney is trying to do is get past the right wingers so he can then run a non-right wing campaign against Obama...

that part is crystal clear - and the right seems powerless to stop it.

The Republicans are a mess.

 
At 10/30/2011 2:56 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"All Romney is trying to do is get past the right wingers so he can then run a non-right wing campaign against Obama"...

Then Romney should just dump his campaign and throw his support beind your commie hero larry g...

After all they do have something in common, socialist health care...

 
At 10/30/2011 5:14 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Jaundos--
The pinko-ethanol program exploded under Bush jr and the GOP-controlled House and Senate.

It is part of the Red-Pink State Socialist Empire.

 
At 10/30/2011 5:59 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The pinko-ethanol program exploded under Bush jr and the GOP-controlled House and Senate. " -- "Benji"

•The Energy Policy Act of 1978 was the first federal legislative ethanol subsidy. It allowed for a 40-cent tax exemption per gallon of ethanol, according to Purdue University.

•The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 increased the tax exemption to 50 cents per gallon of ethanol.

•The 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the ethanol subsidy to 2000 but decreased the amount to 54 cents a gallon.

•The 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century extended the ethanol subsidy through 2007 but reduced it to 51 cents per gallon by 2005.

•Bush's signature on the Jobs Creation Act changed the way the modern ethanol subsidy worked. Instead of offered a straight tax credit to producers, the legislation allowed for the "blender's credit." (The rate for the "blender's credit" is 45 cents per gallon of pure ethanol mixed with gasoline.)

Bush's ethanol tax credit was lower on an inflation adjusted basis than at anytime since the programs inception.

I am not defending the ethanol credits or farm subsidies of any kind, I am simply pointing out that "Benji" doesn't know his ass from a toboggan.

 
At 10/30/2011 7:05 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"BTW, Solyndra was a one-time scam. Pinko-ethanol is a scam every year."

And your boyfriend enthusiastically wastes billions on both of these scams every year.

 
At 10/30/2011 9:38 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Bush's ethanol tax credit was lower on an inflation adjusted basis than at anytime since the programs inception.

============================

Per gallon subsides conmpounded a bad idea. Might have made a little more sense if the subsidies were indexed to the price of oil.

 
At 10/30/2011 9:43 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Larry is right.

It appears the Republican right is committing group seppuku, again. I suspect a fair number of people get turned off by a steady string of hateful and thoughtless speach in wheich every homily is a canned article of faith.

Not that the left hasn't got plenty of such idiocy itself.

 
At 10/31/2011 1:42 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"It appears the Republican right is committing group seppuku, again. I suspect a fair number of people get turned off by a steady string of hateful and thoughtless speach in wheich every homily is a canned article of faith"...

Whereas the factless whining by the parasitic lefties is a turn on, right?

How's your boyfriend's 'hope & change' working for the country now?

 
At 10/31/2011 6:11 AM, Blogger geoih said...

Romney is just the latest in a series of milquetoast Republican candidates since Reagan who will do little different from a Democrat other than funnel government money and power to the standard Republican fetishes.

If Romney becomes the nominee, the best thing libertarians could do would be to not vote. Romney or Obama? Who cares. Same difference.

 
At 10/31/2011 12:28 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

geoih: "If Romney becomes the nominee, the best thing libertarians could do would be to not vote. Romney or Obama? Who cares. Same difference."

Or use that write-in blank spot.

 
At 10/31/2011 10:25 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

I always vote Libertarian for President. It separates you from the non-voters who don't give a shit, which could be read as a sign of tacit approval for the status quo, as opposed to the strong libertarian message against government. I don't even care who the Libertarian candidate is, cuz I know he'll never win anyway. It's just a protest vote that shows what I believe, sort of like the Nader people. ;) Local and state elections, on the other hand, I actually consider my vote, usually going Libertarian or Republican.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home