THAT'S IT!!



I rest my case.

Thanks, Larry.  I feel foolish for questioning their motivations and goals.
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 10/29/2011 7:06 AM Daiv Russell wrote:
    LMAO!! I think your case is well made.
    Reply to this
  • 10/30/2011 10:58 AM David wrote:
    Today's George Will latest column, on Romney, suggests that Romney, too, resents haftin' to be uproared:

    "In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, 'I support' — present tense — “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 (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry 'on its feet.' (In the 19th century, Republican 'business guys' justified high tariffs for protecting 'infant industries'). 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?"
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.