By on May 24, 2011

Over the course of TTAC’s coverage of US ethanol subsidies, I’ve often wondered why nobody made a political issue out of slaying an ever-growing waste of tax dollars ($6b this year on the “blender’s credit” alone). And with the political rhetoric about America’s debt prices rising, I’ve been wondering with more and more regularity when someone will finally take the ethanol fight to the American people, who are already voting against ethanol with their pocketbooks. But just last December, Al Gore explained why not even he, an environmentalist standard-bearer, could oppose the corn juice he knew was bad policy, saying

It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol. First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small… One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.

The Iowa primary is a key early contest in the Presidential election, and because Iowans grow and refine a huge amount of corn ethanol, campaigning against ethanol subsidies in Iowa is a non-starter. At least that’s what the conventional wisdom was before today, when, with nearly nine months to go before the primary, the impossible just happened.

Republican governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty announced his candidacy for the 2012 presidential election today in Des Moines, Iowa with a speech that emphasized the need for truth in American politics. And he put an exclamation point on that theme by standing in front of Iowan farmers and saying (among many other things):

I’m here today to tell Iowans the truth, too.

America is facing a crushing debt crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen before. We need to cut spending, and we need to cut it.big time. The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs.

The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.

Did a Republican presidential candidate just take the position Al Gore said he should have (for environmental reasons) but didn’t have the guts to? Have we entered Bizarro World? Not exactly, as the Washington Examiner points out

Pawlenty added caveats — that it would have to be phased out and not immediately, and by saying, “I’m not some out-of-touch politician. I served two terms as Governor of an ag state. I fully understand and respect the critical role farming plays in our economy and our society. I’ve strongly supported ethanol in various ways over the years, and I still believe in the promise of renewable fuels – both for our economy and our national security.”

But he added that, “even in Minnesota, when faced with fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies. That’s where we are now in Washington, but on a much, much larger scale.”

So, nobody said politics was going to be all inspiring all the time. Still, regardless of political predilections, anyone who has followed the ethanol mess should be able to agree that Pawlenty’s anti-ethanol rhetoric in pre-primary Iowa were good for the debate. Now that it’s been done, hopefully more candidates will break free of the fear that kept Gore captive and just do the right thing already.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

64 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: The Beginning Of The End Of Ethanol Edition...”


  • avatar
    dwford

    Perhaps there’s hope for Pawlenty after all – assuming he doesn’t back track this tomorrow!

    • 0 avatar
      SVX pearlie

      Nationally, it might just mean that Iowa and the other mini-states just aren’t nearly as important as they once were.

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Pawlenty is a nobody who only claim to fame is that he is anti ethanol

      • 0 avatar

        Pawlenty’s not flashy but he’s a credible candidate. I want to see if Thad McCotter runs. I don’t think he can necessarily win but he’s got a very funny and very dry sense of humor and seems to be a man of ideas.

    • 0 avatar
      JJ

      I think Pawlenty has a decent shot at say, 4th place in the republican presedential candidacy race. Though it seems to be a weak field for the Republican party so far so who knows, maybe he can do better, or maybe someone else entirely will step up to the plate in the following months. I’m not from the US but I always enjoy political debates and watching a race like this unfold, plus of course who gets to be the US president also has some influence on the rest of the world.

      So far it’s hard to not see Obama taking a win for a 2nd term, despite (or because?) all the tea party extravaganza, I think the majority of real regular Americans (ie, not the stereotypical Alabama good ol’ boys that are sometimes, not least by us Europeans but also seemingly by some republicans mistaken for the ‘real’ Americans, but rather the people working in an office building, households earning something like 50-150K a year) who don’t scream and shout but just quietly go vote are once again going for the democrats. I also think many of the usual suspects (Huckabee, Palin) and other potential candidates know they’re not very likely to beat Obama which is why they bow out.

      I guess we’ll see though, but as much as I respect Ron Paul, I think the GOP desperately needs to come up with a new charismatic leader if they want to stand a chance, if not the difference will probably only be more pronounced than the last time, IMHO.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckR

        I think the GOP desperately needs to come up with a new charismatic leader

        No, we need to come up with an adult who understands – and will state and advocate – that we can’t continue spending money we don’t have and that there will be shared pain to set things right. Charisma doesn’t enter into it beyond the ability to sell what most people already know needs to be done.

        Pawlenty might be that adult. We’ll see whether he continues his truth telling campaign.

        stereotypical Alabama good ol’ boys that are sometimes, not least by us Europeans but also seemingly by some republicans mistaken for the ‘real’ Americans

        This New Englander, graduate of one of the most liberal Ivy colleges, will gladly stand with the good ol’ boys on these issues. The sophisticated coastal elites have spent decades screwing things up royally. (Sophisticated of course has the same root as sophistry….)

      • 0 avatar
        Steven02

        Don’t be so sure JJ. Many of them voted out democrats in the last election. It could happen again as well if the economy is not making a noticeable turn around. Many people think that Obama had his chance and blew it big.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        ChuckR, have you read Angelo Codevilla’s Ruling Class versus Country Class? I think some candidate who embraced the country class, really was a part of it not just pretending, would be a shoo-in in the next election. That candidate would face an assault from the media and her own party but she would win.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckR

        MikeAR

        I haven’t read Codevilla’s book but I’m in agreement with the blurb at Amazon and have added it to the list to read.

        There are a lot of people who are net tax-eaters not tax-producers and it may be that Obama does get his second term. The internet provides a great way to disintermediate the central committees of the two parties and get money to those legislative candidates who are in that country class and will gum up the works should that happen.

      • 0 avatar
        Fencesitter

        Aw, gee, I thought the whole birther thing had been put to rest. Even good ol’ boys from Alabama are real Americans, and they have the long form birth certificates to prove it. I don’t get all these nuts on the left and the right trying to push others out of the body politic. We’ll go when you pry our cold, dead fingers from the lever in the voting booth.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        Tax-eaters == country class

        Those who would pay the taxes if the deficit wasn’t giga-enormous == The coast people

      • 0 avatar
        chuckR

        charly

        Two assertions without establishing a basis for either.
        But let’s ignore that and agree that we need to spend less on the tax-eaters, whoever they are. Then we can reduce the size of government – fewer tax-eaters, fewer minders needed.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Charly, way to show your anti-flyover country bigotry there. But I expected no less from you. And as usual, you’ve got it completely wrong. The ruling class is composed of tax-eaters, dependent on goverenment for their livelihoods while we of the country class actually work and pay the bills. Learn to think things through before you post.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        It is common knowledge that during normal times states like California and New York pay more in federal tax than they receive back and that the reverse is true for fly-over states. So no, they re not baseless assertions

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Charly, read carefully and understand. I said that the so-called ruling class was mostly dependent on government for their livelihoods. Are you with me so far? Now you come up with the net tax paid vs. tax monies received. Get it through your head, that is not what I was talking about. Can you grasp that? I was talking about the ruling class of bureaucrats, public emplyees, educators and staffs. Where do they get their money? Answer, from the government. Now do you understand me? I shouldn’t have had to telll you this if you could read and comprehend.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        I know it is hard to accept but white rural people are the welfare queens of America. I wouldn’t call them the ruling class but it is true that their votes are more equal than that of the urban population.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Charly, reading compresion is critical. Read what I said, don’t assume you know what I said without really reading it. I said that the ruling class is dependent upon the government for their livelihood, agreed? What else did I say? I’ll give you a hunt, I said that they tend to be government employees and employees in industries (health care, education) that are dependent on government money. This is beyond dispute. So they depend on government largesse and spending as much as your poor whites in flyover country.

        Now you can go on and continue your bigoted attacks on flyover country but you can’t deny that I am right about that. By the way without flyover country, you would starve, go naked and walk. Be more appreciative. Bigotry is not nice no matter how progressive you are. And do learn to read, you’ll do better.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        Defense and agriculture is what flyover country lifes off. If that is not state money than i don’t know what tax money is.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Give up, you obviously don’t know much about this country outside the coasts, if that. Agriculture employs less than 4% of the population and defense spending isn’t even a factor in most of the country. So you are wrong again. Admit it, you can’t prove me wrong, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

        It’s a simple premise, those people who benefit most from government spending have an interest in seeing that government spends more. You can’t run away from that. The whole thing may not fit your prejudices and biases but it’s the truth.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        those people who benefit most from government spending have an interest in seeing that government spends more.

        Wrong. they have an interest in continued government spending on them, preferably more. But not in more government spending if it lines somebodies else pocket.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        What did you just say? What does that prove? You’re bankrupt so all you’ve got left is non sequiturs. Actually you’ve gotten to the point where you are arguing just for the sake of arguement. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who won’t admit they’re beaten. And you are, badly.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        A lot of screaming but no refutation.

  • avatar
    vent-L-8

    The (really scary) truth is that 6 Billion here and there is pretty much a rounding error compared to the budget deficit. Gut all the smaller programs all you want, but until the big three (Medicare, Social Security and Defense) are addressed, this is all an exercise in futility and self-delusion.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      At least it’s an exercise in honesty about the fuel that powers America’s first love – cars. He’s not talking about spotted owls.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The problem with the ‘what’s a billion here or there’ mentality is that every single billion is $6 a taxpayer, $10 by the time it is actually paid off. If you like thinking that the half of your income that goes to the tax man is spent on 1% of some corrupt congressman’s pork project for his masters, feel free. That we’ve gotten to the point that ‘what’s a billion,’ is the defense of that corruption is the best indication we’re already over.

      • 0 avatar

        This is true. $6 billion is $19 per American citizen.

        Nonetheless, agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases, and other pollutants, notably nitrogen, that go down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico where they cause the huge dead zone. In other words, the total cost of that ethanol, including both the direct cost of the subsidy, and indirect costs, is a lot more than the $19/citizen, and is money that could be more productive, and more benignly so, elsewhere in the economy. Plus, I would like to think Pawlenty’s position is a blow against all pork. And I hope that this sort of thing will truly elevate the presidential debates.

    • 0 avatar
      cdfree

      “Deficits don’t matter.”

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp?page=2

    • 0 avatar
      mdensch

      This is hardly an exercise in futility. If we’re going to reduce the deficit it will take actions large and small.

      When auto engineers began reducing the weight of cars, they didn’t look for the single 1000 pound element to cut, they made small reductions in hundreds of components. So it will be with the federal budget. And if we don’t have the courage to make these smaller cuts, where will we find the courage to make the big cuts. I’m cynical enough to believe that Pawlenty is just pandering to a different segment of the electorate right now, but at least the subject has been introduced into the stream of public discussion.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        So it will be with the federal budget. And if we don’t have the courage to make these smaller cuts, where will we find the courage to make the big cuts

        When the “small cuts” are driven less by ideology than pragmatism, I’ll give this statement more credence. As it stands, the small cuts being proposed have two ill effects:
        * One, they do more harm, in net terms, than good
        * Two, they let politicians off the hook because they can say they made $x in cuts; cuts that are meaningless because they really need to make ten or hundred times those amounts.

        Token cuts to ideologically soft targets like planned parenthood, science grants or food programs for the poor mean nothing, and are worse than nothing, if they allow politicians to play games of misdirection for the sake of their own cowardice.

      • 0 avatar
        Steven02

        I agree with you psar that the small cuts are really just a distraction. No one wants to handle the big cuts that will have to be made to social security and healthcare. But, I also think that the smaller cuts will have to be made as well.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        No one wants to handle the big cuts that will have to be made to social security and healthcare

        You need to add “and defense” to that list, but otherwise yes, I agree. Either there needs to be a significant restructuring or a wholesale gutting of services. The Democrats had a chance at the former with Heathcare and the Republicans with Social Security. Both blew it, and neither have a credible vision, so cuts it probably will be, but only after services have been so hamstrung by half-assed measures that a cut would be merciful.

        The other aspect is taxes. They will have to go up. Actually up, too, not shell-game’ed.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        No one wants to handle the big cuts that will have to be made to social security and healthcare

        You need to add “and defense” to that list, but otherwise yes, I agree. Either there needs to be a significant restructuring or a wholesale gutting of services. The Democrats had a chance at the former with Heathcare and the Republicans with Social Security. Both blew it, and neither have a credible vision, so cuts it probably will be, but only after services have been so hamstrung by half-assed measures that a cut would be merciful.

        The other aspect is taxes. They will have to go up. Actually up, too, not shell-game’ed.

  • avatar
    MikeAR

    Way too many weasel words in that to be courageous.

  • avatar
    aristurtle

    Wow, this is the first time I’ve given a shit about Pawlenty.

  • avatar
    obbop

    Off-topic but I noticed comments in other threads and with the recent Joplin, Missouri tragedy and forecasts for the possibility of additional tornadoes impacting this area (and Joplin, due west of the shanty) tonight and tomorrow I placed a “tour” of my shanty’s closet purposefully designed to resist tornadoes and hopefully increase Coot Survivability and reduce the odds of injury.

    http://obbop.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/coots-closet/

    Pics and text.

    Very few folks have ever seen what I reveal (Eeeeeeek!!!) to thee.

    Additionally, very few folks have done what I have done… prepare before-hand what is too-common of an event within Tornado Alley.

    I invite y’all to mosey on over and take a peek.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Hang in there Amigo, I’ll be passing through MO on June 12th with the “world’s greatest fiance.”

    • 0 avatar

      if everyone applied such forethought and effort, the world would be in much better shape. This is really well worth a look.

    • 0 avatar
      Zackman

      Glad you’re all right – so far. Please keep us informed. When I lived in north St. Louis County, the tornado that hit where I lived (Florissant) in May, 1978 – well, that Friday, I witnessed that thing form and proceed to chase me! My little Gremlin I was driving was running as fast as it could down a hill, but we got away! The tornado went right over our apartment at the time! Close call.

    • 0 avatar
      greenb1ood

      Nice work! The most interesting part of the entire post (article?) results from a side note: “A tornado will ensure power loss since underground electrical supplies are extremely rare in this section of the USA; quite dissimilar to what I was familiar with in California”

      In other words, in a place called ‘Tornado Alley’ where death comes from above, the infrastructure faries have seen fit to install powerlines high above the ground. In a place called ‘Falling into the Ocean’ where earthquakes can cause death from below, those same infrastructure faries (or their suntanned cousins) have determined that packing lines underground seems like a solid plan.

      How is it possible that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet? We’re all really just standing on the shoulders of a hyper-intelligent and very small sub-culture that have provided invaluable contributions throughout history: Edison, Bell, Ford, Einstein, Gates, Jobs, etc…[fill in your own less-known genius here]

      • 0 avatar
        numa

        I can speak to the powerline issue a bit, in areas where land is cheap (midwest) it makes the most sense to put power lines above ground, as the burial of power lines (I’m not talking your typical residential area power lines) is absurdly expensive. Overhead ‘high power’ lines are un-insulated, and burying those same level of service lines is several orders of magnitude more expensive. Remember, that at high voltages, lots of things that are normally not conductive, become very conductive. This is why high power lines are spaced so far apart, not to mention, the placement of the lines to minimize phase interference. Around here, high voltage lines are above ground, since crossing an acre of farm ground (land valued at roughly $500 an acre) with a power line that costs $500 per buried foot seems a bit silly. Of course, as development moves outwards, farmland becomes houses, but the power lines are still above ground. Heck, I have some high voltage lines in my backyard, doesn’t bother me a bit.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckR

      Love the coots closet. Here is a link to (the much maligned but occasionally useful) FEMA for storm shelters

      http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/shplans/

      They show a toilet in their plan. Right. How about a 5 gallon pail with a cutout lid, an intact lid and some plastic garbage bags instead? Some assembly required. I can’t see where the coot needs this, although I’d damn near sh-t at the idea of an approaching tornado. But then I live in a state where it is thought that there might have been a tornado in the last century – 1930-something, but nobody was around to confirm it. Just one in a hundred years.

      Being a paranoid, I also like the plywood and steel laminated safe room. Those of a carpenterial bent might decide to keep their battery powered Sawzall in there instead of with the rest of the tools.

      Good job preparing, coot. Were you by chance a Boy Scout?

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    Having been raised in Ohio (where I can remeber seing my first E10 pump in 1995) if a technology is going to succeed it has to be able to stand on it’s own two feet.

    Your move Obama. Show you’ve got some guts. (I’m a registered Libertarian BTW.)

  • avatar
    Robbie

    It’s time that all primaries are on the same day in all 50 states. Or better, “one man one vote” nationwide for the Presidential elections… Am I the only one who feels like this?

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      No, but your viewpoint is mistaken, if you are referring to abolishing the electoral college.

      The US is not designed as a true democracy. The electoral college is a representative system designed to function in a way similar to Congress. In our representative republic, fairness occurs by giving equal representation to each state (Senate), and equal representation by population (House). The electoral college is comprised of approximately the same number of members as there are in Congress.

      With ‘one man, one vote’, you end up with mob rule (true democracy), and no longer need to call this country the “United States”, but rather the “United People”, and you no longer need congressional representation for your local interests.

      The Senate side of the equation gives equal power to smaller states. So people advocating ‘one man, one vote’ would be very unhappy with the result if they don’t live in TX, NY, CA, FL, IL, or PA, for example.

      • 0 avatar
        Robbie

        You can easily keep the Senate as it is, thereby preserving States’ interests, yet let the President be elected on a “one man one vote” basis…

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    So you have a candidate who openly admits he doesn’t have the money to run a “BMW campaign” (nice car reference btw) and is betting everything he has on Iowa. He then promptly goes out and tells Iowa’s #1 industry to go F’ themselves. My guess is his next job won’t be at the white house, but teaching ‘Political Suicide 101′ at a CC. There’s a reason politicians don’t tell the truth – they lose. Let me be the first to congratulate Mitt Romney on his nomination.

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      “Let me be the first to congratulate Mitt Romney on his nomination.”

      If that happens, let me be the first to congratulate Obama on his re-election. The Republicans are up to bat and they didn’t bring along any hitters.

      • 0 avatar
        Robbie

        Romney can give Obama lots of trouble. The nomination of one of the Tea Party types will make Obama sleep a lot better.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Robbie, Romney will be beaten like a yard dog. He is everything that is wrong with the party. He will never be President and never get the nomination.

      • 0 avatar
        aristurtle

        Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. Yeah, he’s got a better shot than some whacko like Ron Paul, in the same way that Kerry was a better candidate in 2004 than Dennis Kucinich. But he’s still not really going anywhere, and nobody really likes him. In a Presidential campaign you need to be able to sell the actual candidate and not just say “Vote against the other guy!”. It didn’t work for the Ds in 2004 and it won’t work if the other team tries it in 2012.

  • avatar
    buzzdsm

    There are a lot of people in Iowa, including myself, that would be happy to see the ethanol subsidies go away.

  • avatar
    snabster

    Since the primary use of ethanol is as oxygenating agent — for EPA clean air purposes — e10 isn’t going away. And with the price of food increases, removing ethanol subsidies would probably be neutral to the farmers.

    The Iowa primary thing is more urban legend that real politics. Ever since the Christians took over the Republican party, the caucus matters a lot less. And on the Democratic side, the allocation heavily favors the more urban parts of the state.

    Big picture: Every candidate says things they don’t follow up on. Is Gitmo still open?

  • avatar
    Dukeboy01

    I think Pawlenty’s for real. After he pissed on the Iowa corn farmers he went to Florida and pissed on the geezers over Social Security and Medicare reform.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/stand-of-pawlenty-presidential-candidate-in-south-florida-1495785.html

    He’s putting down markers for Republican primary voters to prove whether or not they’re serious about their alleged fiscal conservatism. He very well may get blown out of the water as people vote for their own self- interests, but there’s value in having that result as well. We are clearly not a serious nation when it coms to deficit reduction if every one of us isn’t willing to take a hit, particularly when it comes to entitlements like Social Security.

    Everyone wants to complain about how high taxes are and the intrusiveness of “big gubmint” until it’s one of their favorite programs on the chopping block.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      He’s putting down markers for Republican primary voters to prove whether or not they’re serious about their alleged fiscal conservatism

      What he’s trying to do is appeal to the old-school powerbrokers in the Republican party; that he’s a credible (and possibly singular) centrist** candidate, and as such the only one who stands a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a real election. With much the of the rest of the field playing to Tea Party money, it’s a reasonable strategy: let the rest of them fight for the “Most Ideologically Pure” badge and hope that the vote splits go your way.

      I don’t mind someone changing his/her opinion. We’ve seen what happens when politicians go the route of Showing Your Leadership By Staying The Course No Matter How Wrong You Are. If Mr. Pawlenty says that a position he’s previously taken has proven incorrect, I’ll take that as evidence he’s a rational, thinking human being.

      ** in that special, American sense of the word

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      @psar: Centrist Republicans lose Presidential elections, but centrist voters decide elections. 45% of the voters go “D” no matter who the candidate is, and 45% go “R” in similar fashion. The ‘centrist’ 10% of the voters are what matters. With “D”s running a give-away program, I believe the “R” candidate needs to look distinctive to have any chance of winning. At this point, I think the “D” candidate will win, hard as it is for me to say that.

      Ethanol subsidies are small potatoes (pun…) but the whole picture of subsidies/bailouts/healthcare should be part of a compelling message for the “R” candidate. As for the healthcare argument, Romney doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        I’ll admit that the rules have changed somewhat now that the deciding factor in an election is disinterest rather than engagement.

        In that sense, a full-bore Tea Party candidate might get more of those (R) voters out, while milquetoast centrists (and Obama really needs to try hard to not look like the milquetoast centrist he really is) keep voters at home. That said, a Republican ideologue candidate might get Democrat voters out in quantity in a way that someone more pragmatic and sensible would not.

        Personally, the nation and it’s political dialogue would be better off if both parties spun off their wackier halves (though in the case of the Republicans this would leave precious few left) rather than encouraging them via the Primary system.

  • avatar
    Darkhorse

    The irritating part of ethanol subsidies is that they are aimed at corn farmers. What happened to the ballyho about other sources of ethanol? Where are the swich grass farms? What about wood chips? These were things Bush II talked about but we’ve heard nothing from Obama. Is the biotechnology just not there?

  • avatar
    MrBostn

    +1 on the switch grass/wood chip comment.

    I found this on switchgrass.

    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110524/NEWS21/305230020/TN-plays-key-role-ethanol-development

    The R’s should just give up running against Obama. The Big O’s a shoo-in.

    The R’s sould concentrate on gaining seats in the House/Senate.

    If a D must be in the WH-then I hope the R’s have the majority in congress.

    The opposite is true for me if a R is in the WH.

    I dislike whenever there’s just one party controlling everyting.

  • avatar
    gator marco

    Pawlenty is just throwing stakes in the ground, like any politician, to see what draws attention. Republican primary voters still have quite a while to form their opinions.
    Just try to recall late spring 2007. Hillary Clinton was the obvious front runner for the Democrats, and 99% of the American people couldn’t spell Obama if you spotted them the “bam”.
    Baring something like a 3rd or 4th war, (don’t know if anyone is counting Libya), the election will revolve around the economy.
    I think the election is Obama’s to lose: if he keeps trying to borrow and spend out of the hole we are in, then he loses. If he were to somehow reduce spending, then he could win reelection.

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    It is what it is.

    A presidential candidate publically announcing opposition to Ethanol in Iowa.

    Thank you whoever it is, and in this case it is Mr. Pawlenty.

    NEXT!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India