I've been as enthusiastic about Thompson as I can be about any Republican, but this is disappointing, if true:

He voted against them in the Senate. But after touring an ethanol plant in Iowa today, he considers them "a matter now of national security."

It's not just the policy that's a problem but the apparent flip-flop for blatant political reasons. I'd hoped for better from him.

Not a deal killer, but disappointing.

We can't make ethanol viable without huge subsidies. Most everyone knows this. ADM and Cargill are counting on it. The other problem is we can't make enough of it to put a dent in the oil Jones. What a boondoggle.

I've argued for years that serious candidates should skip Iowa. It's just becoming more obvious to me now why they should skip Iowa.

When new data arrives it is common to reevaluate your stance on things. In some cases those opinions may change, in others they may not. Only a fool would refuse to do so.

For example Bush campagned with a position against nation-building. I don't consider it hypocritical to consider that after 9/11 his position was reevaluated and the old ideas considered somewhat naive.

Note I'm not defending or smashing Ethanol specifically, just the comments on flip-flops which are overused these days.

While I am no fan of ethanol subsidies myself, it is understandable. As T Boone Pickens recently said "42 Senators are from Farm states that grow corn, what do you think will happen", when questioned about ethanol subsidies on MSNBC.

As far as I can see, the only new data that arrived was that he realized that he had to do well in Iowa.

I've argued for years that serious candidates should skip Iowa. It's just becoming more obvious to me now why they should skip Iowa.

Last year I watched Jim Cramer on Mad Money screaming that people should buy fertilizer stock. Why? Iowa primaries and the expected pandering on ethanol.

PS -- Markos Moultisas and McGehee agree completely on the Iowa primary. I fear for the stability of the space-time continuum.

Bob Zubrin loves ethanol (or at least, he did so when he wrote his famous expose of the hydrogen hoax). He can't be that wrong, can he?

Very disappointing. Fred talks a good game, but on a couple of important issues so far (this one and McCain-Feingold) he is squarely on the wrong side.

Not a deal killer if he is running against Hillary. But it devalues him against Giuliani. If the Republican primary comes down to two unprincipled candidates I am going to vote for the one who looks stronger in the general election, which (so far) means Giuliani.

Bob Zubrin loves ethanol (or at least, he did so when he wrote his famous expose of the hydrogen hoax). He can't be that wrong, can he?

As I recall, Zubrin touts methanol not ethanol.

You make it from plant waste or from species that grow where prime food crops cannot.

Bill beat me to the Zubrin response. Here's an article:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/zubrin.htm

And as a note, I'm generally against putting food (processed from whatever form) into my gas tank.

Rand, what is old data for you might be new for Fred. It's possible he was given misinformation prior to the vote or told to vote one way by advisors and other Republicans and then when he went to the source he weighted matters differently.

Ethanol aside, Fred Thompson earns kudos from me for standing up to Dr. Dobson.

Out of curiosity, where did this whole "ethanol = food" shite come from? Who's responsible for this idiocy? Food crops are not the only possible way to produce ethanol--and you can bet your arse that if ethanol becomes common, we'll see crops grown specifically for ethanol.

Do you guys also write lengthy essays deriding soybean plastic? After all, that's also made from "food".

First the political and then the technological.

In some alternate reality, could not some candidate, say, campaign in New Hampshire against the ethanol silliness based on solid economic arguments and the pocketbook arguments of New Hampshirites who see high oil heating bills, and simply not run in Iowa, saying they are concentrating on New Hampshire?

On the technological, it appears that making either methanol or ethanol from plant waste or wood chips seems to be further along by thermal processes than biotech ones. The golden future is that we will have enzymes to convert mountains of cellulose into liquid fuel, but it seems the method that is ready to go right now is to simply pyrolize that biomass and then use Fischer-Tropsch or some variant to turn the pyrolisis gases into alcohol of some form. What is the hangup on the bio-process? What do they need to do that they can't do right now?

PS -- Markos Moultisas and McGehee agree completely on the Iowa primary.

I'm pretty sure I was right first, so the only part of the space-time continuum at risk is the community-based reality.

PS -- Markos Moultisas and McGehee agree completely on the Iowa primary.

I'm pretty sure I was right first, so the only part of the space-time continuum at risk is the community-based reality.