Today, Charlie Pierce wrote this:
Someone please show me a single act of public political courage undertaken by John McCain since he won the New Hampshire primary in 2000 that he hasn't hedged, trimmed, or walked back completely. The Bush campaign trashed his wife and daughter, and he's spent the years since trying to get a job as the pool boy in Crawford. He gave a brave speech about the danger of political preachers, but he'd walk on his knees across broken glass to get himself blessed by Jerry Falwell's direct-mail people. But yesterday might well be the purest day of opportunistic sycophancy in the history of the Straight Talk Express. First, he jumps on the idiotic controversy du jour, lining up with the usual chickenhawk suspects to trash his "good friend" and fellow veteran John Kerry. But he does so at this thing, an event in support of a man who recently threw the term "cut-and-run" at Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in Iraq. Ho-ho. Now that's some straight-talkin' for you. Presidential fever produces odd symptoms in people, but none of them as odd as what's happened to McCain. His ambition has made him a coward.
But Pierce forgot something.
McCain has a long history of bashing ethanol subsidies. From a story in Fortune:
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it," McCain said in November 2003. "Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."
Good for him, right? It takes a brave soul to go up against Archer Daniels Midland et al. So can we cling to some shred of the McCain Maverick Myth?
Uh, no:
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa, as reported by the Associated Press.
I know the mainstream punditry's capacity for self-deception is all but limitless, but if they let McCain get away with the "independent-minded maverick" thing in the 2008 race, I'm gonna throw up.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Flat
wacki Posted 10:07 am
01 Nov 2006
Sorry, but you are unfairly labeling McCain in this manner. Like it or not opposing ethanol is political lunacy. If you are disgusted you should be disgusted at ADM and the farmers of Iowa and not McCain.
I suggest you read this:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/20...
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:51 am
01 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:18 pm
01 Nov 2006
Without that image, he's just another pol saying what needs to be said to get into office. Without that image, all he has left are his stated views, and as Jason mentioned, his stated view are pretty radically conservative, with a few small exceptions.
www.grist.org
Permalink
wacki Posted 1:42 pm
01 Nov 2006
wants to outlaw reproductive freedom
....and on the environment can be counted to bow down to special interests all the way
More info?
David Roberts,
Politics sucks. And as long as he doesn't plan on relying on ethanol to cure our climate problem I can let the ethanol thing slide. The real issue for me is what does he plan to do. I give every politician a free pass on some pork. It's required to survive. And given his history on ethanol, what it cost him in 1999, and his argument w/ VADM Lautenbacher I can't hold this kind of pork against him.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:01 pm
01 Nov 2006
highlights:
0% rating for women's reproductive rights
0% rating for civil rights
53% rating on environment.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:52 pm
01 Nov 2006
The basic problem for McCain is the basic problem for all Republicans. To get the nomination, you must run to the right.
Some people say that politicians can do that to get elected, then move more towards the center/left once in office. How many examples of that are there? Most politicians move rightward once in office (hint, that's where the big money for re-election is to be found. And how can we compare saving the planet to getting re-elected? It's not even close as a choice!!).
Given the nature of the Republican base (right and corporate), you can't run as one without being one.
patrick
Permalink
wacki Posted 6:39 pm
01 Nov 2006
0% rating for women's reproductive rights
You mean he's pro-life/anti-abortion. I prefer to call it what it is. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded term. Abortion isn't something I'm terribly worried about.
He's pro-embryonic stem cell research so he's certainly not letting his morals get in the way of scientific discovery.
0% rating for civil rights
....skipping cuz it's too early in the morning.......
53% rating on environment.
In 2003 he voted against the fuel economy bill. I'd have to analyze that bill some more to comment. For all I know this is a pro-ethanol bill. Again further research is needed.
The ANWAR is a lost cause. It's only a matter of time/peak-oil before that goes. But it is scary that he is voting yes this early. He's had mixed voting on EPA and other environmental chemical standards. He's certainly not the perfect politician but I wouldn't consider him a total sellout like our boy GW Bush.
Hrm... I will have to analyze this further but on the surface this is a little disappointing.
My only question is whether or not he has what it takes to solve the CO2/energy crisis. Everything else is secondary to me. Given his 'previous' history on ethanol, his comments on GW, and arguments with Lautenbacher he seems to be leading the pack as sad as that is.
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:39 pm
01 Nov 2006
Permalink
wacki Posted 2:22 am
02 Nov 2006
I've not supporting anyone yet. I believe the CO2 crisis is a no brainer. Although it's not entirely certain it's an emergency there are an incredible amount of fingers pointed in that direction. From the enviro/hippie standpoint the CO2 crisis is going to cause mass extinction on both land and sea. Ocean acidification alone could wipe out all of the oceans coral by 2060. It's likely impact to the human race will also be severe.
There there are the boys at the oildrum, army corps of engineers, chevron, etc that have made a so far an unchallenged case supporting peak oil. If that happens I have great fears for the environment and humanity. I certainly would not want to live in Israel.
I strongly believe there is no way we can we can avoid the CO2 crisis without some sort of Apollo energy program. As of right now the only way to mitigate peak oil is to either chop down the rainforest to grow sugar cane or to heavily invest in battery technology.
Looking at Kucinich's website the only thing I see him promoting is mustard seed oil. A quote from his website:
Congressman Kucinich believes farmers are the key to eliminating our dependency on foreign oil.
Anyone with an inkling of a clue knows that simply isn't going to happen. Not without severe ramifications against the rainforest anyway. Maybe he's just talking like post-flip flop McCain is but I haven't seen him supporting anything I believe is of primary importance. Well, not on his website anyway. Almost all of the stuff on his website is about increasing smoke stack, mercury, and other standards. That sounds nice but it isn't going to mean jack when our economy is forced to switch over to coal. A switch which is already under way.
Permalink
wacki Posted 2:25 am
02 Nov 2006
Permalink
phxfreddy Posted 11:49 pm
12 Nov 2006
Global Warming Challenge
Permalink
phxfreddy Posted 11:52 pm
12 Nov 2006
Rino Republicans, John McPain and who will be the Republicans Next Presidential Candidate
Permalink