During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States. But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.
…
But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.
During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about “her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.
“She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”
Clinton reportedly said: “I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”
In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: “There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”
Well, now, are you shocked by this revelation of a lie?
No?
Wel, nobody else is, either, including in the mainstream press, or so one would take by their ignoring the story. Imagine a Republican getting the same treatment.
No, I know… I can’t, either.
?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:14
I am not entirely opposed to current primary system, which gives undo weight to Iowa and New Hampshire. The residents of those two states are at least sane as compared to say New York However it is a problem that canidates have to adopt local percularities, like this love affair with ethanol, to prevail.
Ethanol is not a fuel source. It the product of converting fossil fuels into corn and then corn into alcohol. Ethanol is nor more than a subsidity to corn farmers paid by drivers and food consumers. Ethanol is not only, not a good idea. It is very bad idea.