Rahall says ethanol "faulty energy policy"

May 25, 2008


By Paul J. Nyden
Staff writer

Rep. Nick J. Rahall spoke out Friday against the increasing role of ethanol to meet America's energy needs.

Rahall, D-W.Va., said using corn, soybeans and other crops to make ethanol is a "faulty energy policy" that contributes to world hunger and sparks international unrest.

"The rush into ethanol has been a serious misstep. We had better look carefully before we leap again," Rahall told the City Club of Cleveland on Friday afternoon.
"Countries around the world are in dangerous states of unrest. Over the course of this year, riots have erupted in such places as Haiti, Yemen, Egypt, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mexico and Morocco.

"Much of this unrest can be directly linked to food shortages," Rahall said. "These food shortages can be largely linked, as the United Nations has stated, to the huge increase in the production of food-based biofuels.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200805240323

Why is Nick J. Rahall speaking to the City Club of Cleveland on Memorial day weekend?

Well Aaron what does that have to do with it?

Do you disagree with his position?

The Congressman has finally come around to what I've been saying that since I first heard about GOVERNMENT mandated ethanol, especially corn based ethanol. It’s good for NOTHING.

Perhaps if our Congressmen would try representing what is in the best interest of THEIR constituents instead of running all over the place addressing constituents and issues they have no business addressing, we wouldn’t have programs like ethanol and we might actually be in a little better shape as a country.

Don’t you agree Sherm!!!

Well excuse me Aaron but did you read the post.

He agrees with you.

Well, I have lots of issues with Rahall. Among other things, he acknowledges no wrongs in the strip mining sector of the coal industry and, along with Robert Mollohan, he acknowledges no good in wind turbines.

But I don't particularly care where he goes nor to whom he speaks on a holiday weekend.

And I do agree with what he said about ethanol.

ziggy wrote:
But I don't particularly care where he goes nor to whom he speaks on a holiday weekend.

What reason would Molohan have for speaking to the City Club of Cleveland, OH, other then a potential fundraiser and why would the City Club of Cleveland raise funds for a West Virginia Congressman?

I'm sorry Frank, I thought one of your causes was campaign finance reform. Yet you have no problem with a West Virginia Congressman taking money from a group in Cleveland, OH?

HMMMMM.

Well, I know we have been stripped of many of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. However, last I heard Rep Rahall, like other Americans, was still free to travel within the United States and speak to any group he chooses to.

While I disgree with the congressman on many, many issues, I will defend his right to speak to the City Club in Cleveland and Inuits in Alaska and Swamp Yankees up in Maine if he so chooses. Especially when he's actually talking sense. We chould celebrate the moment.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
But I don't particularly care where he goes nor to whom he speaks on a holiday weekend.

What reason would Molohan have for speaking to the City Club of Cleveland, OH, other then a potential fundraiser and why would the City Club of Cleveland raise funds for a West Virginia Congressman?

I'm sorry Frank, I thought one of your causes was campaign finance reform. Yet you have no problem with a West Virginia Congressman taking money from a group in Cleveland, OH?

HMMMMM.

But until campaign finance is actually reformed, this is what we will have- if it's what you say it is. I don't subscribe to the suggestion that some should play by one set of rules while others play by another set of rules. When campaign finance is reformed, then reform it for everyone- and including for political leaches like Rahall and Mollohan.

Well I would hope that any "reform" would not preclude a Congressman from wv from addressing a group in Cleveland.

And vice versa.

So many times so-called "reform" ends up creating more problems than it solves.

But I would encourage more communication between Members of Congress and the people.

Not less.

I know that Congressman Rahall often speaks to Arab groups, since he is of Arab descent.

Perhaps that is what has Aaron's shorts in a wad.

I think it is good to have a Congressman who can maintain some credibility in the Arab world.

Although I am very much pro-Israel, I do believe the Palestinian Arabs have been screwed over.

And I wont be surprised if Rahall plays a key role in that regard in a possible future Obama administration.

That's why we need a national health care program that looks like our energy policy.

Well OC if it is a halfass approach I tend to agree.

Remember the ripoffs of the previous "synfuels" subsidies?

They essentially just crushed the coal and sprayed diesel fuel on it and tripled the price?

These programs where the gvt just throws out the money and does not actually run the program are rife with corruption and ripoffs imo.

It would be the same with a halfhearted gvt involvement in health care.

I believe the gvt could do a much better job with the health care delivery system if they actually nationalized it. (Like Kucinich proposes).

But a halfhearted approach like Obama proposes will be a disaster.

(Of course it's a disaster now too).

I would nationalize both the health care system and the energy industry till I got them straightened out and running and then gradually turn them back over to private investors.

If I was king that is. (and had congress on my side).

In 1976 I worked in a coal liquefaction plant funded by the Department of Energy at Cresap, WV. We made something like 5,000 gallons of #10 fuel oil and they burned it successfully in a boiler at or near Windsor Heights, WV.

Your presumption is that once you nationalize health care and energy you can sort out the problems. For every problem you solve, however, you create two new ones you had not foreseen. That is why socialism as not been successful anywhere it was imposed. I thought you were interested in history...

Well I know when you solve problems you tend to create more.

But I am a different kind of big gvt. guy OC.

I dont want to run it forever.

I just want to come riding in on a big white horse and take it over and fix it then give it back.

If gvt. kept it forever then they would get fat and lazy just like the corporate bigwigs and crooks.

shermangeneral wrote:But a halfhearted approach like Obama proposes will be a disaster.

Obama's is basically the same as Hillary's. The one difference is she forces EVERYONE into hers. If someone refuses, she fines them. He doesn't do that.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
But I don't particularly care where he goes nor to whom he speaks on a holiday weekend.

What reason would Molohan have for speaking to the City Club of Cleveland, OH, other then a potential fundraiser and why would the City Club of Cleveland raise funds for a West Virginia Congressman?

I'm sorry Frank, I thought one of your causes was campaign finance reform. Yet you have no problem with a West Virginia Congressman taking money from a group in Cleveland, OH?

HMMMMM.

But until campaign finance is actually reformed, this is what we will have- if it's what you say it is. I don't subscribe to the suggestion that some should play by one set of rules while others play by another set of rules. When campaign finance is reformed, then reform it for everyone- and including for political leaches like Rahall and Mollohan.

Somehow I get the feeling that had it been SMC speaking to the City Club your sentiment would have been different had she accepted campaign money.

Be that as it may though, it appears as if I may have been mistaken.

Past City Club of Cleveland speakers have included: Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Dick Cheney, Henry Louis Gates, Madeleine Albright, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Sandra Day O'Connor and Douglas MacArthur.

I still find it odd that a WV Congressman is speaking in Cleveland on this holiday weekend but since he has no opposition, I guess I can understand why he doesn't have to be in his district.

Aaron wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:But a halfhearted approach like Obama proposes will be a disaster.

Obama's is basically the same as Hillary's. The one difference is she forces EVERYONE into hers. If someone refuses, she fines them. He doesn't do that.

Essentially both plans amount to little more than mandatory health insurance like we now have mandatory car insurance.

Except Obama's is only mandatory for those who choose to buy it. lol

Aaron wrote:Somehow I get the feeling that had it been SMC speaking to the City Club your sentiment would have been different had she accepted campaign money.

Why? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?

That's what I say. It's just very few agree with me even though I'm right 90% of the time and in the ball park on most of the other half.

And it appears that Rahall was in Cleveland on his way to Lebonon. I stand corrected.

shermangeneral wrote:Well excuse me Aaron but did you read the post.

He agrees with you.

SURE, HE AGREES NOW, ..... but 2 - 4 years after he agreed to the Ethanol Bill.

And the only reason he is AGREEING NOW is that he knows his ass is in danger of not getting re-elected if he doesn't.

Aaron wrote:And it appears that Rahall was in Cleveland on his way to Lebonon. I stand corrected.

Home for the Holidays, huh?

Vacationing on our $1.00 no less.

That is one of the things Nick Rahall does best Sammy.