Ramesh,

There may be something to the accusation against McCain’s stance on ethanol, but it certainly isn’t that he supports ethanol subsidies. In his speech in Grinnell, Iowa, last summer, he said quite clearly:

“My position on ethanol is support for ethanol when oil went over $40 a barrel,” he said. He said soaring gasoline prices make ethanol competitive in the marketplace.
“I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects.”

To my mind, it is that energy dependence thing where any flip-flop might have occurred. In 2003 he said:

“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…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.” [Emphasis added]

Now it may be that his “$40″ clause gets him off the hook on this one, but I fail to see how we can go from being independent at $39 a barrel to dependent at $40 a barrel. As it happens, I agree 100 percent with his 2003 remarks. He deserved a lot of credit for standing up to big ethanol then.