How many "Conservatives" would be happy with this?  Clearly Republicans love it.  Oh right... there's no difference between the two.  Either way, Fred Thompson has apparently decided to shift gears on ethanol subsidies.  Perhaps he got a large infusion of donations from corn farmers.  He was in Iowa after all:

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.
...
Meeting with reporters, Thompson acknowledged that he had switched his position on subsidies for ethanol.
...
"When I was in the Senate, I think oil was at $23 a barrel," said Thompson.

Oil now is about $80 a barrel.

I've said this several times before, but it's worth repeating:

It is not only stupid, but rather dangerous, to tie our transportation infrastructure to a vital food stuff.  When the supply of oil decreases, and the price increases, people are forced to make a choice.  Do I pay more for the same amount of gasoline, or do I drive less and conserve?
...
If we tie our transportation infrastructure to something that is also used for food, our choice becomes much more stark when prices increase.  The question will become, should I eat today or not.  That's not a smart idea.

Ethanol was looking cheap previously, because it was in relatively low demand compared to oil.  However, as demand increases, so will price.  It's is not just foolish, but idiotic, to think that ethanol will remain a cheap alternative, without having to pay dire consequences in other areas of our lives, like the dinner table.  We're already seeing increases in prices in food commodities... and ethanol demand hasn't even gone up that much yet.  This is purely due to speculation.  Tying food prices to such a speculative venture is outright dangerous.

Via Ol' Broad.