I agree that we need to be looking at other sources for energy. However, what I was pointing out is that there are other plant sources out there which make more sense for ethanol than corn. Without looking them all up again, I can mention switch grass and sugar beets as examples where they are investigating.<quoted text>I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Could you restate it? I'll need to know, if it's my point. My point, as I want it to be, is that ethanol is no pie in the sky, and that we must develop more and better energy alternatives, leaving nothing out. That includes wind, geothermal, biowaste, nuclear, coal, algae-derived oil, solar, and yes, better oil extraction methods (at least until better things can be developed). Even fusion needs to be researched. Ethanol, as it stands today, is a chimera.
As for drilling for oil, how about opening up areas such as ANWR where drilling has been prohibited.
An alternative to ethanol could be hydrogen. Build a station to manufacture it's own hydrogen from city water and you even remove the pipelines and trucks required by oil.
Now, why do you insist on insulting TEA Party members who want nothing more than our country to be safe? They believe the government spending will bring this country down to its knees when the debt gets high enough. They don't want the government to be spending money to be paid back by their grandchildren and great grandchildren. How is that something which requires an insult to describe them? Although the TEA Party is relatively new, the sentiment has been a long time coming. Even decades ago, I remember discussions about what our government was spending. It just took Bush's spending and then Obama's putting it on steroids to get them to publicly demonstrate.