Much is being throw around the media and the blogosphere about the O'Donnell victory, her Tea Party affiliation and the "Establishment" of the Republican Party.

Various pundits went back and forth and essentially either waxed political theories on causation or took a position and defended it. It seemed to me that there was no real consensus.

Various "Tea-Party Candidates" like Marco Rubio and others proved the critics wrong as far as their "electability" . But let's face it: Rubio had a lot going for him. I could throw around a Joe Biden explains Obama's appeal notion and replace "African American" with Hispanic, but suffice it to say O'Donnell is no Marco Rubio. (As an aside, try to imagine if a Republican said what Biden said in that video. Wow.)

She had some "issues" that came up. Supposed financial improprieties and struggles. Supposed paranoia of being "followed", etc.

Liberals make a good point as to the hypocrisy of "all-of-a-sudden-fiscally aware" Republicans. But they fail to see that many Tea Party members are NOT in that category at all.

Not me. If a Republican does not show solidarity and adherence to a commitment to shrink Government and spending, I will firmly place him in the camp of NO. And obviously many in Delaware and elsewhere hold the same sentiment.

The Establishment of the Republican Party does not understand that Tea Party members are not loyal to the Republican Party. We are loyal to ideals. Specific ideals. Like limited government. Personal responsibility. Opportunity over "Hope". Faith. Self-Reliance. And fresh faces of Representation. We pledge no loyalty to "lions" of the House or Senate.

O'Donnell had some struggles financially? So? Who doesn't? I know who. Any number of incumbents or even the President himself who has amassed a fortune and who is "financially secure" in a way most of us will never achieve, that's who.

She wasn't clear about other financial matters or has been late in paying obligations? Really? That disqualifies her? Then out goes Rangel, Geitner and DOZENS of others in the House, Senate and in this current administration.

PLEASE.

The current Democratic Party has shifted WAY to the left since the days of JFK. How can you begin to reconcile "ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" with the tenets of this current administration?

Polar opposites.

Parties change. And while Tea Party members are for the most part Republican and vote that way, they are more married to a platform of which deviation from is simply not tolerated well.

The Tea Party wants to clarify the platform and if that means a Mike Castle gets wasted, so be it. We are not just a voting block with means that end in 2012. We are a movement. A huge one. With goals that just might need several cycles to achieve. Some say we will not last that long and will dry up and burn away like chaff after the General Elections and the next Presidential cycle.

I think not.

Was O'Donnell the "perfect" candidate? Nope. Should she be shamed and thrown out if she wins but then goes against the very tenets she campaigned on?

Yep.

You can distill the Tea Party movement down to an idea as much as you can the current President and his administration: "Big Government" -vs- "Limited Government" Limited in size, scope and influence.

Pundits and Democratic opponents have rightfully stated that Republican and Tea Party heavy hitters have not been specific enough on what this means.

Sharon Angle has been demonized by suggesting an entire Department be scrapped. The Department of Education.

So? Seriously, if the whole department was gone tomorrow, do you think the US would fall apart? Kids would no longer be able to receive an education? Would it create a vacuum? Sure. And if the Republic can do anything, it is this: It can fill a vacuum. Replace it with something better.

Democrats, Liberals and Progressives state that Tea Partiers and Republicans consider the Defense budget untouchable in terms of cuts or reduction. Really? What Tea Party members have stated this categorically?

The United States spends approximately $102 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets and bases overseas

President Obama recently increased the foreign aid budget to $49 billion in the middle of an economic crisis here at home.

And there are other Departments that could most likely be closed down completely. For instance, do you think it is crazy to dispense with the entire "Department of Energy"? Do you know what it does? More importantly, do you know it's mandate and why it was created?

Begun officially on August 4, 1977 during the Carter administration as a direct result of the OPEC fiasco and subsequent national energy/fuel emergency, it currently has 16,000 employees, 100,000 contract employees and an annual budget of over $24 billion,

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was created to among other things: "reduce America's dependence on foreign oil; develop energy efficient technologies and strengthen America's energy security".

Three decades later, how has this worked out?

It's a monumental failure. If it went away overnight, would the US fall to pieces? Would it effect you personally? Chances are you wouldn't even miss it.

And, OK.......eliminating complete agencies is madness? Fine. How about shrinking them? Or simply not EXPANDING them?

Can you quote one Democrat or Progressive that has called for this? One?

Why is the fact that Tea Party members promote decreased government spending so audacious?

In my last post I listed the entire spending proposals in the wildly successful "stimulus" that was passed.

Let's just take one for example:

$448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters along with $248 million for furniture!

Almost $700 Million dollars. For a new Department that Bush created but that did NOT replace completely, other agencies.

You're for that? Why? Why should some highly paid bureaucrats get some brand new shiny, vastly expensive building along with the finest furniture that taxpayers can pay for?

Come on.