There are many choices: oolong, black, green and more. Tea
parties, however, get bizarre and more complicated when speaking politically.

The tea party movement has made the 2010 elections, at least
the Republican primary elections, much more interesting than usual. Consider
that Delaware’s incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Castle lost to tea
party-backed challenger Christine O’Donnell in the Sept. 14 primary for the
Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. It was the first time Mr. Castle has
lost an election in his professional political career.

The vote, 53 percent to 47 percent, reflects a decidedly
anti-incumbent, anti-Washington attitude. That’s a good thing, and it’s not new
either. Such an attitude has been going on for at least 40 years, if not longer.

The difference now is that it’s growing and being
spearheaded—according to the popular media— by something called the “Tea Party,“
which is not a political party at all. The problem is that, like its misnomer,
it has never been truly identified.

As with actual political parties, the tea party is made up
of various types of people. This movement, however, has two primary factions.

One of these factions is made up of the Ron Paul type small
“l” libertarians who have been in the fight to reduce the size of government
and restore Constitutional limits for years.

The other faction, the one the media like to focus on, are
the Johnnies-come-lately made of the Sarah Palin followers who seem more
into hating Barack Obama and the Democrats than promoting liberty.

Mainstream Republicans don’t seem to care which type Ms.
O’Donnell might be. They're simply aghast at her victory, claiming that only
Mr. Castle could beat a Democrat come the general election in November in order
to take back control of the U.S. Senate from the Democrats.

Even if she were a die-hard Ron Paul type small “l”
libertarian, the likes of Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Karl Rove would
prefer the big government-leaning Mike Castle simply because, in their minds,
he would have a better chance to win in November. They opt for party over principle, rather than principle
over party.

Such has been the problem with Republicans—and Democrats for
that matter—for years.

Anyone who reads the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
with any semblance of rationality can see that almost no politician in either
of those two government parties has honored the oath of office.

But while the leadership of the Democratic Party has never
said it wanted to shrink the intrusiveness of government, the Republican
leadership has said so. It’s too bad they continually turn their back on the
promise.

Author Ayn Rand said more than a half century ago that the
rise of the liberal left was due to the inability of the conservatives to
provide a proper moral framework for its position of liberty and fiscal
responsibility, that it actually adopted the liberal mantra that more
government is the solution.

Ronald Reagan grew federal spending to levels as high as
those during WWII. George H.W. Bush said “No new taxes,” then raised taxes.
Newt Gingrich and cronies turned their backs on their 1994 “Contract with
America.” Richard Nixon instituted wage and price controls. That led to a group
of young Republicans leaving the GOP to start the Libertarian Party.

As big “L” Libertarians—members of the Libertarian Party—have said for years, when
Republicans campaign on fiscal issues they talk like Libertarians, but once in
office they vote and spend like Democrats.

Yes, many choices: Democratic, Republican, Green, Constitution
and Libertarian.

Voters this year would do well to sip their tea slowly and
contemplate carefully who deserves their vote.