Republicans and Tea Party activists say “The Tea Party” is a fake party controlled by Democrats aimed at drawing away votes from GOP candidates. They don’t want it on the ballot.

The Tea Party Express announced it would spend around $600,000 ahead of Delawares Sept. 14 primary on behalf of Christine ODonnell, who is trying to best Rep. Mike Castle, considered the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.

One week after helping engineer a surprise in Alaska, the Tea Party Express is planning a six-figure commitment to back a candidate opposing Delaware Republican congressman Mike Castle in the state's Senate primary race.

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton declined to rule out a run for the White House in 2012 when asked about his presidential ambitions in an interview with the Daily Caller published Monday.

"In the sense that I want to make sure that not only in the Republican Party, but in the body politic as a whole, people are aware of threats that remain to the United States," said Bolton, a high-profile and controversial recess appointee made by former President George W. Bush. "You know, as somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that...there is a limit to what that accomplishes... Whereas, some governor from some state in the middle of the country announces for president they get enormous coverage even if their views are utterly uninformed on major issues."

Bolton called it "a very great honor" that anyone would be interested in the prospect of him mounting a presidential campaign and added, "You know, it is something that would obviously require a great deal of effort."

When Bolton was asked if he would identify himself as a member of the Tea Party, given his staunchly conservative approach to policy, the American Enterprise Institute fellow and Fox News commentator had this to say:

"I've never attended any Tea Party functions," he said. But, he added, if the movement is, as he understands it, "a true grassroots movement of people who are absolutely outraged at the extent that the Obama administration has bungled its economic policy, overspent dramatically, risked creating a deficit that will burden us for generations" than he thinks "it is pointed in exactly the right direction" and he is "all in favor of" it.

I have no idea what Ross Douthat is doing. Now that he appears to have gotten all the baddies out constructing weird arguments against gay marriage, he's moved on to defending Glenn Beck and his totally "apolitical" geriatric love-in.

This, among other reasons, is why I have appointed Ross my new David Brooks for his awe-inspiringly hapless work. David Brooks has been promoted to my new Maureen Dowd, and Maureen is my new drunk aunt. Congratulations, everyone!

In today's mistake, Ross states the following:

The Fox News host had promised that the rally, billed as a celebration of American values, would be an explicitly apolitical event. And so it came to pass: save for an occasional "Don't Tread On Me," banner, the crowded Mall was nearly free of political signs and T-shirt slogans, and there was barely a whisper of the crusade against liberalism that consumes most of Beck's on-air hours.

Here, Ross neglects to mention that signs and banners were banned from Beck's gathering. You see, teabaggers have had a little problem with certain members carrying incredibly racist and provocative signs in the past, so instead of letting their racism shine through -- unfiltered for all the world to see -- Beck and his handlers preemptively censored his base. Furthermore, what appeared on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial was a watered-down, "safe" version of Beck's philosophy.

Though I frequently disagree with Ross's articles, he's nowhere near as batty as his compatriots within the regressive Republican Party. He does recognize that the Restoring Honor rally was "strange" and offered enough material to "justify almost any interpretation of the event."

It really did appear as though Beck understands he's led a frenzied, frothing-at-the-mouth mob to a precipice, and short of calling for full-out Civil War, there's really not much he can do with his follower's constructed anti-Obama, anti-Muslim, anti-liberal sentiments. Basically, he said a lot of nice stuff about God and country, and then something about how we're all George Washington before he scrambled back to his world of elite media aristocracy.

But just because Beck didn't bring his campaign of hysterical fear-mongering to its logical conclusion doesn't make the event apolitical. Ross claims Beck successfully tapped into "identity politics" but "somehow" did it "without advancing any explicitly political agenda." If you understand that statement, you could probably work as a columnist for the New York Times.

Of course the event was political. Sarah Palin, the sweetheart of the political Tea Party movement, was a speaker. Congressmen such as Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) helped with fundraising, and the astroturf experts at FreedomWorks (originally set up by David Koch, and chaired by former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, and also the group behind efforts to derail healthcare reform,) along with Tea Party Patriots, offered volunteers as well as logistical advice.

Ross's mistake appears to be that he examined only the explicit message offered by Beck in that single day. Restoring Honor was really the neutered version of Beck's typical tirade, something an infrequent viewer of his horrible show wouldn't necessarily pick up on.

On MLK's "I Have a Dream" anniversary, there was no talk of cancer AKA Progressivism, ACORN, Black Panthers, black people in general (save MLK), Socialism, etc. This was very much the safe version of the Beckian message. To truly understand the spirit of his real "behind closed doors" movement, one needs to look at the language he has used in the past, and to his followers who are definitely political animals.

Attendees wore anti-Obama buttons. ABC's website features an article titled, "Glenn Beck's Non Political Rally Turns Political" for the simple reason that the rally's participants sure as hell think theirs is a political cause.

Nancy and Tom Mistele came from Wisconsin to attend Beck's rally and events surrounding it. The two say they came because they haven't earned a paycheck since 2006 and are afraid that Americans are losing their freedom and their country.

"I believe slowly, our rights are being taken away little by little," Tom Mistele said. "A lot of it's already been lost, but it's not lost permanently. We can get it back."

Cody Smith, an 18-year-old high school student from Indiana, believes passionately that the U.S. government should be stopped from moving toward socialism.

"We're here because we think our nation needs to get back to the principles of liberty that our founders gave us," he said. The rally is "going to be just historic. It's going to be us standing up and showing people that we're not the racist bigots that the media portrays us to be but that we love freedom, we love people and we want to show people that freedom is really the best way to go."

I really feel badly for these people. They've devoted a lot of time watching their messiah rail against the racist, Socialist President Obama all these months. Then, they turned up with their visors and lawn chairs for an afternoon of liberal-bashing, and all they got was a lukewarm amalgam -- not quite a sermon, not quite a history lesson, and definitely not a call to arms. The conman Beck got paid, they wasted a beautiful day, and no one gained anything from the mess.

Ross gushes at the end that Beck offered "the thrill of a culture war without the costs of combat" for a single weekend. Except, the culture war isn't always so cute and fluffy, and I wouldn't necessarily describe Beck calling Progressives cancer, and accusing the president of being racist toward white people as a "thrill." Ross emphasized he was only talking about this weekend, but limiting the scope of understanding in that way seriously undermines the power of Beck's propaganda. It's possible that for elites like Ross, Beck's theatrical mania is entertaining, and does give him a thrill. However, the performance is also irresponsible and incredibly dangerous.

The good people over at Media Matters provide an example: For months, Beck waged his culture war against the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides fiscal sponsorship for progressive groups. Then, on July 18, Byron Williams, an ex-felon with a history of violent criminal behavior, was pulled over by California Highway Police. Williams opened fire at the officers as one approached his truck (he was reportedly heavily armed with a handgun, shotgun, rifle and body armor,) and he later told investigators that his intentions were "to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." The ACLU is a typical right-wing target, but the inclusion of the Tides Foundation baffled many observers. Why would this man choose to target such an innocuous group that possessed no influence over his life?

According to his mother, Williams "watched the news on television and was upset by 'the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.'" MM stresses that no one knows for sure if Williams was watching Glenn Beck, but we do know that Beck railed against the Tides Foundation many, many times.

On July 14, Beck said:

You believe that America is the last best hope for the free world. Boy, was I a moron for believing that. Nope, there are a lot of people that believe that we are the oppressor. This man states it. He states in this book "The purpose is to create mass organizations to seize power." Wow! That almost sounds like the Tides Foundation.

On July 13, Beck said:

Well, they have the education system. They have the media. They have the capitalist system. What do you think the Tides Foundation was? They infiltrate and they saw under Ronald Reagan that capitalists were not for all of this nonsense, so they infiltrated. Now, they are using failing capitalism to destroy it.

And the list goes on...

Ah, the thrill of the culture war. And no costs of combat! Well, unless you're a California highway police officer. But that's like 2,413 miles away from New York, and shoot-outs are so totally cool when they're that far away.

Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com

...The elections last week in Florida and Alaska also pointed to ideological differences and personal enmities that have played out in Republican primary battles all year and that threaten to leave scars and fissures within the party that will have to be dealt with later. Republicans have seen more turmoil in their ranks this year than Democrats, a sign of both robustness within the coalition and unresolved debates about the party's direction.

Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers are happy to throw money at the rising tide of right wing lunacy. Breitbart offered $100,000 for JournoList, the email listserve that brought down WaPo blogger Dave Weigel this June.

Why did they do it? Because they stand to make a lot of money off the anti-black president movement, and they are rich enough to imprint their beliefs on the American sheeple.

High net worth progressive Democrats don't do this as much, perhaps because they're not typically in cahoots with Boeing or Monsanto or Halliburton, et al. Also, there are fewer anti-communist, religious crackpots on the left.

Before we get to the reward money, a little "Tea Baggers for Beginners."

In cultural terms, the original neoconservatives who birthed the baggers were way more frightened by the Broadway musical "Hair" than the film "Rosemary's Baby" (both from 1968). A mock ad might go like this: "Afraid your daughter might hook up with a black guy (or the nation may choose one to be president)? Have a problem with that homosexual and or promiscuous son or daughter? Does your son need a haircut? Do you often find biblical characters charred into your toast? Then do we have the movement for you!"

A certain breed of brilliant liberal started the neocon movement in reaction to the civil rights movement and the counterculture. They believed in a social order that benefited the wealthiest Americans in unimaginable ways, and they benefited by lending considerable brainpower to the cause. It seemed to these first neocons that the counterculture's open society might reveal that the emperor had no clothes. They were tasked with obviating that eventuality, and were paid handsomely. Ironically, these anti-communists stole Marx's opium (i.e., religion) and distributed a far more potent version (evangelical, ultra-orthodox) for free.

(No such thing on the left.)

Enter Glenn Beck, the farce part of the intellectual tragedy sired by the neocon founding fathers Irving Kristol and his historical sidekick Norman Podhoretz.

Beck touts religion, because he says the battle for America's soul is at stake. It is all about morality, propriety, and doing what's right. But Beck's conception of religion is all about control. He replaces God with an ersatz myth about self-reliance and a position of moral superiority spun in ways that magically seem to privilege the few at the expense of many (this includes the anti-Middle East / Islam thinking that led to the war in oil-rich Iraq), etc.

Glenn Beck talks about what's right a lot. Propriety comes from the same root as property, and that does seem to be the issue. As the culture changed in the 60s, so did neighborhoods. This was the heyday of blockbusting and race-baiting. We are in similar territory with a black president right now. His successful campaign is proof positive that the counterculture prevailed over the conservative movement. And the neocons are mad as hell about that.

Glenn Beck is also a Mormon. It matters. His religion typifies the noble lie that the neocons originally set out to defend against the counterculture--Archie Bunker's America--where a woman's place was in the home and with baby, and an African American's place was in a ghetto. (Mormons revere women much like Hindis do the cow, and they didn't accept African Americans in their ranks at all till 1978--draw whatever inferences you like).

The new conservatives are true believers in the "One Right Way", and Democrats only rarely agree on the one best way to go. But we can all agree that Fox News is a bad influence on America.

It is time to pop the tea baggers' favorite balloon (so what if it will be replaced by another?), and with that in mind I hereby offer to negotiate a $100,000 payday to the person who will come forward with a sex tape or phone records or anything else that succeeds in removing Glenn Beck from the public eye forever. I am not offering the cash myself, but I will broker the deal and/or raise the money for what you bring to the table. (And it better be good.)

If you have the goods, or if you want to contribute to a slush fund to buy more takedowns (probably not tax deductible), please contact me at: glennbecksextape@gmail.com.

For anyone with the wits to realize that the lunatics now run the asylum the Republican Party has become, it is axiomatic that, no matter how awful Democrats may be, Republicans are worse. The evidence is overwhelming and it mounts day by day. But does it follow that it is always better for Democrats to win elections? I suspect not, and not because things must get worse before they can get better. For less dubious reasons than that, it is far from obvious, for example, that the situation we confront would now be worse if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama.

Of course, I mean the McCain who, when he ran for President, could still call himself a "maverick"; not the Tea Party wannabe who has moved right by orders of magnitude in the course of a primary election campaign in what is perhaps the most retrograde state in the Union. Had McCain won in 2008, he might have freed himself enough from fear of his party's base to get back into his groove.

The idea that the Obama administration is no better or perhaps even worse than a McCain administration would have been is, for most liberals, unthinkable. But this is a disabling and dogmatic conviction. Its prevalence is one reason why the Democratic leadership is able to evince contempt for their party's most steadfast voters. They know that they can do anything, and the unions, the gays, the feminists, the environmentalists and even the peace movement will still be there for them.

Thus the musings of Eric Alterman and friends in the August 30/September 6 issue of The Nation are sadly typical of what we will be hearing more of as the November elections approach. The gist is that it is crucial to continue cutting Obama slack. Sure, his presidency has been "disappointing," but the constraints were such that he could hardly have done better. Not to worry, though; Obama is still the man. It's just that it's taking him longer to change the world than liberals once thought it would. But if we keep the faith, Obama will do in his second term what he did not do in his first - at the beginning of which, as Alterman fails to mention, his administration squandered an historical opportunity of a kind that very rarely appears. This is lesser evilism at its most pathetic. Tea Partiers may be unmatched when it comes to not facing reality, but liberals give them a good run for their money.

Consider Iraq. Candidate McCain got into trouble justifiably when he said he had no problem with American troops staying there indefinitely. As he pointed out, we still have troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Of course, they are there for geo-political reasons, not to shore up collaborationist regimes. But no matter; the important thing is that they are based abroad and not engaged in "combat." If McCain had been elected and stayed true to his word - and, on this matter, why wouldn't he? - he would now be doing just what Obama is doing: prettifying and rebranding an occupation he intends to maintain indefinitely. This is essentially what George Bush had in mind too; and it is what most Obama voters thought they were voting against.

Iraq may be a wash; but Afghanistan, a blunder of equal or greater proportions, is something else. Candidate McCain had little to say about that then forgotten war; Obama was gung-ho. Of course, the conventional wisdom was that he didn't really mean it; he just didn't want Republicans or Hillary Clinton calling him a "wuss." However, it is now clear that, unless he is still worrying about appearing "soft on defense," he really did mean it. Would we be worse off under McCain? It is impossible to be sure, but I think we'd be in a better place. For one thing, McCain had nothing to prove. For another, his generals wouldn't have dared be as insubordinate as they have been under Obama. And, most of all, though he lacks the moral and intellectual capacities to draw the right lessons from the Vietnam War and therefore, unlike Obama, really doesn't know better, McCain does know how self-defeating counter-insurgency warfare can be; he knows it from his own experience. The post-Vietnam brass now calling the shots live to get counter-insurgency right, to correct what they think their predecessors got wrong. Would they be as empowered as they now are if they had to answer to a Commander-in-Chief who understood how foolish their thinking is?

Or consider another of Bush's legacies. The first order of business after inauguration day ought to have been to restore the rule of law by settling accounts with Bush era war criminals. There was no chance McCain would do anything like that, but some voters did think Obama might. Instead he took that prospect off the table faster than Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching Cheney and Bush in 2006. McCain would not have brought Cheney and Bush to justice, but having been a POW himself and having endured torture, he would likely have been less inclined than Obama to let the issue drop in order to "look forward." But even if he weren't, he could hardly have done worse.

Or consider the revival of nativism and racism that the Far Right has been stirring up since Obama assumed office. They didn't do anything like that under Bush and they wouldn't be doing it under McCain. Indeed, on "illegal" immigrants, McCain's position, before his primary fight with J.D. Hayworth, was reasonable and decent. If he were President, perhaps now we'd have "bipartisan" immigration reform. And since there is not a moron in America who would "accuse" McCain of being a "secret Muslim," the billionaires behind the Tea Party, if active at all, would be having a much harder time translating anti-government hostility into islamophobic bigotry.

On other issues, the balance sheet is more equivocal. On matters of special concern to constituencies that Democrats take for granted - among others, labor, gays, and racial minorities -- we'd have had principled inaction under McCain, while, under Obama, "pragmatic" equivocation has given rise to a few cosmetic improvements and a great deal of less than benign neglect.

Under Obama there has been health care (actually, health care insurance) reform that will eventually make things somewhat better for many people, though at the cost of further entrenching the power of health care profiteers whose machinations will continue to make more radical changes necessary. Much the same is true of the financial reforms Obama got through Congress. McCain would likely have done worse on both counts. And, on the most pressing of all issues today, job creation, Obama, though doing far too little, almost certainly did more than McCain, a dedicated free-marketeer, would have done, despite his inner need to placate Blue Dogs and Republicans.

On balance, then, it probably is a good thing that McCain lost. But it's not a slam-dunk. We should remember that over the coming months as liberals delude themselves while militating to keep the illusions of 2008 alive. They could do with a dose of disillusionment. Yes, there is something to be said for voting for the lesser evil. But the main task is to prepare for the next time circumstances make real "change" feasible. To that end, what is needed most is a more apt and effective political representation than the decrepit Democratic Party of today.

Tea party activists say they plan to hold politicians accountable in the coming elections for too much government spending and too little attention paid to the Constitution.

Tea party activists say they plan to hold politicians accountable in the coming elections for too much government spending and too little attention paid to the Constitution.

After all this time, and despite all those warnings, the tea party’s boil still has the capacity to singe — and even shock — the Republican Party. Republican – United States – Politics – Parties – Tea

“Constitution” was probably the most used word at the tea party rally Saturday at the Kay Courtyard in Buffalo.

A steady stream of red, white and blue-clad tea party members flowed through the Foggy Bottom Campus Saturday for the much-anticipated "Restoring Honor" rally.

The Tea Party Patriots will host a rally on Sept. 11 at the St.Francois County Courthouse Annex parking lot at 6 p.m.

TEA Party Sept. 11 in Cadiz CADIZ — There will be a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at the Harrison County Courthouse in Cadiz from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 11. For information, call (740) 624-0543 or go to www.eocc-09.ning.com.

IN THE END Senator John McCain may have won his Arizona Republican primary comfortably last week, but it has been at quite a price. Although outspending his Tea Party-backed opponent, JD Hayworth, by 10 to one, the former presidential candidate has also been forced into a number of major policy U-turns – not least, Irish migrants will note with regret, sharply hardening his line on immigration …

Leaders of the Genesee TEA Party aren’t sure how deeply involved their supporters might become in opposing a proposed new property tax to support veterans services

Frank Rich, New York Times
ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.  

Frank Rich, New York Times
ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.  

The Upshot - The big question emerging in the Florida Senate race is: What does Charlie Crist want? Crist, the governor of Florida, quit the GOP this spring when an insurgent primary challenge from tea party favorite Marco Rubio seemed likely to thwart his shot at the party nomination. Now running as an independent, he's been peeling off [...]

ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the "ground zero mosque." This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to "reclaim the civil rights movement" (Beck's words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.

Vive la révolution!

There's just one element missing from these snapshots of America's ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the "death panel" warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You've heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs' banner may not know who these brothers are.

AP - Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march.

Glenn Beck told the estimated 87,000 people at his rally Saturday that "America today begins to turn back to God."

But the Fox News host's preaching may have escaped some attendees.

A video of encounters with rally goers at "Restoring Honor" captured political views and comments that sound nothing like the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, who spoke from the same spot as Beck did, 47 years ago today.

While angry protest signs that have come to characterize tea party events were mostly absent from Saturday's rally (Beck asked attendees to leave the signs at home), many people wore their political hearts on their sleeves.

The video, put together by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, shows rally goers weighing in on President Obama, "liberals," the NRA's support of gun rights for individuals on a federal terrorist watch list, and illegal immigration.

WATCH:

AP - Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march.