The Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney tries to drive a wedge between supporters of a no-fly zone over Libya and supporters of the Tea Party movement. Sample:
The politicians and pundits calling most loudly for war are largely the elites who publicly and repeatedly derided the Tea Partiers as unwashed rubes. And the hawks' arguments for intervening in a civil war in North Africa spring from the same faith in government and distrust of the populous that drove the domestic big-government agenda that galvanized the Tea Parties. […]
Leading the platoon of pundits for intervention is neoconservative David Frum, who has appointed himself the responsible grown-up of the Right, which largely entails telling the Tea Partiers to shut up. Frum, after last November's election, praised "level-headed" moderates like Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk while attacking "ultra-radical Rand Paul" of Kentucky.
Frum snarled at the time: "The Tea Party radicals were supported by all the weight and noise of talk radio and Fox News." And Frum—as he did in 2003 when trying to purge the "unpatriotic conservatives" who warned against an Iraq quagmire—took on the role of ideological enforcer: "It needs to be pounded home: The radicals must not be allowed to claim the title of the real Republicans."
[John] Kerry, [John] McCain, [Lindsey] Graham and Frum don't trust the people, but they do trust government. In fact, they sometimes show almost a fetish for government power. All four have, at one point or another, signed on to the global warming agenda Al Gore has described as a "Dunkirk" moment and "Apollo moonshot." All four men cheered the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a savior of the American economy and derided its critics as childish.
They talk of American Greatness, but they mean "federal government greatness."