Battle lines with Tea Party over Jeb are drawn, exposing neocon establishment's motive

According to neoconservative blogger Ron Radosh, the tea party has begun to enunciate a consistent Voelkisch attack line against the royalist Jeb boomlet, and it goes something like this:

"...the Republican base find his position on immigration untenable, and would fight him tooth and nail during primary season. He is also a serious advocate of education reform. His support of Common Core, however, will also find many who are in the conservative ranks objecting, since they fear that Common Core represents educational centralism and having the government ram federal standards down their throats.

...Bush is already being heralded as the obvious candidate, the man to whom the big money must and will flow. As the Washington Post reports:

'Many of the Republican Party’s most powerful insiders and financiers have begun a behind-the-scenes campaign to draft former Florida governor Jeb Bush into the 2016 presidential race, courting him and his intimates and starting talks on fundraising strategy.'

Apparently, whoever makes up this somewhat mysterious Republican “establishment” fears that their former hope, Gov. Chris Christie, is damaged goods. Secondly, they fear that unless they intervene quickly behind a chosen candidate, Sen. Rand Paul could win the nomination and, in a time of the necessity of strong actions abroad by the United States, could push their party and the country in an isolationist direction.  As one prominent unnamed bundler told the reporters about Jeb Bush, “he’s the most desired candidate out there.” The article goes on to note that at a moment’s notice, Bush could activate a waiting national fundraising effort that would give him more funds than any competitor in the Republican ranks."

This analysis is more important for what it reveals about the "establishment" and neocons than about the tea party base, and it explains why the neoconservative GOP establishment would force a "safe" nominee (for their interests) like Jeb Bush, who cannot win a general election, in the absence of a "safe" nominee (Christie) who at first appeared able to win (or at least compete) in a national election.  Their bottom line is better to lose with Bush than have someone like Paul (who arguably could outperform a third Bush in a general election, even in a losing effort) take their party away from them. The dirty little secret is that, for most neocons, Hillary would be preferable to someone like Rand Paul, whose movement, inherited from his father, questions the very moral authority of the national security state, and US imperial motives.