Politico is reporting Conservative Senator and leader of the Conservative Steering Committee in the Senate Republican Caucus Jim DeMint is set to endorse Marco Rubio over the NRSC's more liberal Charlie Crist. (I'll note the headline currently reads Demint is backing Rubio in the Florida Governor's race in an obvious typo).
The move by DeMint shows increasing discontent and anger at the party establishment's endorsement of the liberal Charlie Crist and adds fuel to the fire still blazing since being ignited by Crists endorsement by the NRSC and the once conservative Senator from Texas, one John Cornyn.
True to form, Politico mouths the talking points of the liberal wing of the Republican party that "Conservatives are playing a strategy of backing conservative candidates against more liberal candidates with a better chance of winning in the general election."
Of course there is no attempt to prove the assumption made by the inside the beltway talking heads that the more liberal candidate is the best choice in most general elections...an ommission all the more glaring because of the obvious failure of this assumption to prove true over the last couple of election cycles...but hey...they....the Republican establishment, the so called objective press, and Democrats like Bob Beckle have all said it...so that should be enough...right?
Which brings us to the second tidbit mentioned in the title. “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group in yet another poll Gallup shows that despite increasing numbers of people who refuse to identify with the Republican or Democrat Parties, the number of Americans self identifying as conservatives has increased over the last few years.
40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year's figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.
Pointing to a potential opening for the Republican Party for the 2010 election is this little tidbit:
While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly -- from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.
The rest of the conclusions drawn in the article shows more moderates, (when pressed to identify their political alignment to either Republican/Conservative vs Democrat/Liberal)...identified as Republican/Conservative by significant margins.
As I've pointed out incessantly in the last year and a half that I've been blogging, Republicans have to present an alternative to the liberals in the Democrat Party which they haven't gone in the last couple of elections. Sadly there seems to be no inclination to do so going forward.
As a parting shot on this tidbit let me say this...Only in the Republican Party is it seen as smart electoral politics to give the back of the hand to the 40% of the American electorate in a mindless pursuit of the ever elusive and mythical beast know as "Moderates and Independents" who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal making up at best 17% of the electorate!
I've heard recently that such a creature was recently sighted prancing through the green fields of Avalon alongside the Unicorns and Pegasus but I've so far been unable to confirm these reports...I'll keep you informed should I acquire the information and documentation I need to confirm them.
Now we get to a thought that has bounced around inside my head lately...that being, we've gone from famine to feast.
As I work from my office doing research for my commercial clients, I always have Fox News playing in the background. I've been struck lately by the contrast between the current President and his predecessor.
I know....there is a huge difference between the policies of President Bush and President Obama which isn't news...but I'm not talking about policy....I'm talking about the contrast in time spent pushing and explaining their respective policies...
My thoughts run to the days of Bush when there was nothing for the press to focus on besides missing beauties in Aruba, mothers murdered by ex cops, OJ trials, Micheal Jackson's bizarre behavior and all the rest because we had a president who didn't give a fart in a wind storm about what he could accomplish with the bully pulpit and chose to toil away in the oval office in silence, obscurity and near secrecy.
Now I am endlessly bombarded with the preaching and proselytizing appearances of "The One" on a daily basis! I mean...come on already!...I can't sit down and eat lunch without gagging because Barack (Neo) Obama is on the friggin matrix (Lame Stream Media) pushing yet another bailout, socialist program or seizure by his government of one aspect of the once free market or the other in yet another hour long speech...I'm at the point of saying..."all right...I surrender already...just SHUT THE HELL UP!"
With that...I'll close with a question to you all. I've been kicking things around a lot lately about my single minded rantings about Squishes and RINOs starting with the nomination of McCain last year and going into the aftermath of the elections.
I can't help but think that a large number of you are sick of hearing about it from me...but at the same time...I've spent the last 7 months gathering data about many of the groups and individuals who I believe are responsible for our current state of affairs.
There are plenty of bloggers out there taking on the Obama Administration but precious few who are keeping Conservatives informed about the shenanigans of our more liberal party leadership and holding our leader's feet to the fire to make sure conservatives are afforded the representation we deserve as the majority of not only the party..but the electorate as a whole.
That said, I had a discussion this week with a friend who suggested I was in danger of marginalizing myself and becoming the conservative version of a Paultard because of my single minded obsession with RINOS. I highly esteem this person and his/her opinions. Given the fact that I was already thinking I needed to step back and take a breath...I can't help but think he/she is correct.
That said, my question is this...how many of you agree with that sentiment and think I should forget all the data I've gathered over the last 7 months about RINOS, their organizations and their shadow lurking in the party and join the chorus of those talking endlessly only about what the Dems are doing...or should I continue to expose what RINOs are doing to help the Dems further their agenda?
If I keep swinging the hammer...will I marginalize myself with you all?
Would I be contributing something that is missing to a large extent?
Would I become a Paultard because of clinging to a single issue?