The Club for Growth has already gone after Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican Senate primary, making more difficult the path to the GOP nomination for the once-popular more moderate incumbent Governor. Now the group is officially staking its position behind Crist's opponent, Marco Rubio.

The Club for Growth made it official this morning, throwing its weighty endorsement behind former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio's (R) Senate bid and significantly complicating Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) path to the nomination.

Club president Chris Chocola praised Rubio as "one of the brightest young stars in American politics" and a "proven champion of economic liberty." Chocola also skewered Crist for repeatedly taking the side of "big government liberals on major economic issues facing America today."

While this news is good for Rubio in the primary, as Chris Cillizza (quoted above) writes, it's not good for the Republican Party overall (which Cillizza omits). As I noted last week, the Club has a remarkable record of electing Democrats (not a typo) in recent years, pushing unelectable Republicans through GOP primaries (see, e.g., Bill Sali of Idaho, Tim Walberg of Michigan, Andy Harris of Maryland, and Steve Pearce of New Mexico), unsuccessfully trying to do so and in the process weakening the GOP incumbent (see, e.g., Linc Chafee), or backing a conservative third party candidate to the detriment of the Republicans (see, e.g., Doug Hoffman). So if the Club wants to see Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek move up to the Senate next year, they are doing exactly what they need to be doing.

There's more...

Take a gander:

The Club for Growth has been one of the most successful entities in the nation in electing Democrats to Congress. Whether it was helping force Bill Sali (Idaho) and Tim Walberg (Michigan) through GOP primaries in 2006, only to see both lose reelection bids in 2008; unsuccessfully primarying Linc Chafee (Rhode Island) in 2006, weakening him for the general election (which he eventually lost); pushing Andy Harris (Maryland) and Steve Pearce (New Mexico) through primaries against moderates into general elections they ended up losing in 2008; or, most recently, forcing Dede Scozzafava out in the special election in New York this week, easing the Democrats' path to victory, the Club has been remarkably effective at helping Democrats win elections.

Now that the Club is turning its sights on Charlie Crist, Florida's moderate Governor and GOP Senate aspirant, the real question is (as I asked on Twitter yesterday) just how long does Crist stay in the GOP primary before jumping ship to run as an Independent or even a Democrat (a la Arlen Specter)?

There's more...

Throughout -- Throughout our history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party. What is it? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument the people use when they search for ways to shape their future? Well I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience of all of us.

Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief -- This is a belief that each American, regardless of background, has equal standing in the public forum -- all of us. Because -- Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come. -- Barbara Charline Jordan

In her keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 1976, Barbara Jordan, I think, hit on what it means to be a member of the Democratic party. We are an inclusive party that believes in equality for all and privileges for none. Whether Senator Arlen Specter stands ready to embrace all the key tenets of the Democratic party remains to be seen, still this is a party of sometimes competing ideas and raucous squabbles but firmly premised on the singular belief that everyone has a seat at the table. I am not quite sure if I agree with our newest member of our party that there was a "Reagan Big Tent". If there was, it certainly didn't include me. And while I have scores galore with the Democratic party, I have always felt accepted by the party's leaders and its membership.

Even if I sometimes rather vociferously complain that the Democratic party has strayed from its working class roots, there is little doubt that the Republican party has for a generation been the party of intolerance if not hate and a party that aims to serve the narrow class interests of a privilege few. I am struck today by the response of Grover Norquist's Club for Growth that is increasingly becoming the vehicle of extinction that will drive the GOP over the cliff into complete and utter political irrelevancy.

Arlen Specter argued today in his defection announcement that the GOP has strayed too far to the right since the days of the "Reagan Big Tent." But if there was anyone who understood the importance of standing up for principle, it was Ronald Reagan who declared in 1976:

"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It cannot compromise its fundamental beliefs for political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. It is not a social club or fraternity engaged in intramural contests to accumulate trophies on the mantel over the fireplace...No one can quarrel with the idea that a political party hopes it can attract a wide following, but does it do this by forsaking its basic beliefs? By blurring its own image so as to be indistinguishable from the opposition party?"

Some commentators suffer from "Battered Republican Syndrome" -- they cling to liberals like Specter hoping some day the betrayals will stop. Get over it. If the Republicans are going to prosper as a political party, they must offer a consistent conservative alternative.

There's more...

Looks like J Ro and I are thinking alike. I finished this post about a minute after he hit post on his.

Over at The Next Right, Patrick Ruffini writes that with regards to the future of the Republican Party, "Center vs. Right is the Wrong Debate." Moreover, he writes, "American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office." I'd recommend you read the piece if you get the chance.

There's certainly something to the argument, particularly that the attractiveness of the candidate and the broader environment in the country weigh heavily on elections. But I do not believe this tells the whole story. Take a look, for instance at the recent track record of the Club for Growth, the aim of which is to shift the Republican Party to the right.

As the Republicans gather all over the place to mull their future, one group wants to single out the conservative Club for Growth for hurting the party with moderates. In particular, the League of Conservation voters says it's finding it difficult to find moderate pro-environment Republicans to support, because the Club has been so successful knocking them off in GOP primaries. But the LCV notes the Club's record in general elections is not good. Club-backed candidates -- who defeated some Republicans the LCV would have supported or have supported -- lost congressional elections last week in MD-01, MI-07, and ID-01. In addition, their New Mexico Senate candidate also lost (and lost badly). Has the Club been too pure and ended up nominating candidates that are too conservative, allowing Democrats to win in places like, well, Idaho? The Club is going to have some defending to do (particularly with its donors) about how well the conservative purity game is playing out on the trail.

On the down ballot level, it's very clear that the Republicans have lost seats as a result of ideology in recent cycles. To take one example, in Maryland's first congressional district, which is mentioned above, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest would almost undoubtedly have won reelection this month had he not been defeated by a far-right, Club-sponsored candidate in the GOP primary; instead, Democrat Frank Kratovil is the Congressman-elect. To take another example, which isn't mentioned above, the Republicans likely would not have been able to retake Kansas' second congressional district had they nominated conservative Jim Ryun instead of moderate Lynn Jenkins to take on freshman Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Boyda. Similarly, moderate GOP Senator Susan Collins was about the only potentially vulnerable Republican hailing from a blue state to win reelection (and handily) this fall. And the list goes on.

More broadly, ideology -- and particularly Americans' reaction to Republican conservatism -- was one of the keys to spelling the doom of George W. Bush's presidency. Hurricane Katrina, and the federal government's inability to deal with the disaster, were clearly the straw that broke the camel's back. However, even before Katrina, Heckuva Job Brownie, etc., it was Americans' disgust and antipathy towards Bush's attempt to partially privatize Social Security -- an ideological move if there ever was one -- that began to drive some who had previously supported the President to begin to oppose him. In short, here ideology mattered, and the far right stance of the GOP cost the party support and votes.

And just to add one more point, Ruffini writes, "The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win." In some regards this is true, but in others it isn't. Take the issue of guns, which played no small part in the defeats of Al Gore and John Kerry. The Democrats have by and large given up on the idea of gun control, recognizing that it has been a political loser; they dropped their ideological stance on the issue, thus neutralizing it as an effective electoral tool for the other side, and were able to win.

I don't expect any Republicans to listen to me when I suggest that they should move to the center instead of the right, because clearly it's in my interest (at least on the policy level) for the party to be more accommodating of the agenda of Barack Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill. But if they believe that ideology had nothing to do with their decline in recent years, I do believe they are mistaken.

There's more...

Mark Kirk likes to pretend that he's a moderate.  But the fact is, he's no moderate -- he's voted with George Bush 90% of the time.  By comparison, the ultra conservative Peter Roskam has voted with George Bush 90% of the time.

At least Roskam is honest.  Mark Kirk doesn't have Roskam's integrity.  Despite being the chosen candidate for the Club for Growth, Kirk has long pretended that he was "independent" and a political moderate.  Kirk obviously thinks that his constituents are stupid.

The Club for Growth, according to its own website, "has become a power broker of sorts with the conservative movement," and "has become a force in congressional elections, taking aim at moderate Republicans."

So it came as no surprise when the Neo-Con independent group, Freedom's Watch, invaded the IL-10's airwaves in support of Mark Kirk.  While Kirk may try to represent himself as an independent or political moderate, inside the Beltway, his friends know that they can count on him.  Just as they can count on ultra-conservative Peter Roskam.

There's more...