Analysis by FrumForum reveals that Marco Rubio, running as the candidate of the conservative grassroots, has relied much more heavily on fundraising and promotion from Washington D.C. than Charlie Crist, the supposed candidate of the Republican establishment.
FF’s analysis of Federal Election Commission documents indicate that while Crist has outraised Rubio overall, Rubio has been the clear winner of the Washington money primary. More than one-third of Rubio’s money has come from outside Florida. 22% of that out-of-state money has come from Washington-area donors.
On the other hand, Crist has raised three-quarters of his money in-state, and only 13% of his out-of-state donations have come from the Washington area.
Rubio’outreach to the D.C. area involves four visits over the past few months: doing interviews with National Review and George Will, speaking to the bloggers of RedState.com and the activists of Americans for Tax Reform, and courting the Club for Growth.
These efforts have won Rubio a glowing cover story in the August issue of National Review and a prime speaking slot at next February’s Conservative Political Action Conference, once again in Washington.
In addition, Rubio has won endorsements or favorable coverage from the Club for Growth, Sen. James Inhofe, Sen. Jim Demint, George Will, Laura Ingraham, and Karl Rove.
While former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has not made a formal endorsement in the ongoing Crist-Rubio race, several signs point to Rubio as his favored candidate. When asked by FrumForum at a Washington, D.C. event whether he was ready to endorse Rubio, he replied, “not yet.” Bush has chided the National Republican Senatorial Committee for their early endorsement of Crist, and his sons are organizing a fundraiser for Rubio next month.
The message that Marco Rubio has used to captivate D.C. conservatives is simple – he’s one of them. “He’s a young, energetic individual with a strong message that’s based on grounded, conservative principles. He spoke on his record as Speaker in Florida and… well, he’s definitely one of us,” said Sergio Gor, the Director of Outreach at Americans for Limited Government.
Talk-radio host Laura Ingraham is an ardent Rubio supporter, and has invited him on her show four times. “He is a fiscal and social conservative with a straightforward, clear set of ideas that he persuasively and passionately advocates. He uses the ‘f’ word a lot, too – freedom,” Laura Ingraham told FrumForum.
Mike Connolly, communications director for the Club for Growth, which has endorsed Rubio, said that Marco Rubio is someone who understands the conservative movement’s concerns: “On the stump, if you just meet him, it’s clear that he gets it – that the federal government isn’t a little bit too big, that it’s a lot too big.”
Yet when it comes to specific issues, it is very difficult to pinpoint the differences between Crist and Rubio. As governor, Crist cut taxes by $22 billion. Crist championed school choice, favored parental notification for minors seeking abortions, and supported the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2008, the Cato Institute named Crist the most fiscally conservative governor in America.
By backing Rubio so intensely, D.C. conservatives have drawn a defining line: the ballot issue for them in 2010 is opposition to the Obama stimulus. Indeed, a candidate who does not denounce the stimulus is deemed unacceptable.
Charlie Crist, recognizing this, has quickly backtracked – a recent campaign ad features the Governor saying: “Enough is enough – that’s my message to President Obama.”
For Washington conservatives, the Crist message comes too late. But what if the angry mood of the capital’s conservatives is not shared by voters in the nation’s most purple state, where the president still draws a 53% approval rating?
25 responses so far
1 johnmarzan // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:41 pm
one good thing about rubio is he’s hipanic, which can’t hurt,.and the GOP needs more minorities representing their values.
2 hhr // Nov 16, 2009 at 12:19 am
Marc Rubio seems like a great candidate but so does Christie. I suspect the conservative wing knows his Hispanic roots might actually galvanize Latinos in the state more than his conservative supporters outside of the state. I also suspect that if the Tom Tancredo wing of the party does not like his “immigration stances” the house of cards may come tumbling down.
Also why are people discriminating as to which bailout determines whether you are a RHINO or not. Sarah Palin supported President Bush’s bailout of 700 billion.
According to the NY Times – Palin praised McCain for being ”instrumental in bringing folks together” to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ”it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.”
During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ”instrumental in bringing folks together” to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ”it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.”
3 hhr // Nov 16, 2009 at 12:20 am
Sorry not Christie …Crist …got a NJ election cylce hangover
4 Socrates // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:58 am
I hope Crist wins because the last thing we need are more ideologues like Rubio.
5 johnmarzan // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:15 am
“Also why are people discriminating as to which bailout determines whether you are a RHINO or not. Sarah Palin supported President Bush’s bailout of 700 billion.”
the first bailout (bush) was to stabilize banks and other institutions and prevent the US from financial meltdown or Depression. if banks start falling one by one and creditors won’t lend lend money, which is lifeblood of small businesses, then everything collapses.
the second bailout (obama’s) is being spent on myriad of things, many of it has nothing to do with creating jobs. most of the stimulus is unspent (15% this year). but spending will ramp up in 2010 to create temporary/construction/shovel ready jobs in swingstates, which will help lower unemployment rate.
the second bailout is basically patronage politics rewarding dems during midterm elections. at least it is timed that way.
6 joemarier // Nov 16, 2009 at 8:12 am
It’s not surprising that he would get more support out of state than in state, considering that Crist’s policies arguably benefit his state at the expense of all the others. Not just with the stimulus, but also his property insurance scheme…
7 jwbeeno // Nov 16, 2009 at 8:41 am
Wow, actually raises some prety good points dude.
RT
http://www.online-privacy.at.tc
8 WillyP // Nov 16, 2009 at 9:14 am
like clockwork, frum is against conservatives, undermining them however he can think.
this website’s attraction is similar to the attraction of car accident.
9 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
Gov.Christ rode in on Gov.Bushs popularity.He has some very questionable associates.If anything Gov.Christ tried to manipulate the election from D.C. with the early endorsement from the NRSC.Mr.Rubio made an end run around Mr.Christ and it appears to be working.Mr. Frum seems to think it is fine for Gov.Christ to try to block out Mr. Rubio,but not quite fair for Mr.Rubio to fight back
10 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:37 am
I apologize to Mr.Mak. for mistaking him for Mr.Frum
11 WillyP // Nov 16, 2009 at 12:18 pm
mymy, it’s excusable:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/16/frum.gop.florida.crist.rubio.battle/
12 sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Crist is wobbling, as he’s caught between the practical needs of keeping Florida running versus the demands of conservatives that he stop doing that.
Crist was forced to accepting Federal stimulus money rather than making deep cuts in government services, including the layoff of teachers and so on.
For this, he’s being pilloried by conservatives supporting Rubio. They mistakenly believe that the U.S. economy is always self-correcting; hence no government actions were required. They should read a history book sometime.
13 WillyP // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm
sinz, you’d do well to read some F.A. Hayek before brazenly making further ignorant comments:
“Before we can even ask how things might go wrong, we must first explain how they could ever go right.” -F.A. Hayek
Economies, of course, self-correct – that is, if they find themselves with a need to after a destructive interference from government authorities (e.g., Fed induced inflation). Economy, (n.) after all, is simply a term used to describe the aggregate of human behavior directed at improving their (material) satisfaction. The nonsensical abstractions of modern macroeconomists belie the fact that people act with purpose in mind, and can manage just fine without the self-declared deus ex machine printing cash, subsidizing, seizing private assets, coercing executives, and bullying the “hoarders.”
The stupidity inherent in mathematically based economic logic serves well to obfuscate the fact that economies are not wobbly and dangerous; on the contrary, what makes them unstable is the intervention you so advocate. Your agenda is plainly anti-liberty. Judging by your comments, those history books you’re reading are also apparently anti-liberty.
Once again, the Great Depression is the preeminent example of government intervention during an attempted recovery. How did that work out? I know, I know… it was the war that brought on the good times again. If FDR had only spent more, right?
You’re a committed ideologue. It’s pathetic, to be sure, but interesting, and the mental gymnastics you go through to justify your favorite schemes are slightly amusing (even if depressing). I don’t think you’d touch it with a ten foot pole because of the severe cognitive dissonance it would cause, but I’d recommend reading up on capital-based macroeconomics.
14 senor100 // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I love it when somebody pretends to be an expert about something they know nothing about. Bloodbath in Florida? Maybe. Won’t make any difference which one of them survives it, though. Taken a close look at the only Democrat in the race–Kendrick Meek? His chance of beating either Rubio or Crist statewide is about zilch. That’s why this race has people like Frum more exercised than people in Florida.
15 hormelmeatco // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Sigh…
WillyP, you do realize that several pretty nasty economic crises hit the US in the 19th century, for most of which no central bank existed, right?
16 sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:31 pm
WillyP:
When I said, “Read a history book,” I was NOT referring to the Depression of the 1930s.
I was referring to the Depression of the 1870s.
Back then, there was no Federal Reserve, no welfare state, no income tax. America should have been an economic powerhouse according to men like Hayek. But instead, we got a major depression.
That depression was caused by the drastic cuts in the money supply, needed to put America back on the gold standard after the Civil War ended. Going back on the gold standard was something Hayek would have approved of. So would Ron Paul. So would you, probably.
But the supply of fiat money had expanded enormously during the Civil War to enable the North to buy the things needed to beat the South. Now all that money had to be taken out of circulation to get back on the gold standard. And the result was a major depression that lasted an entire decade.
In your world, there shouldn’t be any major government interventions in the economy. But that means there can’t be any wars–since putting a nation’s economy on a war footing represents a major government intervention.
Well, sorry. We had the Civil War. And then we did exactly the wrong thing by drastically decreasing the money supply to chase the chimera of the gold standard. We didn’t do that after World War II, and America had an economic boom instead of a depression.
17 WillyP // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm
sinz:
“Well, sorry. We had the Civil War. And then we did exactly the wrong thing by drastically decreasing the money supply to chase the chimera of the gold standard. We didn’t do that after World War II, and America had an economic boom instead of a depression.”
I can’t say you’re wrong about fiat money being used to fund wars. A relevant question would be: do you think America should always be on “war footing?” I don’t.
Hmm, why did we experience boom after one war and bust after the other? Could it be that a civil war, you know, involves domestic destruction? What do you think happens when you run around with cannons and guns, torching everything in sight? You certainly don’t have an economic boom.
After WWII meanwhile, most of our international competition had been reduced to rubble. And the return the male workforce was also, unsurprisingly, a reason for growth.
Money serves as a medium of exchange, and nothing else. Gold works well because it cannot be “printed.” (False) economic boom is caused by credit inflation because price information is distorted, leading to a consumption in capital.
hormelmeatco: Yes, I do. See Fractional Reserve Banking.
18 Toddtheconservative // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I just want the adults to come back.
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/11/bring-back-george-bush-karl-rove/
Charlie Crist has been outed in a movie called “outrage” on HBO
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/charlie-crist-and-the-film-outrage/
19 Reason60 // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm
sinz: “Crist is wobbling, as he’s caught between the practical needs of keeping Florida running versus the demands of conservatives that he stop doing that.”
WillyP: “sinz, you’d do well to read some F.A. Hayek before brazenly making further ignorant comments”
Back in the days when I was a Republican, and some socialist wuld wax rhapsodic about how “if we only had socialism, so and so would not happen…”
and I would always bring them up short with, “but where in the world has this abstract theory been put into practice, and found to work? I would like to study it.’
Of course, the answer was always a mixture of “well, it hasn’t yet, but a study by esteemed economist so and so indicates….”
So today we have people invoking Hayek, and Friedman, all postulating that “if we only had truly free market capitalism, there would be no recessions…”
Where? Where is this unfettered, truly laissez-faire capitalism so that we may study it in person? Where has it been tried and found to produce liberty and prosperity? Aside from Somalia, I mean.
So far as I know, there is not a single First World industrialized nation that does not have a market system balanced by a social welfare system to assist during the recurring crashes.
Didn’t conservatives used to be the champions of cold empirical evidence, rather than dreamy philosophy? Didn’t we used to mock and ridicule those whose answer to the practical problems of governance always seemed to be a quotation of abstract philosophy?
This, in a nutshell, typifies the transformation of conservative thought from a well-reasoned skepticism of government overreach to a blind cultish faith in the utopian perfection of The Marketplace (pause and genuflect).
20 tallkewl // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:48 pm
New Flash from FLORIDA! Marco Rubio has the support of grass roots Republicans who have been coming out in droves to hear him. His average campaign contribution is only $64 and overall most of his support is from within Florida. Real Floridians. Real Voters. How many straw polls has Crist won? ZERO! When will Crist debate Rubio on the ISSUES that voters care about? Probably never if Crist has his way! Sorry, we don’t want an Obama-huggin’ RINO to represent us in the Senate. Yes, lately Rubio has gotten some recognition from the Beltway crowd, but it because of th estrong support he enjoys with Florida’s Republicans! Point in fact: Marco was running BEFORE Crist smelled an EZ opportunity to leap frog to DC. Our state is suffering under the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression- so what kind of leadership do we get from our Governor? Make tough budget choices and stay at the helm in Tallahassee? No, get Obama to bail him out, then run for Senate. Crist claims to be a leader, but his blind ambition comes before real Floridians.
21 Rocketship7 // Nov 16, 2009 at 8:35 pm
David:
Its not a bloodbath like NY23.
You are being hyperbolic.
THIS IS A PRIMARY! NY23 never had one.
Obama got elected over Hillery with a “bloodbath” as you would describe.
Let democracy take its course and get behind whoever wins the Florida primary.
That includes you David. Peter Worthington would agree, I am sure.
Richmond Hill ON
22 Rel // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Tim (and David), this dog don’t hunt. Please do some simple math:
Rubio: 22% of $341,724 = $75,179
Crist: 13% of $591,119 = $76,845
In other words, using the figures you provide, Rubio and Crist have raised almost exactly THE SAME amount of money from DC sources. If anything, Crist has raised a little more. There is no way you can honestly write that “Rubio has been the clear winner of the Washington money primary”.
It’s technically ok, I guess, to write that Rubio has “relied more heavily” on DC money, since his percentage is higher. But this is a misleading argument. You shouldn’t stoop so low.
At best, this is an embarrassing error. I hope you fix it ASAP.
23 hormelmeatco // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:43 pm
WillyP:
Gold is just as specious as money. Neither have any intrinsic value.
24 sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Reason60:
Hong Kong comes closest.
Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world–as close to laissez-faire capitalism as there is today. The government policy is generally to keep hands off the economy, unless the externalities of the market are worse than the externalities of government intervention–just as Milton Friedman had suggested. And that doesn’t happen often.
And Hong Kong has done very well economically. In 30 years, its GDP grew by 8,000%.
But it’s got social problems. There are extremes of inequality between rich and poor, comparable to China’s. And Hong Kong still lacks universal suffrage; businesses oppose it because they fear that universal suffrage would lead to populism–and then to socialism.
25 WillyP // Nov 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm
hormelmeatco , “intrinsic value” is nonsense. Value is projected subjectively.
You must log in to post a comment.