For the past year, Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio has been the model tea party candidate, receiving one of the first endorsements from Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) Senate Conservatives Fund (DeMint has called Rubio “the most impressive conservative leader I have met in a long time.”) Rubio has raised more money from the movement than any of his fellow tea party-backed candidates. But after his challenger, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I), decided to run as an independent instead of as a Republican, Rubio has been “breaking with some Tea Party orthodoxy” in order to win over moderate voters that might now side with Crist, the New York Times reports. In an interview, Rubio’s rhetoric was noticeably tamer than in the past:

“The solution isn’t just to paralyze government,” Mr. Rubio said in an interview as he traveled the state last week from here in the Panhandle to Miami. “Vote for us because you couldn’t possibly vote for them? That’s not enough. It may win some seats, but it won’t take you where you want to be.” [...]

“I am not running for the United States Senate because I want to be the opposition to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,” he replied in a measured tone. “I’m running for Senate because I want to create an alternative.” [...]

Does anything impress him about President Obama?

“Yeah, there’s a lot,” Mr. Rubio said. “Obviously his personal story of someone who didn’t come from wealth is a testament not just to his tenacity, but to America. I just strongly disagree with him on public policy.”

Rubio also “did not agree with flashpoints Republican candidates elsewhere have seized on.” He said he doesn’t “want Arizona to serve as a model for other states” when it comes to immigration, and said advocating for changing the 14th Amendment, as many Republicans have, “is frankly is not the highest and best use of our political attention.” When asked for his own views on immigration, Rubio broke with his party’s absolutist sloganeering on the issue, saying his position “doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker so bear with me,” before launching into an eight-minute explanation.

As the debate over whether the 14th amendment should be changed to deny the American-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship has dragged on over the past few weeks, Florida senatorial candidate and tea party darling, Marco Rubio (R), has remained curiously silent — until today. Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel reports that he received an email from Rubio’s campaign aide, Alex Burgos, confirming Rubio’s opposition to changing the 14th amendment:

I noted that this is putting Senate candidate Marco Rubio in a pickle. The crusade against illegal immigration is interpreted by many Hispanics as a crusade against Hispanics. It has resulted in a shift of Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. Here is a story about the impact in Florida. The press has been pressing Rubio to come out with a position since last week, particularly since Charlie Crist came out strongly against tinkering with the amendment. I wrote that Rubio’s failure to come out against changes could let Crist outflank him with Hispanic voters.

Rubio’s campaign aide, Alex Burgos, has sent me an e-mail saying Rubio also does not favor altering the amendment. But there is no press release or official statement. So it’s not like Rubio is shouting it from the rooftops. “He simply doesn’t support changes and believes we should focus on securing the border and enforcing existing laws,” Burgo said.

As Thomas notes, Rubio — the son of Cuban immigrants — hasn’t exactly taken a strong position against the GOP’s attack on the 14th amendment. His opponents, however, have. According to Florida senatorial candidate Jeff Greene (D), “if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.” Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek similarly stated, “Yes, you could definitely say I’m opposed” to changing the 14th amendment. Rubio’s biggest foe, current Gov. Charlie Crist (I), has been firm in his opposition, stating “That would be unconscionable to me. [...] The 14th Amendment ought to stay the way it is. If someone is born in the United States of America, you are an American. That is a tradition of our country. That’s the way it should always be, that’s the way it’s always been. And that’s what America is all about.”

When Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) announced that he would leave the Republican party to run for the Senate as an independent, he indicated that he would be more free to support “ideas that I believe are good ideas for the people,” instead of just following “one club’s decision.” Indeed, after long supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Crist has announced that he is now in favor of the new comprise legislation, which would repeal the policy but allow the Pentagon to complete its study before the repeal is implemented. In a statement, Crist said the compromise will ensure that the new policy is “what is best for our military“:

“Ultimately, as in all military matters I defer to the Pentagon and to the Generals and what the Senate is doing today is giving them the ultimate authority to do what is best for our military. So, I would be inclined to support the Senate’s action on this.“

Crist has maintained a traditionally conservative record on LGBT issues, though there is some evidence to suggest he may adopt a more progressive stance now that he has been liberated from the Republican Party. He has said he is “fine” with civil unions, and in 2007, he asked the GOP to stop spending money promoting “a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Florida” in 2007.

In July 2009 — when he was still running in the Republican U.S. Senate primary against Marco Rubio — Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) said that he opposed President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court because he had “strong concerns that Judge Sotomayor would not strictly and objectively construe the Constitution and lacks respect for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” The Miami Herald recently asked Crist whether he still stands by his opposition to Sotomayor. Crist said he did, but when pressed on why, he said he couldn’t remember:

Q: Now as an independent, do you still feel the same way, and would have opposed or supported her nomination? [...]

CRIST: As it relates to Justice Sotomayor, I would have on the same basis. I believe very much in the Second Amendment. [...]

Q: And you would still have opposed Sotomayor?

CRIST: Yeah, because of that. Yes, sir.

Q: What was her position on the Second Amendment that gave you such — ?

CRIST: To be honest, I can’t recall it right now. My friend was kind enough to add the question with evidence that indicated that. It had to be a ruling that she had had previously though. And I’m happy to research it and get it for you.

Watch it:

(HT: The Political Carnival)

As BP attempts to once again plug the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, balls of tar have begun washing up on the “prized white sands” of the Louisiana and Alabama coasts, alongside dead dolphins, sea turtles and 600 dead catfish. The Coast Guard released these photos yesterday of tar on Raccoon Island in Louisiana, “a protected bird breeding sanctuary with a variety of breeds“:

As ThinkProgress has noted, a number former pro-drilling advocates from affected states have reconsidered their support in the wake of the disaster. In Florida, which could face major economic fallout from the spill, Gov. Charlie Crist (I) said the disaster convinced him that offshore drilling “certainly isn’t safe enough,” and today called for a constitutional amendment to ban drilling off his state’s coast. A majority of voters in Florida now oppose drilling, in “stark contrast” to a poll from last year which showed majority support.

A new PPP poll shows that even in North Carolina, which is not likely to be directly affected by the spill, support for drilling has fallen off precipitously:

In April 61% of voters said they supported it with only 26% opposed. Now in the wake of the spill in the Gulf support has declined to 47% with 38% of voters against it. This is the first time PPP has ever found less than majority support for drilling in the state.

It’s unusual to see that big a change in how North Carolinians feels about a particular issue in such a short period of time, but it’s clear the spill has given many voters in the state second thoughts. 50% said it made them less supportive of allowing drilling off the state’s coast, compared to 28% who said it made no difference, and 22% who said the spill actually made them more supportive of drilling here.

PPP notes that the tumble in support for drilling has “come across party lines,” with a 17 point drop among independents, a 16 point drop among Democrats, and an 11 point drop among Republicans. A recent Rasmussen poll found that support for oil drilling nationally has “fallen dramatically” since the spill.

Today, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced that he is leaving the Republican Party to become an independent, and will run as an independent for the U.S. Senate seat open this year. Not too long ago, Crist was praised by Republican members of Congress as a “common sense conservative,” and viewed by Republican operatives as a potential 2012 nominee for President on the GOP ticket.

Desperate to help “tea party candidate” Marco Rubio (R-FL) defeat Crist in the primary, right-wing partisans have painted Crist as a liberal who veered left from the Republican Party. There is little substance to support that claim. The right has attacked Crist for voicing support for cap and trade, a free market idea to address global warming, and for openly accepting stimulus money — which economists and Republican governors now agree was absolutely necessary to stave off severe budget cuts and to avert a much deeper recession.

Despite the bluster, Crist is a moderate who built a career out of largely pragmatic decision making, but the modern Republican Party left him. The GOP’s creep to the far right has been steered by well heeled interests. A coalition of sharply ideological big business groups, aided by the Fox News-inspired and lobbyist-run tea parties, have successfully pushed the Republican Party so far to the right that Crist is no longer welcome:

– The Club For Growth, Wall Street’s Top Attack Group: The Club for Growth is funded by top investment bankers and other financial industry types, has a single-minded focus: to kill the income tax, to slash corporate taxes (and broaden corporate tax loopholes), and to eliminate regulations on corporates and the financial sector. The Club was one of the first large groups to go into Florida and start attacking Crist. In early June of 2009, the Club nominated Crist as “Comrade of the Month” along with liberal Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Soon after, the Club endorsed Rubio and began running brutal attack ads against Crist. According to recent disclosures, the Club is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals.

– FreedomWorks, Orchestrating Tea Parties For Corporate Interests: FreedomWorks is a corporate front group that organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of business interests for years. In Oct. 2007, FreedomWorks began targeting Crist because of his support for cap and trade clean energy programs. In late 2009, FreedomWorks (and Tea Party groups controlled by FreedomWorks’ staffers) began mobilizing support for Rubio — and came out in February of this year to endorse him. FreedomWorks is run by the corporate lobbyist and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), as well as by James Burnley, another powerful Washington lobbyist. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

In analyzing the GOP’s far right march, many in the media have wrongly attributed it to the country’s organic reaction against reform. Why were so many moderate Republicans eagerly signing up to repeal health reform — rescinding coverage for tens of millions of Americans and reinstating insurance company abuses? The Club promised to attack any candidate that did not sign a repeal pledge months before the legislation had even passed. Why is even Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), an extremely conservative lawmaker, poised to lose his Republican primary? FreedomWorks and the Club have been quietly organizing against him for a year, aggressively criticizing the senator and even launching a website dedicated to attacking him.

Rubio, who is a policy lightweight tinged with a major corruption scandal, is still worth the investment for his right-wing backers because he truly believes in reflexively rejecting government accountability, social programs, or anything Obama proposes. In 2008 alone, it should be noted that the Club was primarily responsible for drumming moderates Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), and former Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) out of office. There is a powerful, corporate machine behind the GOP’s so-called “dogmatic race to the bottom” in search for far right candidates. It is not organic.