Well my polling numbers say you're an asshat, Scott

I wasted a solid ten minutes of my life watching Instapundit Glenn Reynolds' video Q&A with Scott Rasmussen on PJTV.  Disingenuous was the word that came to mind earliest and often, starting with the lead-in by Reynolds describing Rasmussen as the guy with "his finger on the pulse of American politics" leading to this quote by Scott himself:

The American people don't want to be governed from left, right or center; they want to govern themselves

Sure, Scott, that makes sense [/sarcasm]

For those who aren't familiar with Rasmussen polls and the pulse-fingered-people he's got minding his every publication, Rasmussen's polls tend to skew towards the right, with his approval numbers lower on average than the rest of the polling universe on both Obama's favorability and the Health Care Reform bill.   He - and his supporters - claim this is because his numbers reflect likely voters where the others simply hit the general public.   Not to get all double-negative on you, but I'm not entirely sure that explanation doesn't reek of slant.  I'd love to see some hard analysis of it, but in lieu of that, I'd venture that his recipe of likely voters consists of those older, more vocally invigorated and religious voters the right relies on for all their grassroots movements and campaigns.

That being said, the guttural tone of the interview was suggesting that Scott wasn't there to represent either political party, but rather to serve the populist goal of limited government.   Something I'm normally all for getting behind.  Until I heard this exchange:

Reynolds: "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may as big today as the gap between the colonies and england during the 18th century.  And recently you had a poll asking people if the federal government has the consent of governed and only 21% of AMERICANS said THAT IT did.  I find that troubling.  should I be worried about that number?"

Rasmussen:  I think you should probably be more worried than you are.  That stat certainly worries me and I think it creates a situation.  There is a massive federal government right now.  Lots of employees, lots of revenues, lots of things it does for the American people, but our founding document says that the government derives its sole legitimacy from the consent of the governed.  If people don't believe it has the consent of the governed, that disconnect can lead to all sorts of problems.  And again, this is not because democrats are in charge right now, it happens whether democrats are in charge or republicans are in charge" ...  [there is] a sense that there's a gap in that the government is doing what it sees fit regardless what the people want"

So we're supposed to believe that this gay-hating, right-leaning Methodist, who's firm has been paid by the RNC and George W Bush's campaign, would stand up for small government regardless who is in power?

Sorry, but I call bullshit. Thanks, Scott, for making me doubt the veracity of yet another political faction which is about all I accomplished in those fateful ten minutes.