Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on March 29, 2010, 01:43:31 PM
-
FEC report details lavish Republican spending, including nearly $2,000 at Voyeur West Hollywood
By Dan Eggen
The Republican National Committee gave nearly $2,000 to a Southern California GOP contributor for meal expenses at Voyeur West Hollywood, a lesbian-themed California nightclub that features topless dancers wearing horse-bits and other bondage gear, according to newly filed disclosure records.
The RNC said Monday it is investigating the disbursement of the money to Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., who has donated about $10,000 to GOP candidates and is listed in public records as the CEO of Dynamic Marketing Inc., with offices in California and Washington. Brown did not immediately respond Monday to messages left by telephone and e-mail.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye said "I can't comment on him" when asked about Brown and his connection to the party committee. But Heye said Brown is "not on committee staff" and that the visit to the Voyeur nightclub "was not an RNC event." He said the RNC is investigating the expenditure and is requesting that the money be returned.
"It was not anything sanctioned by the committee, and that is why we have requested an investigation," Heye said. "Obviously, given the location, it's something that's not appropriate."
The Feb. 4 nightclub disbursement was included as part of the RNC's monthly expense reports filed with the Federal Election Commission last week. The reports also included tens of thousands of dollars in expenditures for luxury jets, limousines and posh hotels, prompting further criticism from Democrats and some Republicans over the spending habits of RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
The RNC spent more than $17,000 on private jet travel in February as well as nearly $13,000 for limousines and car services, and also ran up tabs at luxe hotels including the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000); the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons ($6,600) and the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000). The GOP's controversial midwinter meeting in Hawaii ended up costing the party $43,000 in expenses, not including airfare, the records show.
Steele has come under steady fire for his financial stewardship of the organization. The RNC had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show. The Daily Caller website, which first noted the new FEC filings, also reported that Steele had suggested that the RNC should purchase a private jet for his travels after he first took over the job in January 2009.
The new financial records prompted mocking criticism from the Democratic National Committee, which issued a press release Monday entitled: "RNC: Risque National Committee." Spokesman Brad Woodhouse said DNC Chairman Tim Kaine usually travels on commercial flights and does not use limousine services.
"We think their extravagant spending and their high burn rate speaks for itself," said Woodhouse. "If limos, chartered aircraft and sex clubs are where they think their donors' money should be spent, who are we to judge? But it shouldn't give voters much confidence in Republicans when they say they want to be put back in charge of federal spending."
But Heye said that the RNC was being held to a different standard than Democrats, arguing that paying for high-end hotels and other accoutrements is standard practice for political parties when wooing wealthy donors. Steele's use of car services in February, for example, was primarily related to the launch of television advertisements in North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Oklahoma, Heye said.
"Obviously the press has taken a finer microscope to the RNC as opposed to the DNC," Heye said.
Steele's spending habits have prompted angry complaints from wealthy GOP donors and party officials, who fear the chairman is making poor financial decisions and undercutting the GOP's attempt to cast itself as the party of fiscal responsibility. "Nothing surprises me," said one former RNC aide, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "It definitely speaks to the desire for first class accommodations over there."
The expenditure of $1,946.25 at Voyeur West Hollywood is listed as "meals" on the RNC disclosure form, and comes right after an identical amount listed as a disbursement to Brown, the Southern California marketing executive. Heye said the two listings refer to the same single disbursement to Brown.
Brown has contributed nearly $10,000 to Republicans since 2007, including at least $1,500 to the RNC, records show. A Twitter account registered to a user of the same name also suggests Brown attended a football game in Washington on Oct. 26 with the committee chair: "Enjoying the football game with RNC Chairman Michael Steele. (Eagles vs Redskins at FedEx Field)."
Voyeur West Hollywood has garnered attention in Los Angeles for its risque and outrageous theme since opening last fall, attracting celebrities such as Lindsey Lohan and Leonardo DiCaprio. A Los Angeles Times article said the club had a "dark, leather-heavy interior" that was "reminiscent of the masked orgy scene" from the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" and includes "impromptu bondage and S&M 'scenes' being played out on an elevated platform by scantily clad performers." Opening night included one woman "with a horse's bit in her mouth...strapped to the wall by another," the article said.
Club management officials did not immediately respond to a telephone message left at Voyeur's office on Monday.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/rnc-spends-money-on-private-pl.html
-
I thought they only liked little boys and other men?
-
WOW!!Thats a huge story!!!Obama flies his chef across the country to make him a pizza and thats a nothing story but republicans spending 2,000 bucks is huge.
-
Return the money. End of story.
-
Billy... I hate to break it to you, but it was shown that Obama didn't fly the guy out... The pizza Chef paid his own way and did it all for free.
Nice lie.
-
I thought they only liked little boys and other men?
yes, that statement is true of most conservative male republicans
-
If I recall correctly, this Brown fellow of Dynamic Marketing is no stranger to controversy.
A few years ago his company came under tremendous scrutiny... something to do with email marketing or forms registering people as members of the Republican party. I can't remember exactly which.
-
don't blame billy, he gets his news from beck and rush :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
We're wasting so much money that two grand or even two million means nothing, especially if the funds were willingly donated.
-
do you think the people donating that money want it spent that way
-
do you think the people donating that money want it spent that way
Do you think everyone paying taxes want us in Iraq?
Not saying it's right but in the bigger picture a few grand is nothing.
-
Republicans spent $1,946 at topless club
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee spent $1,946 last month at a sex-themed Hollywood club that features topless dancers and bondage outfits. Now the GOP wants its money back.
Listed in a monthly financial report, the amount is itemized as expenses for meals at Voyeur West Hollywood.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye said Monday the committee doesn't know the details of how the money was spent, all who may have attended or the nature of the outing, except to say it was an unauthorized event and that the expenditure was inappropriate.
The RNC will be reimbursed by Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., the donor-vendor who billed the committee for the club visit, Heye said.
Brown did not respond to an e-mail and phone message seeking comment. The transaction was first reported by the Daily Caller.
Since November, the RNC has paid Brown's company, Dynamic Marketing Inc., about $19,000 for printing and direct-mail services, campaign spending reports show. He has contributed several thousand dollars to the party.
The most recent financial disclosure report said the RNC spent more than $17,000 for private planes in February and nearly $13,000 for car services. Heye said such services are used only when needed.
The $1,946 for meals at Voyeur West Hollywood was the most eye-catching item in the monthly report. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, whose spending decisions have angered some donors in this midterm election year, had nothing to do with the nightclub expenditure, Heye said.
The conservative group Concerned Women for America said the RNC should disclose more about the episode.
"Did they really agree to reimburse nearly $2,000 for a bondage-themed night club?" group president Penny Nance asked in a statement. "Why would a staffer believe that this is acceptable, and has this kind of thing been approved in the past?"
Much of the most lavish spending by the major political parties is associated with fundraisers, which often target wealthy people.
The RNC spent $144,549 for rooms at the Four Seasons Resort in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in 2009. On March 19, 2009, it spent $31,980 for catering by the Breakers Palm Beach in Florida.
The RNC paid $18,361 over the past several months to the "Tiny Jewel Box" in Washington for "office supplies," which may have included trinkets or gifts for big donors. It spent $13,622 at Dylan's Candy Bar in New York City.
Some Republican officials and donors have complained about Steele's spending decisions, saying the party should devote every available dollar to trying to win House and Senate races this fall. He held this year's four-day winter meeting at a beachfront hotel in Hawaii, although it often takes place in Washington.
Some donors grumbled when Steele spent more than $18,000 to redecorate his office. Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, also has received substantial fees for making speeches, even though the RNC pays him a full-time salary.
Steele's supporters say he has brought a refreshing frankness and energy to the party's leadership.
-
The problem here is that Republicans try to portray themselves as the party of moral and family values and the Christian Right. Their words say one thing, their deeds quite another. The list of various offenses committed by those in the Republican party is loooooong. Michael Steele was obviously an "affirmative action" choice to head the RNC in a desperate attempt to offset the new Obama-led Democratic party(yea, like that was going to sway any black voters to vote Republican ::) )
It's almost sickening that this group is the only viable alternative to the reckless Democrats we have in power now.
-
The problem here is that Republicans try to portray themselves as the party of moral and family values and the Christian Right. Their words say one thing, their deeds quite another. The list of various offenses committed by those in the Republican party is loooooong. Michael Steele was obviously an "affirmative action" choice to head the RNC in a desperate attempt to offset the new Obama-led Democratic party(yea, like that was going to sway any black voters to vote Republican ::) )
It's almost sickening that this group is the only viable alternative to the reckless Democrats we have in power now.
Actually the Democrat platform talks about morality and family values too.
-
Democrats should follow their lead. Spending donated money on strippers would keep them too occupied for passing bad bills.
-
Do you think everyone paying taxes want us in Iraq?
Not saying it's right but in the bigger picture a few grand is nothing.
There's a big difference. donors have a choice over whether or not they donate to the RNC.
Taxpayers have no choice over what they give to the IRS. Donors can voluntarily withhold, taxpayers cannot.
I think it's controversial because most Republican donors, especially the ultra religious conservative right, would have a hissy fit knowing their donations went to such establishments as 'Voyeur'. For them, it's da debil. :D
-
What are "horse-bits"? ???
-
I've been in Voyeur (http://www.urbandaddy.com/la/nightlife/7403/Voyeur_This_New_Nightspot_s_a_Real_Beauty_Los_Angeles_LA_Center_City_Lounge#ixzz0jb250f4Q) dozens of times over the years. Well not since it became a straight S&M themed strip club (http://www.clubplanet.com/Articles/4844/Going-Au-Naturale-Voyeur-West-Hollywood). But it use to be mixed gay and straight Peanuts Disco.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/rnc-investigating-party-funds-spent-on-bondage-themed-nightclub/
-
Why anyone would donate money to politicians is beyond me. They have taken more than enough, only a fool would willingly fill the pockets of thieves.
-
Do you think everyone paying taxes want us in Iraq?
Not saying it's right but in the bigger picture a few grand is nothing.
What moronic logic. Making a voluntary donation into an organization is FAR different than your paying taxes.
-
It is my hope that Steele remains the RNC head for the next 30 years. Always trying to create a "scandal" to bring a brother down. >:( If you are upset that the "brown face" you put in is not what you wanted, sit down, shut up and take your lumps. Hopefully Steele will pimp the RNC for lot's more lavish trips and embarrassing $5,000+ hotel stays. Some more incompetent leadership to go along with it is probably no different than previous RNC leaders. Steele should milk this job until he has made plenty of money, destroyed the RNC's infrastructure leaving them in tatters, and then can quit to announce his memoirs book has just been published and that he'll be in Barnes & Nobles around the country signing the 1st editions. ;D
-
What moronic logic. Making a voluntary donation into an organization is FAR different than your paying taxes.
That's the way his brain works. :-[
-
R.N.C. Dismisses Aide Over Outing to Club
By JEFF ZELENY
A Republican Party spokesman said Monday evening that a staff member has been dismissed following a February outing to a risqué Hollywood nightclub, where a party donor submitted a $2,000 tab and asked for reimbursement from the Republican National Committee
Doug Heye, the communications director for the R.N.C., issued this statement:
“At the outset, Chairman Steele was not at Voyeur West Hollywood. He had no knowledge of the expenditure, nor does he find the use of committee funds at such a location acceptable. While some in the press have suggested Chairman Steele was at the venue, he was not and no proof has been offered that he was. When the expense was incurred, Chairman Steele was on United flight # 0084, returning from the RNC Winter Meeting.
“Upon finding out of the expenditure this morning, Chairman Steele demanded the committee get to the bottom of this matter immediately.
“The committee has taken appropriate steps to address the issues relating to the reimbursement of certain expenses. First, as reported, the expenditure in question will be recouped by the RNC. Second, appropriate personnel actions have been taken and accounting and reimbursement processes are being revised to ensure that such an action cannot reoccur. We recognize the difficulty this incident has caused and assure our members and supporters that any necessary and proper remediation is being implemented immediately.
“It is unfortunate that a loyal GOP donor who has recruited other donors became involved in this incident while merely trying to help what turned out to be the improper request of a staffer who is no longer with the committee.”
The Republican National Committee spent about $30,000 in February on private airplanes and limousines. But those charges were overshadowed by the $1,946.25 charge at Voyeur West Hollywood, which was described by The Los Angeles Times last year as a “high-end nightclub” with an interior “reminiscent of the masked orgy scene” from the movie “Eyes Wide Shut.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/r-n-c-dismisses-aide-over-outing-to-club/?hp
-
Would someone please explain to me why the hell Steel still has a job?
-
What are "horse-bits"? ???
They are little bits of metal that are placed in a horses mouth, attached to a harness etc, and is used for steering the animal. however, ...in this case, I think the graphic below probably best exemplifies how horse bits are probably used at voyeur. The blonde in the graphic is wearing the horsebits.
-
What moronic logic. Making a voluntary donation into an organization is FAR different than your paying taxes.
Taxes are even worse because most of them are not voluntary.
Considering what that dimwit Palin spent on clothes a few lap dances really isn't a big deal. They should repay the funds for political reasons but this really doesn't hit my radar.
-
Taxes are even worse because most of them are not voluntary.
Considering what that dimwit Palin spent on clothes a few lap dances really isn't a big deal. They should repay the funds for political reasons but this really doesn't hit my radar.
Funny that libs will get upset over this when its not their money being wasted and are absolutely silent about the BILLIONS wasted in the stimulus bill that we all have to pay for in taxes and inflation.
Typical hypocrisy from the left.
-
Funny that libs will get upset over this when its not their money being wasted and are absolutely silent about the BILLIONS wasted in the stimulus bill that we all have to pay for in taxes and inflation.
Typical hypocrisy from the left.
*yawn*
Funny that Pea Brain will have temper tantrums over the Recovery Act yet is absolutely silent over the TRILLIONS unaccounted for on tax cuts for the wealthy and wars launched off the books that we all have to pay for in taxes. ::)
Strike another one up for Pea Brain!
-
*yawn*
Funny that Pea Brain will have temper tantrums over the Recovery Act yet is absolutely silent over the TRILLIONS unaccounted for on tax cuts for the wealthy and wars launched off the books that we all have to pay for in taxes. ::)
Strike another one up for Pea Brain!
I have no problem with any tax cuts to whoever, whether they be rich people, poor people, middle class people, whoever, its their money, not yours.
As for the wars, yes, we spent too much, but the bogus stim bill that is now a failure by Obama's own standard cost about the same amount as the Iraq war.
-
I have no problem with any tax cuts to whoever, whether they be rich people, poor people, middle class people, whoever, its their money, not yours.
As for the wars, yes, we spent too much, but the bogus stim bill that is now a failure by Obama's own standard cost about the same amount as the Iraq war.
Other than EIC, how can tax cuts be given to those who don't pay any?
-
Other than EIC, how can tax cuts be given to those who don't pay any?
Of course people who dont pay should not get anything. Thats called welfare. We need to cut spending drastically, massively, across the board and let people have their own damn money back.
-
Billy... I hate to break it to you, but it was shown that Obama didn't fly the guy out... The pizza Chef paid his own way and did it all for free.
Nice lie.
Hate to break it to you but as usual as is all other things libs say YOUR a liar.This from the Huffington post a very right wing news source.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/obama-bringing-st-louis_n_184860.html
Good try though.I can also give about 100 more links if you want.
-
Funny that libs will get upset over this when its not their money being wasted and are absolutely silent about the BILLIONS wasted in the stimulus bill that we all have to pay for in taxes and inflation.
Typical hypocrisy from the left.
Oh I don't think Democrats are upset over this at all. Quite the contrary infact, I believe the majority are secretly pleased because they are keenly aware of how uptight Republicans feel about lavish spending and gay sex. And here we see both combined. It's like a left jab... followed up by a right hook. Schadenfreude at it's finest.
-
Oh I don't think Democrats are upset over this at all. Quite the contrary infact, I believe the majority are secretly pleased because they are keenly aware of how uptight Republicans feel about lavish spending and gay sex. And here we see both combined. It's like a left jab... followed up by a right hook. Schadenfreude at it's finest.
No, its an example of how bad both parties are and why we need a major libertarian movement to take hold.
The dems are flat our communists and tyrants. The GOP is just a rag tag group of wannabes but for a few like Ryan, Thune, Paul, Pence, and Demint, Bachmann.
-
Of course people who dont pay should not get anything. Thats called welfare. We need to cut spending drastically, massively, across the board and let people have their own damn money back.
Most democrats favor a welfare state and some degree of socialism. Republicans are fond of corporate welfare and have increased spending while in charge the last few times.
We're screwed.
-
Hey Billy,
You're right... Obama paid for it out of his own pocket.
You're still off... If I want to order a pizza... and I can afford it, I can do it all I want.
Are you saying Obama can't spend his own money?
That's kind of socialist don't you think?
-
Hey Billy,
You're right... Obama paid for it out of his own pocket.
You're still off... If I want to order a pizza... and I can afford it, I can do it all I want.
Are you saying Obama can't spend his own money?
That's kind of socialist don't you think?
Sure he did.Did he pay for his "date night" out of his own pocket?This man screams at us to sacrifice and he sacrifices NOTHING!!!In fact,what sums up him and his tranny wife was the day that lazy eyed bitch went to a food bank to feed the poor wearing 500 dollar sneakers.Thats a libs idea of sacrifice.By the way,did he pay the chef that night out of his pocket?Did he pay for the chefs ride from the plane to him out of his pocket?Face it,these people spend our money and then steal ours to give to scum bag motherfuckers that sit on their lazy asses and do nothing or gives it out to lazy,good for nothing union pieces of shit.
-
Oh and republicans used donations to pay for that NOT tax money.
-
The problem here is that Republicans try to portray themselves as the party of moral and family values and the Christian Right. Their words say one thing, their deeds quite another. The list of various offenses committed by those in the Republican party is loooooong. Michael Steele was obviously an "affirmative action" choice to head the RNC in a desperate attempt to offset the new Obama-led Democratic party(yea, like that was going to sway any black voters to vote Republican ::) )
It's almost sickening that this group is the only viable alternative to the reckless Democrats we have in power now.
+1
-
I didn't say the Republicans did anything wrong Billy.
Are they a little hypocritical about being the moral high road and going to strip clubs? Sure.
But did they do anything wrong? Nope.
-
I didn't say the Republicans did anything Billy.
Are they a little hypocritical about being the moral high road and going to strip clubs? Sure.
But did they do anything wrong? Nope.
This is why the GOP needs to go to a RP/Schiff stance in the future. If they do that, they can shed themselves of these gaping examples of stupidity and hypocrisy.
-
I agree... If they really went fiscally conservative... cut spending... lowered some taxes, fixed the budget, got corporations back on track, stopped acting like they are some moral Christian group, and stopped looking at people like Palin to lead the fucking way.
I'd come back to their side.
-
I think the republicans used to be like that.I think its become a party of economics far more then morals.However,its the democrats that I always hear speak of morals and social justice and fairness.
-
I agree... If they really went fiscally conservative... cut spending... lowered some taxes, fixed the budget, got corporations back on track, stopped acting like they are some moral Christian group, and stopped looking at people like Palin to lead the fucking way.
I'd come back to their side.
I signed up again on FR alot and dismayed at alot of the stupid people over there. Some people talk about regulating porn, etc. I simply dont understand peoples' desire to have the govt control them.
-
That's my point... In my opinion, and the reason why I stopped voting "Republican", was because (and you can thank Rove for it) when Bush ran on the God platform a ton of Christians came out of the wood work and basically took the damn party over.
-
That's my point... In my opinion, and the reason why I stopped voting "Republican", was because (and you can thank Rove for it) when Bush ran on the God platform a ton of Christians came out of the wood work and basically took the damn party over.
What "God platform"? You mean this one?
"We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires."
It's time we stop just talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families."
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
-
I'm sorry Beach... did you miss the 2004 Election?
-
I'm sorry Beach... did you miss the 2004 Election?
You mean: "God Guns & Gays" ? ? LOL.
-
LOL.
That would be the one.
-
I'm sorry Beach... did you miss the 2004 Election?
Nope. Voted for Dubya over the loser Al Gore. :) Did you read the Democrat Party platform? I quoted an excerpt for you.
Edit: I mean the traitor John Kerry.
-
LOL.
That would be the one.
Actually, the RNC paid me to got to Jacksonville FL in 2004 to do vote fraud and canvassing and crap since I know election law very well. It was a blast actually and I like it a lot over there.
Anyway, I cant tell you how many people were upset over gay marriage down there. I heard it all over the place.
-
Yes Beach... I can read... That doesn't change the platform that George W Bush ran in 2004, which brought "religion" to the forefront of politics in the 21st Century which is truly sad.
You can try to deflect all you want, but it was Rove and Bush who put that out there first... end of story.
I hear you 333, that election was all about the war in Iraq and Gay marriage... period.
I think it's sad it went that way.
-
Yes Beach... I can read... That doesn't change the platform that George W Bush ran in 2004, which brought "religion" to the forefront of politics in the 21st Century which is truly sad.
You can try to deflect all you want, but it was Rove and Bush who put that out there first... end of story.
Deflection is trying to ignore the prominent role religion plays in the Democrat platform:
"We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires."
It's time we stop just talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families."
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
-
It's not deflection at all... It's very very simple... Religion was not a prominent thing in any party since probably the 50s... Not until GWB ran on it as a political platform.
That's just simple fact.
You just don't like it.
-
It's a simple fact that both parties highlight faith as part of their party platforms.
-
Beach... You really either don't get it, or you're just being stubborn.
Either way, it's kind of sad.
-
lol. I could say the same about you. The fact you're trying to say Bush made religion a prominent part of national politics, when the national Democrat party platform highlights religion, is kinda silly.
I could also pull the many comments from Democrats who made faith a central part of their political campaigns, but I doubt you'd read those either.
-
They made it a part on the level that Bush did?
Even 3333, who is hardly a democrat admits that Rove made it a prominent part of the 2004 election on the National Presidential stage... The likes of which no one had done for almost 50 years.
Everyone knows it's true... including you... You are like talking to a brick wall.
The point that I'm making that you refuse to admit, and are absolutely being obstinate about, is that Bush made it a HUGE topic on his presidential platform... more than anyone has in my lifetime.
That's just fact... but I'm sure you'll go on and say that he's not the only one blah blah... Whatever dude.
-
Yeah. I think "whatever" is the right response. :) Your opinion conflicts with history. If you want to talk facts, fire away.
But when someone has a firmly held opinion like yours, the facts don't matter.
-
They made it a part on the level that Bush did?
Even 3333, who is hardly a democrat admits that Rove made it a prominent part of the 2004 election on the National Presidential stage... The likes of which no one had done for almost 50 years.
Everyone knows it's true... including you... You are like talking to a brick wall.
The point that I'm making that you refuse to admit, and are absolutely being obstinate about, is that Bush made it a HUGE topic on his presidential platform... more than anyone has in my lifetime.
That's just fact... but I'm sure you'll go on and say that he's not the only one blah blah... Whatever dude.
There are a lot of religious idiots in this country, what do you expect? They need votes.
-
Beach... Do you know you seem to be the only one arguing that point.
You must be right though.
-
Beach... Do you know you seem to be the only one arguing that point.
You must be right though.
Beach has always been that way. Blind as a bat.
-
Actually, the RNC paid me to got to Jacksonville FL in 2004 to do vote fraud and canvassing and crap since I know election law very well. It was a blast actually and I like it a lot over there.
Anyway, I cant tell you how many people were upset over gay marriage down there. I heard it all over the place.
Well don't lump us all in that camp. I live in Neptune Beach which is a suburb of Jacksonville and have no problem with gay marriage. No doubt this is a southern baptist town.
-
Wrong number: GOP pitch lists phone-sex hotline
(04-01) 09:32 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The best thing the Republican Party can say about this week is, it's nearly over.
First came news that the Republican National Committee paid $1,946 for a gathering at a sex-themed Hollywood club, which a group of young Republicans had visited without RNC approval. The money is to be paid back.
Now it turns out the RNC inadvertently listed a phone-sex number on a fundraising letter sent to potential donors. People who tried to call the committee were instead offered "live, one-on-one talk with a nasty girl" for $2.99 a minute.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye said a typographical error caused the letter to contain a toll-free 800 number rather than Washington's 202 area code. He confirmed details of the letter, first reported by the Politico news Web site.
-
Wrong number: GOP pitch lists phone-sex hotline
(04-01) 09:32 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The best thing the Republican Party can say about this week is, it's nearly over.
First came news that the Republican National Committee paid $1,946 for a gathering at a sex-themed Hollywood club, which a group of young Republicans had visited without RNC approval. The money is to be paid back.
Now it turns out the RNC inadvertently listed a phone-sex number on a fundraising letter sent to potential donors. People who tried to call the committee were instead offered "live, one-on-one talk with a nasty girl" for $2.99 a minute.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye said a typographical error caused the letter to contain a toll-free 800 number rather than Washington's 202 area code. He confirmed details of the letter, first reported by the Politico news Web site.
Ha Ha. Unreal. What a freaking joke this has become.
-
Ha Ha. Unreal. What a freaking joke this has become.
funny shit..
-
lol. :)
-
More Republicans pile on the man of Steele
By Perry Bacon
Two top GOP congressional leaders sidestepped questions about their confidence in Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on Sunday, adding to a number of Republicans who have expressed concerns about Steele's leadership since news emerged last week that an RNC aide authorized spending almost $2,000 at a bondage-themed club in West Hollywood as part of an effort to woo young donors.
Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if Steele should step down, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz), the No. 2 Republican in the party's leadership in the Senate, said "well, I'm not in the position of the people who elect Michael Steele to either say he should step down or not."
But he added, "this kind of thing has got to stop or they won't get any contributions. The people that contribute to the committees, both Democrat and Republican, want to know that their money is well spent for the cause, and it needs to be that way."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), a top Republican leader in the House who is helping craft the party's platform for the fall's elections, said "you've got to bring the trust back, and that may mean shaking some other roles inside the RNC as well."
Asked if he had "full confidence" in Steele, McCarthy refused to say so, instead noting "the RNC does have some challenges that they need to correct."
"The victories we've had from New Jersey to Virginia, they've been engaged in," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "They've outraised the Democrats seven of the last 12 months. But if we are going to show that -- the American public that we believe in accountability and bringing it back to Washington, we have to make sure that the RNC has the accountability just the same."
Neither man called for Steele to resign, and no prominent party leader has yet done so. Republican strategists privately say the GOP would like to avoid a divisive internal battle over the chairmanship at a time when the party hopes to make major gains in this fall's elections by keeping the focus on President Obama and congressional Democrats.
But Kyl and McCarthy joined a number of Republicans, including former White House adviser Karl Rove and ex-Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), who have criticized the RNC over the last several days. Steele aides have said the chairman did not know of the expenses at Voyeur, and the aide who approved the expense was fired last week.
-
As for the wars, yes, we spent too much, but the bogus stim bill that is now a failure by Obama's own standard cost about the same amount as the Iraq war.
Redefining stupid.
-
Redefining stupid.
I was wrong fool. The Stim Bill costs MORE than the Iraq war.
Stim Bill = $876 Billion over 3 years
Iraq War = $716 Billion - 9 years.
-
'Iraq War = $716 Billion - 9 years.'
That doesn't include the longterm healthcare costs of tens of thousands of soldiers.
-
'Iraq War = $716 Billion - 9 years.'
That doesn't include the longterm healthcare costs of tens of thousands of soldiers.
Neither does the $868 for the fraudulent stim bill include the interest on that sham. Good try though 240.
-
Neither does the $868 for the fraudulent stim bill include the interest on that sham. Good try though 240.
Q. Why are you so anti-family?
A. Because you're a fake conserative.
-
Q. Why are you so anti-family?
A. Because you're a fake conserative.
I did not know being against generational theft, taxpayer theft, wasteful spending, and fraud on a massive scale equates to being anti family and fake conservative.
Thanks for the info.
-
I did not know being against generational theft, taxpayer theft, wasteful spending, and fraud on a massive scale equates to being anti family and fake conservative.
Thanks for the info.
Pea Brain is against "generational theft" yet supported the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
bwahahahahahahahaha
-
Pea Brain is against "generational theft" yet supported the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
bwahahahahahahahaha
Those tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government and benefitted everyone.By the way,whats wrong with watching lesbians lick Bush,asa long as they are good looking?
-
Pea Brain is against "generational theft" yet supported the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
bwahahahahahahahaha
I think all tax cuts are good for anyone who works and pays taxes. Its their money, not yours, jesse's, baracks', bush's etc. The problem is that they never cut spending like they should have.
-
Those tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government and benefitted everyone.By the way,whats wrong with watching lesbians lick Bush,asa long as they are good looking?
::)
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit
By Ruth Carlitz and Richard Kogan
Revised January 31, 2005
The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.
The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.
The Administration has repeatedly defended its tax cuts as a needed stimulus during the recent economic downturn. But the downturn is behind us, and the cost of the tax cuts is scheduled to increase in the years ahead. Indeed, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 that benefit only high-income households have not even started to take effect yet. The repeal of the “personal exemption phase-out” for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, do not start to phase in until 2006 and do not take full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also does not take effect until 2010.
A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out — and quite possibly to outweigh — any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]
-
::)
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit
By Ruth Carlitz and Richard Kogan
Revised January 31, 2005
The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.
The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.
The Administration has repeatedly defended its tax cuts as a needed stimulus during the recent economic downturn. But the downturn is behind us, and the cost of the tax cuts is scheduled to increase in the years ahead. Indeed, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 that benefit only high-income households have not even started to take effect yet. The repeal of the “personal exemption phase-out” for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, do not start to phase in until 2006 and do not take full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also does not take effect until 2010.
A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out — and quite possibly to outweigh — any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]
Taxpayers responded to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by generating greater taxable income, according to a new paper to be published this fall in the National Tax Journal. In fact, taxpayers reported so much more income than was anticipated, it likely offset as much as 40% of the revenue that was lost by lowering the top two tax brackets, the paper, authored by a vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury, found.
"This research illustrates that, while the lower tax rates have not paid for themselves, they do provide important economic benefits and can expand the tax base to such an extent that they cost the federal government substantially less revenue than the casual observer might think," Mr. Carroll, who was previously the deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis in the Office of Tax Policy at the Treasury, wrote.
As the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2010, and the presidential candidates are busy finalizing their tax plans, understanding the effects of Bush's tax policy is critical. This paper, "The 2001 and 2003 Tax Rate Reductions: An Overview and Estimate of the Taxable Income Response," contends that lower taxes create a behavioral response in taxpayers, including working longer hours or taking higher-paying jobs, that generate greater taxable income.
This behavioral response, however, also means that when taxes are raised, there is a shift in behavior, and the tax increases often generate less revenue than anticipated.
"This is an important point, one that Obama is not taking into consideration," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said. "The Obama campaign is not taking into consideration any behavioral reaction, which means that the revenue gain that Obama is predicting from his tax increase is not going to be as large as they say."
Senator Obama's economic policy director, Jason Furman, disputes this, saying that the presidential candidate does take into consideration some behavioral response, or so-called elasticity.
"The conservative estimate we use for budget purposes comes from the Tax Policy Center, and it does take into consideration some elasticity," Mr. Furman said.
Some other economic analysts also took issue with the paper.
"Even taking the 40% response at face value, that's a long way from 'tax cuts paying for themselves,'" a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Douglas Elmendorf, said. "That is, McCain needs serious spending cuts to pay for his tax cuts, and he doesn't have any."
The paper examined more than 168,000 tax returns between 1999 and 2005 from taxpayers earning $50,000 or more. Looking at the change in taxable income as reported on their tax forms and the change in their tax rates, and after controlling for a number of factors, such as age and marital status, the researchers found that every 1% increase in a taxpayer's after-tax share — if the tax rate is 35%, the after-tax share is 65% — results in a 0.4% increase in reported taxable income.
A taxpayer who reported $500,000 in taxable income saw the tax rate drop from 39.6% to 35%, saving the taxpayer around $12,300 in taxes.
The tax cut increased the taxpayer's after-tax share from 60.4% to 65%, or an additional 7.6%. Multiplying 7.6% by 0.4% leads to an increase in taxable income of 3.04%. That means the taxpayer would have an increase in taxable income of $15,200. Taxed at the 35% rate, this translates into an extra tax payment of $5,320. Therefore, the behavioral response offsets about 43% of the $12,300 in revenue that was lost.
The paper also notes that the 0.4% increase in taxable income is based on the behavioral response of all taxpayers earning more than $50,000, not just those subject to the top two tax rates. It is widely acknowledged that taxpayers in the top brackets have a larger behavioral response than those in the lower tax brackets because they have more discretionary income. So, it is likely that responsiveness for high-income taxpayers is greater than 0.4%.
"There is uncertainty about the impact of the behavioral response to tax cuts, but this research is certainly well within the range of possibility, and is a very serious estimate," Mr. Viard said.
-
Taxpayers responded to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by generating greater taxable income, according to a new paper to be published this fall in the National Tax Journal. In fact, taxpayers reported so much more income than was anticipated, it likely offset as much as 40% of the revenue that was lost by lowering the top two tax brackets, the paper, authored by a vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury, found.
"This research illustrates that, while the lower tax rates have not paid for themselves, they do provide important economic benefits and can expand the tax base to such an extent that they cost the federal government substantially less revenue than the casual observer might think," Mr. Carroll, who was previously the deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis in the Office of Tax Policy at the Treasury, wrote.
As the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2010, and the presidential candidates are busy finalizing their tax plans, understanding the effects of Bush's tax policy is critical. This paper, "The 2001 and 2003 Tax Rate Reductions: An Overview and Estimate of the Taxable Income Response," contends that lower taxes create a behavioral response in taxpayers, including working longer hours or taking higher-paying jobs, that generate greater taxable income.
This behavioral response, however, also means that when taxes are raised, there is a shift in behavior, and the tax increases often generate less revenue than anticipated.
"This is an important point, one that Obama is not taking into consideration," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said. "The Obama campaign is not taking into consideration any behavioral reaction, which means that the revenue gain that Obama is predicting from his tax increase is not going to be as large as they say."
Senator Obama's economic policy director, Jason Furman, disputes this, saying that the presidential candidate does take into consideration some behavioral response, or so-called elasticity.
"The conservative estimate we use for budget purposes comes from the Tax Policy Center, and it does take into consideration some elasticity," Mr. Furman said.
Some other economic analysts also took issue with the paper.
"Even taking the 40% response at face value, that's a long way from 'tax cuts paying for themselves,'" a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Douglas Elmendorf, said. "That is, McCain needs serious spending cuts to pay for his tax cuts, and he doesn't have any."
The paper examined more than 168,000 tax returns between 1999 and 2005 from taxpayers earning $50,000 or more. Looking at the change in taxable income as reported on their tax forms and the change in their tax rates, and after controlling for a number of factors, such as age and marital status, the researchers found that every 1% increase in a taxpayer's after-tax share — if the tax rate is 35%, the after-tax share is 65% — results in a 0.4% increase in reported taxable income.
A taxpayer who reported $500,000 in taxable income saw the tax rate drop from 39.6% to 35%, saving the taxpayer around $12,300 in taxes.
The tax cut increased the taxpayer's after-tax share from 60.4% to 65%, or an additional 7.6%. Multiplying 7.6% by 0.4% leads to an increase in taxable income of 3.04%. That means the taxpayer would have an increase in taxable income of $15,200. Taxed at the 35% rate, this translates into an extra tax payment of $5,320. Therefore, the behavioral response offsets about 43% of the $12,300 in revenue that was lost.
The paper also notes that the 0.4% increase in taxable income is based on the behavioral response of all taxpayers earning more than $50,000, not just those subject to the top two tax rates. It is widely acknowledged that taxpayers in the top brackets have a larger behavioral response than those in the lower tax brackets because they have more discretionary income. So, it is likely that responsiveness for high-income taxpayers is greater than 0.4%.
"There is uncertainty about the impact of the behavioral response to tax cuts, but this research is certainly well within the range of possibility, and is a very serious estimate," Mr. Viard said.
FAIL
-
FAIL
Yeah,but your article,written by two unknowns,is great.Ha,ha,yeah,the fact is EVERYTIME taxes are cut,revenues to the government go up.Sorry,libs can try to twist the facts,but the facts speak for themselves.
-
'Iraq War = $716 Billion - 9 years.'
That doesn't include the longterm healthcare costs of tens of thousands of soldiers.
Let's not forget that the Iraq war was entirely unnecessary; US safety and security were never at risk from Iraq. All that money was wasted, all those kids died for nothing, and lost limbs to satisfy the agenda of handful of ideologues. ::)
-
Let's not forget that the Iraq war was entirely unnecessary; US safety and security were never at risk from Iraq. All that money was wasted, all those kids died for nothing, and lost limbs to satisfy the agenda of handful of ideologues. ::)
hind sight is always 20/20 bud its easy to see that now, it wasnt at the time...dont try to rewrite history
-
'hind sight is always 20/20 bud its easy to see that now, it wasnt at the time'
Cheney is one of the smartest mofos' around.
He knew the threat was far greater from other nations - hell, NKorea was SETTING OFF NUKES 2 years after we invaded iraq.
iraq had oil. We now have bases sitting atop those field. Piggy bank for 10,20,50 years down the road.
I'm okay if you just say Cheney wanted that oil for longterm US interests and we peons weren't smart enough to realize that. but to say he was duped/folled by bad intel? Come on...
-
hind sight is always 20/20 bud its easy to see that now, it wasnt at the time...dont try to rewrite history
Um,this is not hindsight. We have heard from several reliable sources (including former Bush officials Paul O’Neil, Richard Clark, etc.) that the Bush administration had a prefabricated agenda to attack Iraq from the day they took office and simply used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out that agenda. The result is lots of dead soldiers, shattered lives, and wasted money. :'(
-
Cheney is one of the smartest mofos' around.
Cheney isn't particularly smart at all. In what area is he an expert?
Another dumb statement from "240"! ::)
-
Cheny spent 40 years inside the white house, dept of defense, and at top level military contractors. he knows his shit. You can debate his morals, honesty, whatever. But as far as knowing how govt and the world works - cheney knows his stuff.
-
Cheney is a morally bankrupt genius. I have no respect for the man, but he isn't dumb.
-
Cheny spent 40 years inside the white house, dept of defense, and at top level military contractors. he knows his shit. You can debate his morals, honesty, whatever. But as far as knowing how govt and the world works - cheney knows his stuff.
Again, what is his area of expertise?
A Yale alumnus from Wyoming had recruited Cheney with a full scholarship to Yale. Poor grades cost him the scholarship, however, and he left Yale after three semesters.
College Records of Dick Cheney Show He Failed out of Yale
President George W. Bush’s college records have often been mocked, as Bush was a solid C student at Yale University. However, Bush’s Yale experience went significantly better than Vice President Dick Cheney’s. Cheney actually flunked out of Yale.
In fact, young Dick Cheney had a bit of wild youth. He was arrested twice for drunk driving charges in the early 1960s in Wyoming, where he worked as a lineman for a power company. He did finally go back to school, although, as the New York Times has suggested, this may have had more to do with wanting to avoid getting drafted into Vietnam than it did with wanting to get an education.
In 1963, Cheney enrolled at Casper Community College in Casper, Wyoming. Later that year, he transferred to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, where he earned a BA and an MA in political science. He also began doctoral work in political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, but he did not finish.
Cheney’s grades for his undergraduate and graduate work are not available, and apparently are in an undisclosed location.
-
Again, what is his area of expertise?
Foreign relations, global economics, international conflict, and however it is the world really works.
-
Um,this is not hindsight. We have heard from several reliable sources (including former Bush officials Paul O’Neil, Richard Clark, etc.) that the Bush administration had a prefabricated agenda to attack Iraq from the day they took office and simply used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out that agenda. The result is lots of dead soldiers, shattered lives, and wasted money. :'(
did they help fabricate the intel from other nations?
youre misunderstanding your own argument Im not saying that bush was right...what Im saying is its ignorant and incorrect to state that it was known that Iraq didnt pose a threat to anyone...there was conflicting intel on their programs not only from this nation but from other nations as well.
maybe they did use 9/11 as an excuse but there were still legit reasons to believe that Iraq posed a threat. Im not saying they did pose a threat only that it was not unreasonable to think they might and whether you want to admit it or not its the truth and you cant rewrite history... ::)
you really should look at this administration too and condemn their actions that is unless you think the video of rahm "never waste a crisis" emmanual was doctered ::)
-
Again, what is his area of expertise?
Foreign relations, global economics, international conflict, and however it is the world really works.
How'd that "we'll be greeted as liberators" work out, given his knowledge of "foreign relations and international conflict?" ::)
-
'How'd that "we'll be greeted as liberators" work out, given his knowledge of "foreign relations and international conflict?" '
He said in early 90s that it would be a quagmire to try to take saddam in baghdad, we'd be stuck for years, etc.
He knew this in 2002/2003. Was he painting a rosy picture to sell this war? Of course. Dishonest? Sure. He knew we'd be seen negatively, but he had to get american support behind the war.
Don't get me wrong, I think the war was built on lies and is immoral... however, I do think if it was about securing oil (and our bases parked on untouched oil fields with our name on 80% of them miiiight just be evidence of that), then cheney did it right. I'm tossing out honesty and morality and what is right - focusing upon longterm national energy securement goals. In that light, cheney did a bangup job. Look, I'm pissing off people from the left side of the aisle... I wonder if 333386 will get me some cheney kneepads now?
-
'How'd that "we'll be greeted as liberators" work out, given his knowledge of "foreign relations and international conflict?" '
He said in early 90s that it would be a quagmire to try to take saddam in baghdad, we'd be stuck for years, etc.
He knew this in 2002/2003. Was he painting a rosy picture to sell this war? Of course. Dishonest? Sure. He knew we'd be seen negatively, but he had to get american support behind the war.
Don't get me wrong, I think the war was built on lies and is immoral... however, I do think if it was about securing oil (and our bases parked on untouched oil fields with our name on 80% of them miiiight just be evidence of that), then cheney did it right. I'm tossing out honesty and morality and what is right - focusing upon longterm national energy securement goals. In that light, cheney did a bangup job. Look, I'm pissing off people from the left side of the aisle... I wonder if 333386 will get me some cheney kneepads now?
when you start knee padding im sure he will as of now youre only saying one thing about him to piss off ppl...but give it time youve been silverlining and knee padding for obama for a long time your rightly deserved reputation as an obama knee padder didnt happen overnight it took you a year of constant cock sucking so keep your head up 240 Im sure youll get called out by the left for knee padding for the right sooner or later...I have faith in your silver lining skills :D
-
RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay resigns
By Philip Rucker and Chris Cillizza
The Republican National Committee's chief of staff resigned under pressure Monday, which Chairman Michael S. Steele described as an effort to reassure wavering donors in the wake of a controversy over its most recent expense accounting.
The resignation of Ken McKay, Steele's highest-ranking aide, is the most drastic in a series of attempts at damage control by the RNC after it was revealed March 29 that the committee had spent $1,900 to entertain young donors at a risqué West Hollywood nightclub. The staff member who authorized the expenditure was fired last week, and the RNC has implemented new spending accountability procedures.
"The members of the Republican National Committee entrusted myself and every staffer to lead the loyal opposition against the destructive Obama agenda, build a stronger Republican Party and win elections," Steele said in a statement. "This is a role I take with the utmost seriousness. With this in mind, I want to do everything in my power to ensure that the committee uses all its resources in the best possible fashion."
But in a blow to Steele, the political consulting firm that had long aided his political career and was advising him at the RNC said Monday night that it had severed ties with the national party after McKay's ouster.
"Given our firm's commitments to campaigns all over the country, we have concluded it is best for us to step away from our advisory role at the RNC," said Curt Anderson, a partner at On Message. "We have high personal regard for the chairman and always have. We wish him well."
RNC officials have worked to distance Steele from the nightclub story, insisting not only that was he not at the club but also that he had no knowledge of the expenditure. McKay, whom Steele hired, will be replaced by Deputy Chief of Staff Mike Leavitt, a Steele loyalist and longtime party operative who ran Steele's unsuccessful Senate campaign in Maryland in 2006 and worked at the RNC with Robert F. McDonnell's winning Virginia gubernatorial campaign last year.
Some leading Republican strategists said the turnover will not be enough to quell the growing concerns among GOP donors and establishment figures about Steele's leadership and his record of spending. Ed Rogers, a prominent party strategist, said it is "absolutely not" enough to calm donors, and he suggested that problems with "sloppy management" at the RNC cannot be solved unless Steele leaves.
"This is a terrible way to deal with the cleanup of the mismanagement," Rogers said. "There's no single gesture or single slaughter or sacrifice that will fix that problem. That problem, for the rest of his tenure, will be managed, not solved."
The only people who can remove Steele, however, are the 168 committee members who elected him. It would require a two-thirds majority vote to remove the chairman, whose two-year term expires in January. No committee member has issued a public call for Steele's resignation.
Most of the members are volunteer party activists who live outside the Beltway and are largely engrossed in primary elections and local matters in their states. Unlike Republican strategists in Washington or the party's congressional leaders, RNC members are less in tune with the details or scope of the evolving controversies -- the string of gaffes, confrontations with congressional leaders and record of lavish spending -- that have enveloped Steele's tenure.
"I'm just focused on winning here in South Carolina," said Glenn McCall, an RNC member from that state. "We have our gubernatorial races, lieutenant governor and all of our constitutional offices, Senator [Jim] DeMint's reelection."
McCall acknowledged that he has not closely followed the news of the nightclub expenditure. "I just want Steele and the RNC to continue focusing on winning," he said.
Some of the Republican Party's biggest donors have sidestepped the RNC in recent months, giving money instead to the Republican Governors Association, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, party strategists said. That movement appears to have increased since the nightclub expenditure was revealed.
Meanwhile, Mike Duncan, a former RNC chairman, helped found American Crossroads, a group independent of the RNC. Aided by informal advice from two Republican political strategists, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, the group seeks to raise more than $50 million to help candidates in November's midterm elections.
Katon Dawson, a top operative from South Carolina who finished second to Steele in the chairman's race last year, said that McKay's resignation will be merely "a name in an article, a blip," and that bigger changes may be necessary. "The responsibility falls on the CEO of any organization, whether it be General Electric or whether it be the RNC," Dawson said. "The RNC right now is under Michael Steele. If [McKay is] fired, the question is whether the fault lies there."
Steele refrained from making any public comments last week, but his first interview since the scandal surfaced stoked a new controversy Monday.
Asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "Good Morning America" whether being an African American gave him a "slimmer margin of error" than a white chairman might have, Steele said: "The honest answer is yes. It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. We all -- a lot of folks do. It's a different role for me to play and others to play, and that's just the reality of it. But you take that as part of the nature of it."
Steele added: "I'm not a Washington insider. . . . My view on politics is much more grass-roots-oriented, it's not old-boy-network-oriented, so I tend to, you know, come at it a little bit stronger, a little bit more streetwise, if you will. That's rubbed some feathers the wrong way."
Steele's comments drew allegations that he was playing the "race card." Conservative political commentator Armstrong Williams, who is black, said Steele's race has "nothing to do" with the scrutiny he is facing.
"It's an inability to think before he speaks and a mistaken Obama complex," Williams said. "He thinks he is in competition with the president. What he needs to do is stay behind the scenes, raise money and get people elected. His race has nothing to do with it."
McCall, who also is black, agreed. "He's the chairman," he said. "It's not about race. . . . He's the man in charge."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who is white, called Steele's comments "silly," adding: "I think Michael Steele's problem isn't the race card. It's the credit card."
-
i've said for a long time that cheney is smart and that he was very effective at enacting his own goals/vision for america. we did set up a shitload of bases that we needed, right before the saidis kicked us out. will we be glad in 30 years if resources run out and we have to 'acquire' oil from iraq? you betcha. it means china can't grow fast enough as it would like, cause this oil isn't there for them.
So while it's insulting to be lied to with that silly WMD talk, it is what it is. Countries have probably been using these moves for centuries... it's only with the internet that people realize it's a sham now. 911, WMD, iraq... if they had happened in the 1940s, we'd be swallowing them hook, line and sinker. It's only because of the web and world media that people catch onto that shit now. It used to be the ONLY news you got was the news at 6 pm... and whatver was in the morning paper. We all know the media is full o crap - and that's today, when independent media keeps them honest. imagine the crap they sold us 50 years back lol.
-
How'd that "we'll be greeted as liberators" work out, given his knowledge of "foreign relations and international conflict?" ::)
Your agenda has clouded your ability to reason. Liberals and collectivists tend to believe one's education experience/grades determine intelligence. Most of them are overeducated and underqualified. What you accomplish in college is supposed to be a baramoter of how well you will do in the workforce. It is not a perfect indicator. Cheney has played the system perfectly, although he's done it far from ethically. Saying that he's dumb is dumb. That would be like saying Lebron James isn't a good basketball player because he didn't accomplish squat in college. Take a look at Bill Gates and Thomas Edison if you need additional examples.
-
'How'd that "we'll be greeted as liberators" work out, given his knowledge of "foreign relations and international conflict?" '
He said in early 90s that it would be a quagmire to try to take saddam in baghdad, we'd be stuck for years, etc.
He knew this in 2002/2003. Was he painting a rosy picture to sell this war? Of course. Dishonest? Sure. He knew we'd be seen negatively, but he had to get american support behind the war.
Don't get me wrong, I think the war was built on lies and is immoral... however, I do think if it was about securing oil (and our bases parked on untouched oil fields with our name on 80% of them miiiight just be evidence of that), then cheney did it right. I'm tossing out honesty and morality and what is right - focusing upon longterm national energy securement goals. In that light, cheney did a bangup job. Look, I'm pissing off people from the left side of the aisle... I wonder if 333386 will get me some cheney kneepads now?
No one is talking about honesty or morals. You have repeatedly made the statement on this board that Chaney is an incredibly smart person. I have yet to see evidence of this.
The reason you cannot legitimately answer my question is due to the fact that people don't respect Cheney for his "high levels of intelligence."
-
No one is talking about honesty or morals. You have repeatedly made the statement on this board that Chaney is an incredibly smart person. I have yet to see evidence of this.
The reason you cannot legitimately answer my question is due to the fact that people don't respect Cheney for his "high levels of intelligence."
well if you believe that he controlled bush and you believe that the administration intentionally mislead the country, fabricated intel, planned or let 9/11 happen in order to justify iraq...then it would take a good bit of intelligence and tact in order to orchistrate any one of those wouldnt you agree?
-
well if you believe that he controlled bush and you believe that the administration intentionally mislead the country, fabricated intel, planned or let 9/11 happen in order to justify iraq...then it would take a good bit of intelligence and tact in order to orchistrate any one of those wouldnt you agree?
First of all, you are assuming (and you know what that does) that I agree with all of the things you just stated...I do not. Secondly, you are assuming (once again, not a good idea with me) that I would consider the intelligence to orchestrate such matters to be the sign of a person of significant intellectual heft and stature. Again...I do not. Particularly when looking at the cast of characters that participated in the Shakespearean tragedy that were the Bush years. And certainly when looking at the end result of said tragedy.
-
First of all, you are assuming (and you know what that does) that I agree with all of the things you just stated...I do not. Secondly, you are assuming (once again, not a good idea with me) that I would consider the intelligence to orchestrate such matters to be the sign of a person of significant intellectual heft and stature. Again...I do not. Particularly when looking at the cast of characters that participated in the Shakespearean tragedy that were the Bush years. And certainly when looking at the end result of said tragedy.
Well please explain why he is dumb. It's obvious he had a surreal amount of power for 8 years, has accumulated a mass amount of wealth, called the shots in two different wars, and has somehow alluded a serious investigation and/or trial amid numerous accusations stemming from shady business deals.
-
First of all, you are assuming (and you know what that does) that I agree with all of the things you just stated...I do not. Secondly, you are assuming (once again, not a good idea with me) that I would consider the intelligence to orchestrate such matters to be the sign of a person of significant intellectual heft and stature. Again...I do not. Particularly when looking at the cast of characters that participated in the Shakespearean tragedy that were the Bush years. And certainly when looking at the end result of said tragedy.
actually it wasnt an assumption it was a statement as in, if this...then that...you know that thing called an if then statement? ;) intelligence :o
anywho...youre entitled to your opinion as are others just b/c you think he wasnt an intelligent man doesnt mean your right and others are wrong ::)
many think obama is a dumb ass and when you look at his cast of characters going back to his campaign and those who he surrounded himself with you can see why...and the end result of his first year in which we basically wasted 1 trillion dollars, created a heath care bill with many questionable pieces of legislation to it...you can see why as well
what is your measure of intelligence?
-
actually it wasnt an assumption it was a statement as in, if this...then that...you know that thing called an if then statement? ;) intelligence :o
If you were attempting to create an If/Then scenario for which I were to participate, young Tony, then your problem needs to be set up as such. Your lack of proper construct leads me to believe you are not well skilled in laying out such a word problem. Work on your construct and try again. Nevertheless, you would simply get a variant of the answer I provided for you previously irrespective of the format.
anywho...youre entitled to your opinion as are others just b/c you think he wasnt an intelligent man doesnt mean your right and others are wrong ::)
Perhaps, but until you present me with respected individuals within the circles of power in Washington that are quoted on record as saying that Chaney is a guy of great intellectual heft that is respected for his acumen among other intellectuals, then...meh.
many think obama is a dumb ass and when you look at his cast of characters going back to his campaign and those who he surrounded himself with you can see why...and the end result of his first year in which we basically wasted 1 trillion dollars, created a heath care bill with many questionable pieces of legislation to it...you can see why as well
what is your measure of intelligence?
Anyone who thinks Obama is a "dumb ass" is no longer in a reasonable discussion with me and although I may entertain their theories to pass the time I quite frankly no longer take them seriously. As far as a political debate on the Obama administration's response to distinct issues, that is another topic for another day.
My definition of a "highly intelligent" Washington insider : Respected by other established intellectuals as an exceptionally smart and engaging person, capable of challenging conventional thought and preexisting norms; exceptionally knowledgeable on one or more realms of endeavor.
-
Well please explain why he is dumb. It's obvious he had a surreal amount of power for 8 years, has accumulated a mass amount of wealth, called the shots in two different wars, and has somehow alluded a serious investigation and/or trial amid numerous accusations stemming from shady business deals.
I have never stated that Cheney is dumb. There is a huge difference between my stating that he lacks intellectual gravitas and that he is a dummy.
This fun little exercise will have to continue tomorrow, kids. My Dukie party and watching them winning the championship has got me up doing late research. I've got to finish up for a long day tomorrow.
-
I have never stated that Cheney is dumb. There is a huge difference between my stating that he lacks intellectual gravitas and that he is a dummy.
This fun little exercise will have to continue tomorrow, kids. My Dukie party and watching them winning the championship has got me up doing late research. I've got to finish up for a long day tomorrow.
You are very vague. You make a comment, then have everyone try to guess what you mean and poke fun when nobody can figure it out. Are you saying he's a poor student and nothing more? It would be a lot easier if you would just make a hard point and stick with it. I think you are apprehensive to make one, becuase you have no point. If you say what you actually believe you may contradict yourself and God forbid have to admit that somebody who does not share your political viewpoint is indeed not stupid and successful.
I find it bizarre a staunch liberal would be a fan of what I perceive to be the ultimate republican team.
-
You are very vague. You make a comment, then have everyone try to guess what you mean and poke fun when nobody can figure it out. Are you saying he's a poor student and nothing more? It would be a lot easier if you would just make a hard point and stick with it. I think you are apprehensive to make one, becuase you have no point. If you say what you actually believe you may contradict yourself and God forbid have to admit that somebody who does not share your political viewpoint is indeed not stupid and successful.
I find it bizarre a staunch liberal would be a fan of what I perceive to be the ultimate republican team.
You came into this conversation...late...an d all fucked up, son. ::) My point was established at the beginningof this conversation with "240", and has not changed one iota since. You are simply confused and need to re-read from the start. There are no "hard" points that I need to "stick with." My contention remains the same with no fear of contradiction because my thought process is based on sound principles. Dick Chaney is not respected for his high levels of intellect in and around Washington. Period. If you make the phantasmagorical leap to me stating that Chaney is therefore stupid or unsuccessful, then quite simply this little exercise may be too challenging for you. :-\
-
Dick Chaney is not respected for his high levels of intellect in and around Washington. Period. If you make the phantasmagorical leap to me stating that Chaney is therefore stupid or unsuccessful, then quite simply this little exercise may be too challenging for you. :-\
Not respected according to who? Or are you just assuming (and you know what that does)? Your comment was that he wasn't particularly smart...an extremely vague comment where it could be easily insinuated you believe he's dumb or of average intellegence. Now it's he's not respected for his intellect by some faceless people in Washington.
-
If you were attempting to create an If/Then scenario for which I were to participate, young Tony, then your problem needs to be set up as such. Your lack of proper construct leads me to believe you are not well skilled in laying out such a word problem. Work on your construct and try again. Nevertheless, you would simply get a variant of the answer I provided for you previously irrespective of the format.
Perhaps, but until you present me with respected individuals within the circles of power in Washington that are quoted on record as saying that Chaney is a guy of great intellectual heft that is respected for his acumen among other intellectuals, then...meh.
It was brain child go back and reread...It started with an "if" and ended with a "then"
I agree though Id probably still get the same answer ::)
Anyone who thinks Obama is a "dumb ass" is no longer in a reasonable discussion with me and although I may entertain their theories to pass the time I quite frankly no longer take them seriously. As far as a political debate on the Obama administration's response to distinct issues, that is another topic for another day.
My definition of a "highly intelligent" Washington insider : Respected by other established intellectuals as an exceptionally smart and engaging person, capable of challenging conventional thought and preexisting norms; exceptionally knowledgeable on one or more realms of endeavor.
your ideology is so prevelant in your view of intelligence its sickening...what does challenging prexisting norms have to do with intelligence?
-
Michael Steele's problem isn't race -- it's pride
By Kathleen Parker
When you're Michael Steele, there's no waking up and thinking: Ahhhh, at least the worst is over.
Whatever the week, Monday is the start of another very bad one. No exception to the trend, this week began dramatically.
First, Steele's chief of staff, Ken McKay, resigned in another Republican National Committee stab (cue soundtrack from "Psycho") at damage control in the wake of profligate spending and that whole bondage-stripper thing.
Next, Steele's longtime political consulting firm, On Message, severed ties with the RNC head. His relentless off-messaging apparently was hurting the company's brand. Nothing personal, of course. High regard and all that. "We wish him well," said consultant Curt Anderson, as he lowered himself into the Titanic's last lifeboat.
And that was the good part of the week. Still to come was reaction to the latest on the list of "Things Michael Steele Shouldn't Have Said": It's about race.
Appearing recently on ABC's "Good Morning America," Steele told George Stephanopoulos that being African American has magnified his travails. Stephanopoulos had asked Steele whether his race gave him a "slimmer margin for error."
"The honest answer is yes," said Steele. "It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. We all -- a lot of folks do. It's a different role for me to play and others to play, and that's just the reality of it."
Except that African American Republicans aren't buying it. For starters, Steele was elected by the predominantly white party. After months of unforced errors, he can't now turn around and charge his party with racism. Actually, racism would mean expecting less from an African American than from a white counterpart.
If you can't play the race card with your own race, you might be in a heap of denial. As Juliette Ochieng wrote in a blog item that was picked up by BookerRising.net, the black, moderate-conservative news site:
"Mr. Steele's margin for error is smaller than it was when he first became RNC chair due entirely to the fact that he has made so many errors and due to the fact that he seems incapable of learning from them."
It's not clear who Steele thinks his audience is when he deals the race card. Meanwhile, black Republicans have their own complaints about Steele, principally that the RNC leader has failed to support African American candidates.
One of the more outspoken among these is Jean Howard-Hill, a political science professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga who is also a lawyer and Republican activist. And, some might say . . . a troublemaker?
"I wear the label very proudly," she says.
Howard-Hill is a familiar name in party politics, especially in Tennessee, where she is running for Congress after decades of recruiting blacks to the GOP. A Georgia-born scholar whose childhood memories include a cross burning in her front yard, she seems an unlikely Republican.
"You have to be a little crazy to be an African American Republican. I admit that."
But Howard-Hill sees the Republican Party as her natural home and, importantly, the best route for economic empowerment.
"Some of us are tired of being poor."
When she goes into black churches to preach the GOP Gospel, Howard-Hill reminds congregants that blacks were first elected to Congress as Republicans during Reconstruction and that their birthright was stolen by the Dixiecrats.
In South Carolina, rising Republican star Marvin Rogers, a candidate for the South Carolina Legislature, is telegraphing the same message with his book "Silence Makes the Loudest Sound." Basically, conservative blacks want their party back.
But many political candidates are being hampered in part by a lack of access to the RNC coffers, says Howard-Hill. She blames Steele and amends his different-standards defense accordingly.
"I would say [blacks are] treated differently within the party. But in terms of integrity, the standard is the same. Michael needs to own up because it's not race. From day one, he has messed up. . . . If he wants to play the race card, play it with us."
To be fair to Steele, he didn't introduce the race issue and was responding to a question. Nevertheless, his answer and the African American Republican response have shed light on Steele's central flaw. As always, it isn't the mistake that brings you down; it's the coverup.
In Steele's case, the coverup is pride -- an unwillingness to take personal responsibility. Whether it's the poor staffer who approved $1,900 for a strip club or the chief of staff who got the boot, it's always someone else's fault.
Steele needs to face the truth and set himself -- and his party -- free.