General discussion

RNC Steele under scrutiny

Embattled Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said he won't resign despite calls for him to step down amid reports of the group's excessive spending, adding that he and other African-American leaders such as President Obama have a slimmer margin of error because of

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove criticized RNC's spending and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have called for Republican supporters to stop giving money to the RNC.

"What appears to be excessive spending at a time of economic hardship for most of the country, at a time when the Republicans are complaining about the spending in Washington by Democrats, look, if you can't run a party, you certainly can't run a country," Perkins said on MSNB last week.

"I think the problem is hypocrisy," ABC News contributor and former adviser to President George W. Bush Matthew Dowd said on "This Week" Sunday. "It's not the strip club and all that. It's Republicans go out there and talk about fiscal responsibility and they talk about family values, and they have a party leader and party officials who go to a strip club."


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/michael-steele-obama-slimmer-margins-error-african-american/story?id=10283514

Towards the end f the live interview, Chairman Steele was asked if he would be presenting any sort of contract similar to the "Contract for America". (?"with"?) je replied he had been consulting with Gingrich and others about this.

Personally, the thought of Newt's hand in anything bothers me more than the sex clubs being visited.Happy

Angeline
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: RNC Steele under scrutiny
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: RNC Steele under scrutiny
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
interesting times we live in.

Seems the Republicans also can't help shooting themselves in the feet too. Far as I know however, Steele knew about it after the fact. I suspect he's also being targeted since he'd be a considerable threat in next election to Obama, especially if on the ticket, even as a VP candidate.

- Collapse -
Has anyone asked if he's being criticized...

simply because he's black?

- Collapse -
we're not supposed to ask questions like that.

Remember? To do so would be "racist". So, we gingerly walk around the unspoken truth.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, it's generally PC enough

to suspect he's persecuted because of race, creed, etc.

And as noted in reply to Ed, he claims he is held to tighter standard because of race.

- Collapse -
He claims it is

from the link......

adding that he and other African-American leaders such as President Obama have a slimmer margin of error because of their race.

- Collapse -
I'm so tired of the race card being played..

as an excuse for poor performance or lousy policy. Obama has worn this one out. If Steele or Obama are criticized it is very likely NOT because of their race.

- Collapse -
(NT) I can agree with that.
- Collapse -
What's black got to do with it?
- Collapse -
especially if on the ticket, even as a VP candidate.

Rep Biden? Devil

after reading some of his statements...that would work

- Collapse -
Predictable...

your attitude about Newt.

- Collapse -
A lot of views are predictable

based on expressed beliefs.

I'm betting a lot of the time most of the regulars here could make a fairly accurate prediction of your response to a post before you made it.

Personally I'm ambivalent about Newt, I never saw him as shining beacon or devil in disguise.

In the past, there were times I strongly agreed with a public stance or speech. There were others I thought he shot himself in the foot and was generally obnoxious. And a few I found his view outright disgusting.

Typical for me I suppose, I rarely agree wholeheartedly with any politician. Many people in the past have taken a dislike to me for "fencesitting" since I felt some problems had too many aspects for either extreme's "simple" answer. Nothing new there for me.

CNET Forums