WTF, Michale Steele!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Tucker Carlson is an immature twerp who likes to pretend to be 'different' while continuing to act like a right-wing hack and has a love for false equivalency. I haven't a clue how anyone can like the guy.

[paul718]

Tucker Carlson is an immature twerp who likes to pretend to be 'different' while continuing to act like a right-wing hack and has a love for false equivalency. I haven't a clue how anyone can like the guy.

A right-wing hack who despised Bush-era Republicans?  That's fine.

[useful idiot]

Tucker Carlson is an immature twerp who likes to pretend to be 'different' while continuing to act like a right-wing hack and has a love for false equivalency. I haven't a clue how anyone can like the guy.

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

[Brittain33]

Steele had nothing to do with this.

Not this particular incident, but he's been presiding over some rampant T&E spending, and the head of the committee does set a tone so that people below him know what is or is not acceptable. The fact that a donor event was held there, and the money approved by a green eyeshade within the company, indicates a lack of discipline and some tone deafness. It doesn't all fall on Steele's shoulders, but what is his role if not to run a professional organization?

[Scam of God]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I actually liked Tucker's show on MSNBC.  Certainly much better than the shows that just feed you partisan talking points like Hannity and Olbermann.

[Scam of God]

I actually liked Tucker's show on MSNBC.  Certainly much better than the shows that just feed you partisan talking points like Hannity and Olbermann.

Really? The man reeks of "I am a douchebag who was unloved as a child", from his Flock of Seagulls hair-do to his pissant bowtie.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I actually liked Tucker's show on MSNBC.  Certainly much better than the shows that just feed you partisan talking points like Hannity and Olbermann.

Really? The man reeks of "I am a douchebag who was unloved as a child", from his Flock of Seagulls hair-do to his pissant bowtie.

Don't forget E, we're comparing him the rest of the scata that's on TV.......

[paul718]

I actually liked Tucker's show on MSNBC.  Certainly much better than the shows that just feed you partisan talking points like Hannity and Olbermann.

Really? The man reeks of "I am a douchebag who was unloved as a child", from his Flock of Seagulls hair-do to his pissant bowtie.

Don't forget E, we're comparing him the rest of the scata that's on TV.......

Exactly.  Find me a talking-head who isn't a douchebag.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

By CHARLES BABINGTON, AP
Tue Mar 30, 11:34 AM EDT
The Republican National Committee has fired a staffer who helped organize a $1,946 visit last month to a sex-themed Hollywood club, and the GOP says it will recoup the money from a donor who also participated.

The episode is the latest in a string of questionable spending by the RNC as Republicans prepare for a costly election season in which they hope to take dozens of House and Senate seats from Democrats.

An RNC memo says the Jan. 31 outing to Voyeur West Hollywood involved several members of the "Young Eagles" GOP group who had been in Los Angeles for a meeting. An unnamed staffer, who had been warned that such activities did not qualify for reimbursement, has been fired, said the memo from RNC chief of staff Ken McKay.

The club features topless dancers and bondage outfits. It's meant to be "risque and provocative" and "a combination of intimidation and sexuality," one of its partners, David Koral, told the Los Angeles Times in October.

RNC spokesman Doug Heye said the committee will be reimbursed by Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., the donor-vendor who billed the GOP for the club visit on behalf of the attendees.

Brown did not respond to an e-mail and phone message seeking comment.

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.

McKay's memo says the RNC is committed to using donors' funds efficiently and responsibly.

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.

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it would go towards its intended objective.

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

[useful idiot]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

[Scam of God]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

[paul718]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

I don't see why they should keep their mouths shut.  If I donated money to the RNC, I would seek further disclosure as well.

[Scam of God]

At the same time, what right does the pretentiously-named "Concerned Women" for America, and Mdml. Nance in particular, have to dictate the doings of private individuals, even if they be ecclesiarchs in the Republican priesthood? Are our moral systems so thoroughly socialized that someone with no relation whatsoever to the event has the right to "demand" anything of Steele and his cronies about their own affairs?

Didn't it involve donated money?

After money has been donated, donors have no control whatsoever over what it is spent on or where it goes unless a pre-existing agreement has been reached that it will go towards a select cause. If Mdml. Nance dislikes Mr. Steele's habits, and the "Concerned Women" agree with her, let them spend their money in the police auctions and thrift sales like good senior citizens rather than donate it.

When you donate money to a political committee, I think it's fair to expect that it won't be frivolously spent.

I think it's fair for the old scolds to mind their own business, which, judging from the nature of their organization, is obviously something they do not excel at.

But it is their business, if they donated money.

As I've said above, once the money is given, it is the property of the receiving organization as surely as if a more physical gift had been bequeathed them. The moralists will have to be satisfied that their money paid for an important meeting of the Republican National Convention.

The "Concerned Women of America" aren't suing for replevin of any donated funds, so I don't understand your argument here. 

My argument is that they would have no legal grounding to do so even if they were of a mind to sue, and ought to keep their gumless mouths shut when not talked to.

I don't see why they should keep their mouths shut.  

Because they are nags, and hags, though I doubt they're scags (or have, or even had, much of a sexual life at all), and hearing from them is lying paying rapt attention to one's doddering grandmother. I am subjectively against them, and hence smile on their ill-fortune.

[useful idiot]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

Umm, he publicly attacked the Bush administration before 2004 on a number of points(including opposing the war and opposing the Patriot Act and wiretaps, not just spending like others), and said he didn't vote for Bush. He supported gay marriage at a time when it was absolute heresy within the GOP to do so. He says he's voted Libertarian before(including for Paul in 1988). How is that shying away from disagreeing with Republicans to not appear disloyal?

[paul718]

Tucker Carlson remains one of the most grating shills in the media establishment. The man has never met a Republican cause he hasn't adopted wholesale as his own; his entire brand of infotainment is geared towards re-inforcing his own asinine conceptions.

I guess I'll refer you to my previous post which apparently you failed to read:

Right-wing hack how exactly? He opposed the war, hated the Bush administration, supports marijuana legalization, supports gay marriage, and this stuff was before it became popular to be anti-Bush. He was a Paul supporter who works for Cato. How does any of this make him a right wing hack? When he was on Crossfire he was basically forced into being kneejerk conservative due to the format of the show. His show on MSNBC was lightyears ahead of most of the garbage on cable news.

I'll admit back in his Weekly Standard days he was definitely a Reaganite/Contract with America child of 1994. But we should look longingly back at those Republicans...

I understand that subtlety is hardly your strong suit, so let me say in as un-subtle a fashion as I can: that's the point. Carlson knew and knows how utterly hideous the conservative governing philosophy has become, but shies away from saying such with any tangible force, much like our friend paul718, because it might be tantamount to Party disloyalty, which in his hobbled mind might well be equated to treason.

A significant number of my votes have been for Democrats.  I often voice my displeasure with the GOP in this forum.  Carlson similarly voiced his displeasure on his TV program.  How much force does he need to exhibit for it to be tangible?  How is he a "shill"?