On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:17:34 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:38:39 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


Too funny. I read that some GOP officials are more than willing to let
the whole thing slide on account of them being OK with doing whatever
it takes to raise money, which Steele's good at.

Not true. In spite of all the hoopla about a revitalized Republican base,
the Dems raised as much in February as Steele's team.

I feel a bit sorry for him. His job is to do what it takes in a kind
of don't ask don't tell kind of way. Plus he knows he's the fall guy
in November unless the rapture intervenes or something.

What really has Republican donors in an uproar is Steele's spending habits.

Some of them will whine for sure, but his type of tactics are accepted
in both parties. Which doesn't make his getting caught any less
hilarious.

He's the hipper
snorf version of a young Karl Rove. :-) I hope that tom donated
generously to fund some of that family-values bondage. Will he be one
to call for Steele's ouster? Will he demand that the party be purged
of all the other heck-of-a-job brownie-type hacks, so that future
embarrassments might be prevented? Or will he pray for Steele to
survive the scandal, and that word spreads to contributors that the
GOP is a can-do outfit when it comes to fulfilling donors'
family-values wet dreams? Hey tom, Larry Craig is on line 1.
Considering the policy change, he wants to know if he can use your
bathroom to raise a few bucks. :-)


Steele isn't going anywhere between now and the midterms.

Sure. They already sacked the bagman, er, wholly independent operator
that nobody knew anything about. guffaw

Anyway, I don't get particularly wound up about this kind of thing.
It's comic relief.

Perhaps they chose him partly because he reminds some of them of Amos
and Andy. Of course they only had one black guy, so he has to play
both parts. :-)

Wayne