http://content.usatoday.com/topics/post/...125.blog/1

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...2164.story

Allegedly paid his sister $37,000 for work that was never performed,

Steele, is that a name you can trust?

(02-16-2009 07:29 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Steele, is that a name you can trust?

+

Today's GOP Lesson: Get out of line, and Obama will send his dogs after you.

Fabian made the charge during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges, the newspaper said. Curt Anderson, a Steele spokesman, said the allegation came from a convicted felon and had "no substantiation in fact."

Isn't he allowed to say "Oops" like half of Obama's cabinet?

Nope

(02-16-2009 07:33 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 07:29 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Steele, is that a name you can trust?

+

Today's GOP Lesson: Get out of line, and Obama will send his dogs after you.

The real question that needs to be asked is who let the dogs out!

Having a Cabinet member with issues is one thing; however the chairman of a political party especially the party that's out of power, he is the franchise player. If Steele goes down the Repubs will have larger problems than Obama losing a Cabinet nominee.

So can Republicans cry racism like Dems did anytime anyone accused Obama of something?

Damn liberal FBI!! I knew the RNC should have elected the guy who belonged to the all white country club.

(02-16-2009 11:54 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Having a Cabinet member with issues is one thing; however the chairman of a political party especially the party that's out of power, he is the franchise player. If Steele goes down the Repubs will have larger problems than Obama losing a Cabinet nominee.

Oh for Pete's sake...
Let's forget for a moment that this charge comes from someone found guilty of unrelated fraud trying to lessen his sentence...

you HONESTLY believe that having the leader of the Republican party (a party currently in charge of nothing) found guilty (if it happens) of paying his sister for work she didn't do is a bigger problem than having the nominee for Secretary of the Treasury and head of the IRS be guilty of cheating on his taxes?

The head of the RNC is more of a franchise player than the Sec Treas or any other cabinet member?

Howard Dean's 50 state plan was pretty well debunked by everyone, and yet they won anyway. He was the leader of the DNC, out of power...

(02-17-2009 10:13 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So can Republicans cry racism like Dems did anytime anyone accused Obama of something?

No gov't body is investigating President Obama for any type of illegal activity. The FBI is investigating Steele, are U accusing the FBI of being racist?

Can't play the race card this time.

(02-17-2009 11:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Oh for Pete's sake...

Who is Pete?
His name is Michael Steele, right.

(02-17-2009 12:00 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 10:13 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So can Republicans cry racism like Dems did anytime anyone accused Obama of something?

No gov't body is investigating President Obama for any type of illegal activity. The FBI is investigating Steele, are U accusing the FBI of being racist?

Can't play the race card this time.

To be factually accurate, the FBI is investigating a claim made by an admitted felon, and related to his sentencing. They are not yet investigating Steele.

The race card was played when people accused Obama of improper dealings in his Chicago land deal among other things... which would be, if proven true... just as illegal as this.

(02-17-2009 11:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 11:54 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Having a Cabinet member with issues is one thing; however the chairman of a political party especially the party that's out of power, he is the franchise player. If Steele goes down the Repubs will have larger problems than Obama losing a Cabinet nominee.

Oh for Pete's sake...
The head of the RNC is more of a franchise player than the Sec Treas or any other cabinet member?

Quick, can you name Steele's predecessor as RNC chairman?
Can you name Geithner's predecessor as Treasury Secretary?

(02-17-2009 11:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 11:54 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  Having a Cabinet member with issues is one thing; however the chairman of a political party especially the party that's out of power, he is the franchise player. If Steele goes down the Repubs will have larger problems than Obama losing a Cabinet nominee.

Oh for Pete's sake...
Let's forget for a moment that this charge comes from someone found guilty of unrelated fraud trying to lessen his sentence...

you HONESTLY believe that having the leader of the Republican party (a party currently in charge of nothing) found guilty (if it happens) of paying his sister for work she didn't do is a bigger problem than having the nominee for Secretary of the Treasury and head of the IRS be guilty of cheating on his taxes?

The head of the RNC is more of a franchise player than the Sec Treas or any other cabinet member?

Howard Dean's 50 state plan was pretty well debunked by everyone, and yet they won anyway. He was the leader of the DNC, out of power...

1) His name's not Pete it's Michael. He's the Chairman of your party you should know his name

2) I'm not judging the severity of the offenses if proven guilty; what I'm saying is that for the party out of power, the loss of their Chairman is a bigger hit than the Dems losing a Treasury Secretary for example. A Cabinet member isn't going to map out election strategy, determine who gets what resources, when and how much. The Chairman has alot to say about who runs for which offices also.

3) Howard Dean's 50 state strategy worked to perfection; there are Dem's governing states and representing them in Congress that haven't been in place for decades if every. A perfect example is Montana, a gov and 2 senators in a rural western state! VA has also changed from Rep to Dem in less than 8 years. When you pickup 14(soon to be 15) Senate seats and 46 House seats, that 50 state stategy is working just fine.

(02-17-2009 08:30 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  1) His name's not Pete it's Michael. He's the Chairman of your party you should know his name

Who said it was MY party?

(02-17-2009 08:30 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  2) I'm not judging the severity of the offenses if proven guilty; what I'm saying is that for the party out of power, the loss of their Chairman is a bigger hit than the Dems losing a Treasury Secretary for example. A Cabinet member isn't going to map out election strategy, determine who gets what resources, when and how much. The Chairman has alot to say about who runs for which offices also.

No, he's just going to oversee the very department he defrauded. Who said you were comparing the severity, or that I was? My entire point on Howard Dean was that Obama himself questioned his strategy and won. So I question your conclusion that the party chair has any particular power. My comment had nothing to do with the severity of the actions... it had to do with the direct impact on the job for which they are nominated. The chief political activist of a party accused of graft?? not a shock.... The head of the Treasury (and thus the IRS) who cheated on his taxes?? a little more pertinent.

(02-17-2009 08:30 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  3) Howard Dean's 50 state strategy worked to perfection; there are Dem's governing states and representing them in Congress that haven't been in place for decades if every. A perfect example is Montana, a gov and 2 senators in a rural western state! VA has also changed from Rep to Dem in less than 8 years. When you pickup 14(soon to be 15) Senate seats and 46 House seats, that 50 state stategy is working just fine.

Did I say it didn't work? I said it was widely debunked by his own party... His own people questioned his strategy and complained heartily. I think it's a stretch to say that his strategy was more meaningful than Obama's money and message, plus Bush's failings and the faltering economy... but you are free to disagree as that has nothing to do with my argument.

Howard Dean was not as important as Obama. Geitner is more important than Steele. Tax fraud by the Treasury Sec is bigger than improper use of campaign funds by the RNC Chair. Nothing in your comments points to any reason to believe differently.

So let's talk Howard Dean and Harry Reid

Howard Dean Implicates Harry Reid in Abramoff Scandal

Quote:Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that Democrats who took money from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and who did something on behalf of those tribes have "a big problem."

Dean made the statement apparently unaware that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has reportedly done exactly that.

Under questioning by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Dean claimed that Democrats did no favors for Abramoff's Indian tribe clients:

"Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff," the top Democrat insisted. "No Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans."

But Wallace countered: "So if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?"

Dean's response: "That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble."

In November 2005 the Associated Press reported that Senate Minority Leader Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.

Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," the AP said. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."
Questioned about the donations in December by "Fox News Sunday's" Wallace, Reid immediately turned testy.

"Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff. I've never met the man, don't know anything," he claimed.

The full exchange between Dean and Wallace went like this:

DEAN: It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats some money. The key is . . .

WALLACE: I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from someone he [represented]. What I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money to Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did. We have evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find - and we have to wrap this up - so if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0005.shtml

Crap....If this is true..would it surprise anyone? If so....You need to pull your head out of your ass. ALL of these power hungry control freaks are the same.

(02-17-2009 11:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Crap....If this is true..would it surprise you? If so....You need to pull your head out of your ass. ALL of these power hungry control freaks are the same.

Why are you criticizing Sum? Don't we have the right and expectation to have honest, ethical and moral politicians. Either you accept it or you fight against it. Sum is fighting it and it sounds like you're accepting it. Please tell me that ain't so.....

(02-17-2009 11:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 11:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Crap....If this is true..would it surprise you? If so....You need to pull your head out of your ass. ALL of these power hungry control freaks are the same.

Why are you criticizing Sum? Don't we have the right and expectation to have honest, ethical and moral politicians. Either you accept it or you fight against it. Sum is fighting it and it sounds like you're accepting it. Please tell me that ain't so.....

Thanks for heads up. Didn't mean it as an attack on anyone particular....corrected the post.