More drama over cash flow for Steele and the RNC

The Republican National Committee entered October with just $3.4 million cash in the bank, nearly $10 million less than the Democratic National Committee.

According to a newly filed Federal Election Commission report, the RNC raised just $9.8 million in September, another disappointing month for the committee, which has struggled for months to raise funds under embattled Chairman Michael Steele. By comparison, the DNC raised nearly $17 million last month, a new party record, and ended September with just over $13 million in the bank.

The lousy fundraising numbers are sure to add more pressure to Steele, who has been under fire for his management of the RNC this midterm campaign. On Monday, the RNC filed several amended reports with the FEC, clarifying debts that the party had previously misreported. In September, for example, the RNC had originally reported that it ended August with just $1.2 million in debt. But an amended report filed Monday revealed the party had actually ended August with $2.5 million in debt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 ... nd-the-rnc

Looks like selecting Steele as head of the RNC was the best thing they could have done for the Democrats.

Here's an idea...channel all your conservative-focused hatred into something else that lifts your self esteem and helps others.

Hey! I have an idea! How about if both the RNC and the DNC donate that money to the Treasury to help pay off the national debt?

Oh...wait...that would be bipartisan cooperation. What was I thinking???!!!

It's called 'thinking outside the ballot box'. I like it!

When the RINO's have called me for money this season, I have told them I am donating to individual candidates not parties so I can decide who gets the money.

I still have no idea why this bozo is still around. I do the same thing SS109, the parties are corrupt and wasteful middlemen.

JMC wrote: I still have no idea why this bozo is still around.

I'll cast political correctness to the wind while allowing those who don't know me to accuse me of racism, but the answer to JMC's question is quite simple...

Steele is still around because of...the color of his skin.

If he were a white man, he would have been forced out a long time ago; or would have done the honorable thing and resigned. However, with a black man in the white house, the Republican party apparently feels that an inept and corrupt RNC leader can be endured. Firing a black man in an election year--especially when the party has the upper hand on issues--would be suicidal.

There...no one else will call out the elephant in the room, so I will.

JusSayin wrote:

JMC wrote: I still have no idea why this bozo is still around.

I'll cast political correctness to the wind while allowing those who don't know me to accuse me of racism, but the answer to JMC's question is quite simple...

Steele is still around because of...the color of his skin.

If he were a white man, he would have been forced out a long time ago; or would have done the honorable thing and resigned. However, with a black man in the white house, the Republican party apparently feels that an inept and corrupt RNC leader can be endured. Firing a black man in an election year--especially when the party has the upper hand on issues--would be suicidal.

There...no one else will call out the elephant in the room, so I will.

Are you really saying that if Steele was white the RNC would have ousted him?.....hmmmm, wonder why the Rep party didn't oust Maes....he's not black, and he is certainly harming the Republican party. maybe, just maybe there are other reasons than the color of Steele's skin. Ya think?

Guess only liberals can give the Republicans credit for looking beyond race..............my feeling is they don't want to rock the boat or admit a mistake right before an election......Steele could be purple and they would keep him......or white.

archer wrote: ......Steele could be purple and they would keep him.....

I respectfully disagree. If Steele were purple, one of two things would have happened:
1) The RNC would have fired him because there are no purple voters to alienate by doing so; or
2) The RNC would have fired him because there are no purple voters to alienate by doing so AND the Minnesota Vikings would have signed him as an offensive lineman to protect their quarterback.

JusSayin wrote: Here's an idea...channel all your conservative-focused hatred into something else that lifts your self esteem and helps others.

Since when is posting a news story considered "hatred"?

Oh, if it's a news story about the Republican Party...