Washington Times Trolls Gutter for RNC Critics
Judging by recent Washington Times coverage, the Republican National Committee is a hotbed of dissension — even after big GOP wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and most recently Massachusetts. But at the RNC winter meeting in Honolulu, in a series of key RNC ballots on party fundraising and candidate selection, there was not a single dissenting vote.
The centerpiece of the January 29 open session at the RNC winter meeting in Honolulu featured a speech by RNC Chairman Michael Steele touting a one-year GOP move “from looking at its navel to holding our head high.” Looking towards the November elections, Steele told committee members: “We will contest every seat from D to H — from the first state, Delaware, to the 50th state, Hawaii. We will begin by taking the seat where [Obama] was born. And we will finish by taking his Senate seat in Illinois.”
In the face of RNC leaders’ optimism about Republican chances in November, the Washington Times has reached out to some odd sources in its search for evidence of Republican dissension. On January 29 as the RNC met, the Times’ coverage — “Steele told he must win tea partiers’ trust” — included this complaint from one Dale Robertson:
“I have called into the RNC many times, and they still haven’t called me back,” Dale Robertson, head of TeaParty.org, which he claims has upward of 7 million members, told the Times. “I’ve called them, lots of times. I called them this morning. I called them yesterday. It’s like they ignore you as they try to figure out a strategy on how to defeat you.”
Interestingly, the Times ran the exact same quote from Robertson on January 19 in an article titled “‘Tea party’ activists feel slighted by GOP.” Did Robertson call the RNC on the morning of the 19th or the morning of the 29th? Or is the quote being recycled because it helps make the meme?
Why are some so hot to go to press with even the shakiest evidence of trouble within the GOP? California GOP National Committeeman Shawn Steel explains in a January 14 Politico commentary that “[Michael] Steele fired much of the RNC’s dead wood” and points to “Republican D.C. vendors, anyone considered to be ‘professional’ in politics.” Writes Steel: “During the Bush go-go years, the RNC paid millions to carefully favored vendors. The howling you hear is the groans of those who no longer receive unearned no-bid contracts. They don’t like the new sheriff.”
The January 19 and 29 articles weren’t the first Washington Times mentions of Robertson. A January 6 article, “Tea party head warns GOP of Fla. repeat,” describes Robertson as “a founder of the tea party movement” — a title better claimed by Rick Santelli. Unchallenged by the Times, Robertson bizarrely takes credit for a change of state party leadership by Florida Republicans and threatened repeat performances. He says, “We are turning our guns on anyone who doesn’t support constitutional conservative candidates.”
Contrary to claims he is “founder of the modern-day tea party,” tea party activists in Robertson’s Houston hometown say they had booted him out of their tea party rally on February 27, 2009, after he showed up with a sign comparing taxpayers to “niggar.” The liberal Washington Independent on January 4 — joined by bloggers from the formerly conservative Little Green Footballs — had a field day exposing Robertson after a commercial event of his popped up on Resistnet. The liberal site Drudge Retort on January 5, 2010, gleefully called Robertson the “teabaggers’ grand wizard.” The very next day the Washington Times began touting Robertson as a tea party leader — with no reference to the photo controversy. Was the Times turned on to Robertson by the liberal blogs?
Robertson is a wrong number and anybody here in Houston who is even remotely connected with Tea Party knows it…I’m almost inclined to believe he is some sort of agent provocateur from the lefty fever swamps doing his best to try and discredit Tea Party..and,naturally,the lap dog press eats up what he says,since that is their intention as well.
I think, to be pro-conservative, one is forced to be anti-Republican.
The Tea Party movement continues to flush more creeps, deadwood and worms out of their hiding places better and faster than anything has since the American Revolution.
Michael Steele had no more to do with the successful GOP wins in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts than you did Mr. Walden. They are the exclusive property of the Tea Party movement; the power of all of the people in one active voice which the establishment now fears more than anything else.
Further, Mr. Steele shot a hole in his own foot day one by moving race dead center on the stage. Not a smart move. Tea Party folks represent all of America, not sections or segments designed to win elections or please the ill natured mainstream media.
Oh, pull your skirt down Mr. Walden.
No one wants to look at your petty envy either.
Somebody, if not the WT, needs to deconstruct the GOP.
Get the CCCC’s (Country club Committee Chairs) out of the GOP, and put some good old fashioned American gutter snipes up there — or disband it altogether.
@3. Sniff.. sniff..:
So very true! This article would make The Left Wing Media proud.
For a while, the RNC was calling me every week looking for money. Every time the RNC calls, I ask them which constitutional conservatives their money is going to support. No answer (it’s not in their script). I ask them why the RNC/GOP has spent three decades coddling and compromising with the socialists who now own the Democrat Party. No answer.
They were especially active right after Brown’s victory in MA. Their calling script inferred, without stating outright, that the RNC had been instrumental in that victory. After the spiel I made it clear that I knew who organized the million-dollar-a-day fundraising for Brown… and that it was most definitely NOT the RNC, who had abandoned him until the Tea Party Independents and conservative grass roots forced them to change direction.
The irony that puts the lie to the implications of this article is that Brown is a “moderate” Republican, not much different from the core of the present RNC. As such, this clearly demonstrates that the RNC had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in supporting the election of a Senator who would endanger the Democrats’ plan to ram socialized medicine down Americans’ throats. They only changed this stance when they were forced to. This is the RNC in a nutshell: support endless expansion of government as long as they can point the finger at “the other guys”. In that regard, they are no different from the DNC.
I happen to agree with Ryan Booth, and I think apologists for Steele and the RNC’s so-called “leadership” should spend less time nit-picking “supposedly conservative” outfits like the Times and a little more time explaining the decidedly non-conservative record of Steele and his ilk.
Maybe someone on the inside can take a moment to publish the strings that are attached to all this money they’re supposedly raising? Because everywhere I look, people are doing exactly what’s described here – bypassing the feckless RNC and donating directly to candidates who either represent or who will ultimately facilitate real government reform instead of either pushing or acquiescing to “health care reform”.
Steele seems a nice enough person, but IMHO, as a conservative leader, he’s a frequent embarrassment and, worse, a clear detriment to the Republican Form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution. Does that opinion make me a “marginal critic”? “Supposedly conservative”? If so, I’m happy to observe that I’m in good company.
I think a more important “test” for the RNC will be the “Stay the Heck out of the Primaries” test.
We’ve had some good candidates cut off at the Knees by the RNC in the past (can you say Toomie) in favor of RNC favored candidates. Arlin Specticle comes to mind. So how did that work out again?
That’s the Real Story within the GOP. Of course expecting anyone in the Ivory Tower and Cloistered Editorial Closets to understand that is mere fantasy.
The first stirrings of the Tea Party Movement were heard in 2006 when callers to talk radio were saying “Republicans Deserve To Loose.” They are ramping up, and they are going to be heard. The RNC is only the first stop, the Drive By Media are on their list too.
jd
I see all the Democrats and Ron Paultroons are on this board doing their level best to serve lord Obama by making sure the Democrats win in 2010. All “boycott GOP” efforts are nothing but “elect Democrats” efforts.
If this is anti-RNC stuff is so widespread . . .
1) Why is the RNC raising so much money?
2) Why can’t the Wash Times find credible sources for its anti-RNC stories?
I appreciate seeing a poorly written washington times article analyzed. Its only a conservative publication as compared to other marxist media outlets.
There is much dissention within the republican party–or at least between conservative voters and republicans. Perhaps the leadership at the national level is of one mind, but if so, its not a good mind.
If the old guard which lost to obama thinks that Sen Brown’s election vindicates their dystopian leadership and they feel its safe to stay the course a la bush, they will lost the following election. Then the democrats will make the mistaken notion that staying the course is working for them and they will lose the one after that.
Goy, I should have read you post first and saved my typing–well said. The republican-conservative split is The political story of this year. But ironically, both the mainstream marxist media and the republican apologists are simply incapable of getting their minds around it.
@7. Wish Times: – All “boycott GOP” efforts…
Looking around, the only mention of ‘boycott GOP’ is in your post. People who are withholding their money from the RNC so that they can give it directly to candidates who represent their views is hardly the same as working to “elect Democrats”. Based on your tone, you seem to be fine with mindlessly supporting the RNC irrespective of the damage it’s doing to the Republic by supporting quislings whose only goal is to grow government and compromising with the socialists.
The RNC’s initial dismissal of Scott Brown is ALL the evidence needed to demonstrate their complicity in furthering the socialist agenda. If the RNC had had their way, Obamacare would be the law of the land today. An even passably conservative political organization would have been pulling out all the stops to support a candidate whose election had a chance of delaying or derailing socialized medicine. Given the critical nature of that issue, and all their adolescent bragging about the millions they’ve collected – as if that were the sole purpose of the RNC – they could certainly have afforded it!
I get the Washington Times every week. There is no denying its conservative bona fides, but there is no question it has been going after Steele. It will all get sorted out.
GOY writes:
Looking around, the only mention of ‘boycott GOP’ is in your post. People who are withholding their money from the RNC…
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. A genuine inability to avoid self contradiction even within two sentences.
#12 Ronald Reagan – Your criticism is not really correct.
Witholding money from the GOP in order to go over their heads to promote individual candidates is not necessarily a boycott. If the RNC were to ask for donations for very specific things or candidates, they might get the funding. If, however, they just ask for money to continue in their usual Party fashion, they will see no money.
We’re not buying what they’re selling, but if they sell something else, we might buy.
Eventually, the Tea Party movement will ideally cause a Reformation of the Republican Party. It is essentially a Conservative revolt against ALL the bums. It is also a war within the Republican ranks for control of the Party. It is between (r)epublicans and (R)epublicans. The Party has to stop being about power politics, and become about principles. Then, the disaffected of both Parties will unite within its ranks and reform the country.
When did Drudge become liberal? I think the author must be ignorant or perhaps delusional.
@12. Ronald Reagan: – … self contradiction …
Uhm… last I checked, conservative Republicans who are the beneficiaries of this process are still members of the GOP.
Giving you the unearned benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume you know the difference between the RNC and the GOP. If your contention is that a person’s informed decision – i.e., to put their money where they believe it will do the most good – automatically constitutes a “boycott” of the GOP, then you need to try again. Engage the brain next time, it might help.
Having attended the Minnesota State Republican convention last year, I can attest to the fact that republican party leadership considered Ron Paul and his supporters the mortal enemy. Through manipulating the balloting process, they ensured that Ron Paul supporters did not become delegates to the national convention. The districts that supported Ron Paul were placed the farthest from the stage.
Moral of the story: Party leadership has its own agenda, and for republicans in minnesota, its a christian rather than small government one.
We have a new state chairman this year–is he conservative outside of religious issues? Don’t know yet, but they are not getting a dollar of my money.
PT Bull
Thank you for confirming that the Paultroons are behind this attack on the RNC. And thank you for affirming that you are engaged in promotion of a boycott against the GOP.
The Minnesota GOP leadership is 100% correct. If anything, their line against Paul was not hard enough.
Ron Paul is a fake conservative leading an effort to disrupt the GOP on behalf of US surrender worldwide. He intends to legalize drugs and prostitution in order to promote decadence.
If he were to win (no chance of that happening) America would be finished because both major parties would be committed to national self-destruction.
Paultroons are merely engaged in s psy-ops attack on conservatism. They have failed, but are too deeply into their own cult to recognize it. For that same reason, they fail to grasp the inherent contradiction in their choice to follow “wild shrimp”–Houston’s king of pork.
14. David S:
“When did Drudge become liberal? I think the author must be ignorant or perhaps delusional.”
The article cites the Drudge ReTort, not the Drudge RePort. Click the embedded link. (Sigh)
David S #14- The author referred to the Drudge ‘Retort’ site not the Drudge Report site. I hope that is helpful to you.
“But at the RNC winter meeting in Honolulu, in a series of key RNC ballots on party fundraising and candidate selection, there was not a single dissenting vote.”
Yep, the RNC sounds more like the Politburo every day.
Joseph: “Yep, the RNC sounds more like the Politburo every day.”
Good. This can be the Paultroons’ next line of atack. The Republicans are really Communists in disgusie. You show great promise. Lord Paul himself blesses you with a taxpayer-subsidized bag of frozen shrimp.
As for poor little “David S” — check out his website–he claims 9/11 truthers are searching for the truth. No surprise there. Amazing how many Paultroons and truthers are on this comment board pretending to be conservatives while trashing the RNC.
Ron Paul looked like a big shot online during the GOP primaries–but come Primary Day, he was a nobody.
I stopped reading the Times after they dropped their Sports Section and summarily dismissed some of the best columnists in town. I was a print subscriber since they started and always checked out their web site everyday since moving out of the DC area. But there seems to be something strange going on with the management over there, so Sayanora to the Times.