Under Steele, RNC Considered Buying Private Jet, Spent Money At Bondage Themed Club
Tweet
Steele strikes again.
According to two knowledgeable sources, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele once raised the possibility of using party money to buy a private jet for his travel.
“I know that … regular ongoing use of planes was something that was looked at,” says one person with direct knowledge. “I can’t speak to how serious those inquiries were.” Both sources say Steele considered purchasing a plane outright, or buying fractional ownership in one, through a company such as NetJets.
…
Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.
It’s all strategic.
52 Responses to “Under Steele, RNC Considered Buying Private Jet, Spent Money At Bondage Themed Club”
Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The whole “bondage” thing will probably be excused by the Republican National Committee and their pals in the press as “an analogy for tying up Congress.”
Probably a “boy’s night out” with David Vitter and John Ensign. Bondage, bonding….pretty much the same.
Family values, bitches!
A.
Where is the Liberal Media when you need it?
That or “Bill Clinton did it too…snort snort snort”
I don’t see a problem with any of this. You have to run the numbers to see what strategies give you the most bang for your buck (no pun there…). For instance, if you’re trying to reach out to the electorate in some western states, where distances are vast, voters few, but every small town has an airfield, then maybe private airplanes are the way to go.
Similarly, if you’re trying to capture votes from the bondage crowd, well, …
If there were similar expenses on a DNC filing, this story would be on Fox 24/7 for about 3 days. Republicans are much better at exploiting these kinds of things than Democrats.
See, this would have never happened if it weren’t for gay marriage! Steele succumbed to the corrupt morality of us libruls, and just had to see some (simulated) lesbian sex for himself.
Are the Republicans having money issues? They can’t supply a brother with a private jet? Give me a break! And bondage themed clubs with simulated lesbian sex, just another Republican boys night out. Why all the hate?
Why not combine expenses and have topless lesbian-imitating bondage stewardesses? I hear Clarence Thomas once had quite the collection of videos along those lines.
Imagine how much it would have cost Republicans if the club featured real lesbian sex, instead of the simulated variety.
Belt-tightening, bitchez!
but, but….the people exist to serve the Party, right? I mean, why *can’t* we do anything we want with the contributions?
Somehow I am reminded of an old Soviet-era joke:
Q–What is champagne?
A–A beverage consumed by Party officials on behalf of the workers.
This isn’t half the scandal of Howard Dean’s cheap suits.
Just proves my theory that Steele is enjoying the ride.
He knows he has no future in the Republican party. He’s taking these crackers for all they are worth before the inevitably cast him aside,
Good!
maybe with a few sessions with a good mistress and some realizations that sexuality is not the end of the world we’ll get some republicans who can fixate less on the sex lives of others. I applaud this move.
That explains why Steele thinks that a million dollars is not a lot of money.
Getting out of Voyeur West Hollywood for a scratch over 1,600 is no small feat. Some girl lost her job for letting a player like that out the door for less than 2.5K. Maybe there is something to this “fiscal responsibility” nonsense.
“‘Cause dat’s how I roll!”
Michael Steele
Somebody’s going to make a really amazing comedy biopic about Steele in about 15-20 years.
That’s it Mike–use up all of that green before the GOP rips it out of your sweaty palms.
And why simulated lesbian sex? For that kind of money you could have had the real thing.
Republicans just don’t know how to shop around–always buying retail.
Nancy Pelosi thinks this is outrageous!
Farris, are you still running with the “Pelosi had a private jet of gold” smear that failed a few years back? God, I hope so.
[...] This is from the Carlsonington Post, so take it with a grain of salt but: [...]
Methinks it’s time for Steele to go.
Remember: If they pick another black guy, that’s spelled “O – R – E – O”
OMG. Frank, are you actually saying that a member of the GOP should be made to face the music on their
irresponsibility, malfeasance, incompetence or criminality? Wow– Ensign must be about to shit himself if this is the new Republican mindset. But I’m right there with ya buddy on this one.
Ummmmm, but why now?
So… when we say that Catholic officials who have been proven complicit in wrongdoing should be removed from their position of power, we’re bigots.
And here you’re calling for Steele to be removed due to his manifest incompetence…
…so… that makes you a racist, right?
Why don’t they just fire his ass already? Remove him, impeach him, restrain him, whatever.
This guy is basically giving the finger to his own organization. It’s just comical at this point.
He’s saying to them, I double dog DARE you to try and remove me.
Yes he is . . . . And I’m with you about the funny.
No, no…you have it all wrong!
They were a attending a peer group meeting..just a bunch of BOOBs!
Dan
Connie, you are beginning to irritate me .. Leota , you continue to do so.
Rex – well, you’re Rex.
Yeah, I understand the Emperor was pretty pissed off at the little boy who pointed out his lack of fashion sense also.
Hey you Damn kids, get off Frank’s lawn!
It amazes me that even when I agree with the premise, you still berate me … I strongly suggest anger management for all of you …
Actually, the ONLY person who has recommended that the Priests be removed from their parishes is me .
Which is why I have not recommended that Steele’s maiden aunt or second cousin be removed .
Hmm… $1,620.71.
Let’s say your average tea bagger patriot saves his or her nickles and dimes and scrapes together $100 to give to the Republican party.
You have to burn through more than 16 run-of-the-mill, moral outrage peons to get one night of simulated lesbian sex show.
If he were a Democrat , he could say he was doing outreach to GLBTQ community — and get a pass .
If this is acceptable RNC chair behavior, what was the big deal over John Edwards’ expensive haircut that he paid for out of his own pocket?
Actually, the ONLY person who has recommended that the Priests be removed from their parishes is me .
Got anyplace where anyone has said they should remain? Or does your nitpicking require you fault folks for everything they’ve never said?
Because they are them and we are we.
See?
[...] “There are topless ‘dancers’ acting out S&M scenes throughout the night on one of the side stages,” a rave review of Voyeur on Yelp.com describes. “There’s a half-naked girl hanging from a net across the ceiling and at one point I walked to the bathroom and pretty much just stopped dead in my tracks to watch two girls simulating oral sex in a glass case.” Although Steele’s high-flying ways have angered GOP donors, RNC communications director Doug Heye explains, “It takes money to make money.” (HT Oliver Willis) [...]
Can’t imagine how much fun Steve Gillirad would be having with this fool.
Kickin’ that poo-poo doggy chow!
If only Aaron Magruder was still doing “The Boondocks” comic strip…
Sean , every single person embroiled in the “let’s destroy the Church leadership” discussions had more than one opportunity to say that removing the Priests from their parishes would be a good start toward solving this horrid problem.
How do I know that? Because I raised the possibility about a half a dozen times. I said that it indicated that you were more interested in punishing the Church as an institution , than you were in saving children.
You had every opportunity to say “Yes, that would be a good idea, then we can investigate who covered up what, and who allowed what to continue unabated.”
But that never happened . I am trying very hard not to believe that what you are all are suggesting is that the abuse of children go on until the “People at the Top” are punished.
Help me out here .
Frank, you can do two things at once. Shocker, I know.
Besides, who’s to say they won’t just put the molesting priests in another parish? They’ve done it before.
It seems that people like Frank are, sadly, all too common.
And I wasn’t even “playing” with the other kids here………and he called me out………….MOM…..MOMMY, Frank’s pickin’ on meeeeeeeeee!!!!!
I said it Frank. I even posted why I remain Catholic and put links up to progressive Catholic networks and web sites. If I remember correctly, I really don’t remember you commenting on how the Church should handle the abuse. I have however could have missed it, I’ll give you that. In fact, I talked at length about my Church and even Dennis made a comment that when he’s in Cleveland he’d like to visit it. (a kumbaya moment).
Oliver wants us to play nice, so I’ll edit my comments, and, after all I am speaking about Church. Bold statement from you would have not only been get rid of the abusive priests but also, get rid of, demote, excommunicate Ratzinger. After all didn’t the Bishops refuse Communion to Patrick Kennedy simply for supporting a pro-choice agenda.
Progressive Catholics were actually disappointed after the conclave when he was chosen. This was an awful decision particularly since progressive Catholics were aware that he was against Vatican II even though he was “for it” when Pope John Paul was alive, and “against it” after his death (trying to reverse the changes, english Mass which didn’t go over big, for example.) We were hoping for someone who better represented the direction the Church. There were many Cardinals that were from African countries and South American countries that would have been excellent choices. What an amazing statement of growth and inclusion the Church would have made if that had been the decision.
Peace out!
Frank DiS: Sean , every single person embroiled in the “let’s destroy the Church leadership” discussions had more than one opportunity to say that removing the Priests from their parishes would be a good start toward solving this horrid problem.
…
But that never happened . I am trying very hard not to believe that what you are all are suggesting is that the abuse of children go on until the “People at the Top” are punished.
Help me out here .
I’m trying, Frank. But you really don’t act like someone who wants to be helped or is willing to recognize what people are actually saying.
Your describing it as a “let’s destroy the Church leadership” discussion, for example. If you’re going to complain that nobody specifically said “the priests should be removed” (which, for the record, I don’t believe is true, but for the sake of argument let’s assume just for the moment that it is), If you’re going to complain that nobody specifically said “the priests should be removed” then you shouldn’t go putting specific words that were never written in anyone’s mouth.
By protecting these child molesters and providing them the opportunities to continue to molest children the Catholic leadership has failed miserably in it’s responsibilities. It has aided and abetted the abuse of children entrusted to the Church’s care. Repeatedly. Over long periods of time.
And folks have said that that is wrong. That those responsible for the abuse, both directly and as enabling accomplices should be held responsible for those actions and punished.
To respond to those statements with “You never specifically said the priests should be removed so you clearly think they shouldn’t be” is the height of credulity.
I am trying very hard not to believe that what you are all are suggesting is that the abuse of children go on until the “People at the Top” are punished.
Nonsense. In truth what you’re trying very hard not to believe is that the leaders of your faith have consistently and repeatedly demonstrated a callous and criminal disregard for the safety and well being of children.
It is a common practice to remove teachers who have been accused of abuse from classroom duty. I was only suggesting that Priests be removed from the presence of children [ Zython ? ].
I know I suggested it many times … If Connie did, too, good for her.
In that case, no one , except Connie , has suggested that the Priests be removed from the presence of children.
And , Sean , you can do it right now … Unless hanging the Pope is more important to you than protecting children ( it’s a little uncomfortable when the “extremist’s position” shoe is on the other foot, isn’t it? ).
Frank, why the bug up your ass about this? You keep harping about nobody flat out stating priests should be removed from thier posts (a premise I still don’t agree is true, but moving on). Show me one place where anyone has said pedophile priests should remain in place.
We’re saying shame on the leadership for not taking steps to protect children they knew were being harmed. How in the world do you see that as people not wanting the priests removed from their positions?
For about the umpteenth time, Frank: what do you think should be done with pedophiles and those who cover up for them and/or provide them opportunities to continue their abuse?
By your own standard, I haven’t seen you say that anything should be done about them so clearly you don’t think anything should. You think protecting the Catholic leadership is more important than protecting children.
That right?
It is a common practice to remove teachers who have been accused of abuse from classroom duty. I was only suggesting that Priests be removed from the presence of children
Show me one place where anyone here has disagreed with you on that.
I think that Priests who are pedophiles should be treated like any other accused pedophiles — tried , and sentenced appropriately. The Church , by attempting a “sin and repentance” solution to this problem , has ‘screwed the pooch’ on this, creating more problems than they had to begin with.
However, I am not prepared to view the Church’s Administrative role as criminal , until I know whether or not their behavior was theologically motivated. If was strictly CYA , then do whatever must be done. But if you’re waiting to see the Pope in orange overalls , don’t hold your breath.
Frank DiS: However, I am not prepared to view the Church’s Administrative role as criminal , until I know whether or not their behavior was theologically motivated.
Just trying to grasp the concept here, Frank. If my religion believes in sacrificing virgins, you’d not view my killing pre-teens as a crime because it’s motivated by my theology?
Whether something is a crime or not depends on whether the person doing it believes it is?