Agorism
12-27-2010, 11:08 AM
As RNC conservatives launch Dump Steele effort, race returns to fore
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/As_RNC_conservatives_launch_Dump_Steele_effort_rac e_returns_to_fore.html
A group of conservatives on the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) governing board have launched an “Anybody but Steele” campaign and are gathering pledges from other committee members that they won’t back the beleaguered party chairman, POLITICO has learned.
Members of the Republican National Conservative Caucus (RNCC) held a conference call and sent emails last week in attempt to build support for what they’re calling a “Resolution of Commitment.”
The same group is also working on a similar, but far more targeted, campaign to convince the five Republicans challenging Steele not to strike any agreement with him that could improve his prospects - what they’re calling a “No Deal With Steele Pledge.”
James Bopp, the Republican committeeman from Indiana and a leader of the RNCC, declined to offer any specifics about how many pledges they had received for either effort, directing inquiries to Oregon committeeman Solomon Yue, another RNCC leader. Yue didn’t return an email.
But the conservatives’ Dump Steele effort has caught the attention of the incumbent’s loyalists and just before Christmas touched off an angry, racially-tinged email exchange between Bopp, a supporter of Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus's RNC bid, and Idaho GOP Chairman and Steele backer Norm Semanko.
Sending a copy of his message to the 168 members of the full RNC, Semanko complained in a message Thursday to Bopp and Yue that he had an email forwarded to him regarding the conference call that was aimed at garnering signatures for the anti-Steele efforts.
“The email was only sent to 26 RNC Members…far less than the 90-plus RNC Members that belong to the Conservative Caucus,” Semanko, the party’s new general counsel, wrote in the email, obtained by POLITICO.
Osentibly, Semanko’s gripe was about the two leaders not offering other caucus members notification. He suggested that they were abusing their role atop the conservative bloc of RNC members in what was plainly an attempt to expose their efforts. But he also touched on what he thought the impact could be of their underlying campaign to rally opposition to Steele
“Concern has been expressed among members of the Caucus that these two anti-Steele pledges/resolutions could be viewed as hateful toward Chairman Steele -- regardless of what benign names they may be given,” Semanko wrote. “They are also considered arbitrary in that they, quite literally, purport to support anyone but Chairman Steele, without consideration of any particular candidate's qualifications.”
To this, Bopp responded with seeming fury.
“Norm, are you some liberal professor at some liberal arts college enforcing their ‘hate speech’ prohibition?” he demanded of the Idaho GOP chair. “Is our brand-spanking-new General Counsel now the self-appointed speech police? Or were you asked by Chairman Steele to assume this role?”
Continuing, Bopp inferred that by “hateful” Semanko was alluding to perceptions about how the party was treating its first black national chair.
“I know that liberals view any criticism of someone's conduct to be ‘hateful,’ if the person happens to be black, etc, but I was unaware that we at the RNC had adopted such a political speech code,” he wrote. “In my view, it is not 'hateful" to decide not to vote for Steele because one views his conduct in office to be detrimental to the interests of the Republican Party and the country, even though he happens to be black. To suggest otherwise is playing the race card, again, and it would seem that your considerable legal talents could better be used mounting a substantive defense of Steele, rather than trying to enforce some non-existent and destructive censorship regime on the RNC.”
By “again,” Bopp was referring to Steele’s comment, in declaring his re-election bid, that the party’s willingness to re-elect him would “speak volumes about our willingness to truly be the party of Lincoln.”
An aggrieved Semanko responded that he was merely asking “some simple procedural questions” about the conservative caucus.
“Rather than acknowledging my concerns and answering my questions directly, you have chosen to level a personal attack on me -- a fellow member of the RNC and the Conservative Caucus,” he wrote, adding: “That is unfortunate, but I accept it for what it is; just more angry and negative than anything I could have imagined from a fellow conservative Republican.”
Semanko concluded: “I'm sorry to have taken up your time today. Blessings for a wonderful Christmas season and a happy New Year.”
It's not clear that the RNCC's anti-Steele campaign will even be necessary. The embattled chairman has won little additional support since announcing his re-election bid beyond his small band of loyalists on the committee. He suffered another blow Sunday night when Priebus announced that he had picked up the backing of California committeeman Shawn Steel, previously a staunch backer of the incumbent.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/As_RNC_conservatives_launch_Dump_Steele_effort_rac e_returns_to_fore.html
A group of conservatives on the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) governing board have launched an “Anybody but Steele” campaign and are gathering pledges from other committee members that they won’t back the beleaguered party chairman, POLITICO has learned.
Members of the Republican National Conservative Caucus (RNCC) held a conference call and sent emails last week in attempt to build support for what they’re calling a “Resolution of Commitment.”
The same group is also working on a similar, but far more targeted, campaign to convince the five Republicans challenging Steele not to strike any agreement with him that could improve his prospects - what they’re calling a “No Deal With Steele Pledge.”
James Bopp, the Republican committeeman from Indiana and a leader of the RNCC, declined to offer any specifics about how many pledges they had received for either effort, directing inquiries to Oregon committeeman Solomon Yue, another RNCC leader. Yue didn’t return an email.
But the conservatives’ Dump Steele effort has caught the attention of the incumbent’s loyalists and just before Christmas touched off an angry, racially-tinged email exchange between Bopp, a supporter of Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus's RNC bid, and Idaho GOP Chairman and Steele backer Norm Semanko.
Sending a copy of his message to the 168 members of the full RNC, Semanko complained in a message Thursday to Bopp and Yue that he had an email forwarded to him regarding the conference call that was aimed at garnering signatures for the anti-Steele efforts.
“The email was only sent to 26 RNC Members…far less than the 90-plus RNC Members that belong to the Conservative Caucus,” Semanko, the party’s new general counsel, wrote in the email, obtained by POLITICO.
Osentibly, Semanko’s gripe was about the two leaders not offering other caucus members notification. He suggested that they were abusing their role atop the conservative bloc of RNC members in what was plainly an attempt to expose their efforts. But he also touched on what he thought the impact could be of their underlying campaign to rally opposition to Steele
“Concern has been expressed among members of the Caucus that these two anti-Steele pledges/resolutions could be viewed as hateful toward Chairman Steele -- regardless of what benign names they may be given,” Semanko wrote. “They are also considered arbitrary in that they, quite literally, purport to support anyone but Chairman Steele, without consideration of any particular candidate's qualifications.”
To this, Bopp responded with seeming fury.
“Norm, are you some liberal professor at some liberal arts college enforcing their ‘hate speech’ prohibition?” he demanded of the Idaho GOP chair. “Is our brand-spanking-new General Counsel now the self-appointed speech police? Or were you asked by Chairman Steele to assume this role?”
Continuing, Bopp inferred that by “hateful” Semanko was alluding to perceptions about how the party was treating its first black national chair.
“I know that liberals view any criticism of someone's conduct to be ‘hateful,’ if the person happens to be black, etc, but I was unaware that we at the RNC had adopted such a political speech code,” he wrote. “In my view, it is not 'hateful" to decide not to vote for Steele because one views his conduct in office to be detrimental to the interests of the Republican Party and the country, even though he happens to be black. To suggest otherwise is playing the race card, again, and it would seem that your considerable legal talents could better be used mounting a substantive defense of Steele, rather than trying to enforce some non-existent and destructive censorship regime on the RNC.”
By “again,” Bopp was referring to Steele’s comment, in declaring his re-election bid, that the party’s willingness to re-elect him would “speak volumes about our willingness to truly be the party of Lincoln.”
An aggrieved Semanko responded that he was merely asking “some simple procedural questions” about the conservative caucus.
“Rather than acknowledging my concerns and answering my questions directly, you have chosen to level a personal attack on me -- a fellow member of the RNC and the Conservative Caucus,” he wrote, adding: “That is unfortunate, but I accept it for what it is; just more angry and negative than anything I could have imagined from a fellow conservative Republican.”
Semanko concluded: “I'm sorry to have taken up your time today. Blessings for a wonderful Christmas season and a happy New Year.”
It's not clear that the RNCC's anti-Steele campaign will even be necessary. The embattled chairman has won little additional support since announcing his re-election bid beyond his small band of loyalists on the committee. He suffered another blow Sunday night when Priebus announced that he had picked up the backing of California committeeman Shawn Steel, previously a staunch backer of the incumbent.