The Washington Times - January 8, 2010, 02:41PM

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele attacked the Washington Times today in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, making the following statement.:

Steele: I don’t know who these people are. Folks need to understand that anything that comes out of The Washington Post or The Washington Times is jaundiced and prejudiced against me. All you have to do is read the articles. If I’m so bad in fundraising how come I beat the Democrats in fundraising in five or six out of 12 months? (video below)


Mr. Steele seems to be lashing out a lot lately, but just because Mr. Steele may not have liked yesterday’s article by Washington Times reporter Ralph Hallow does not mean Mr. Steele is doing the RNC any favors these days, or that there aren’t any big differences between the Washington Times and The Washington Post.

The charge that the Washington Times is biased against Mr. Steele is utterly ludicrous. Why would the paper be prejudiced against him? What would be the point?
The most recent article on Steele, by Mr. Hallow, stands on its own. Facts are facts. It was not Mr. Hallow complaining about Mr. Steele; it was a host of top Republicans, by name, who went on the record to criticize him. Likewise with the reporting on the RNC’s cash position in comparison to where it was in other cycles: A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. That the RNC has fewer dollars on hand now than in the past is not an opinion or prejudice of the Times, but a simple, demonstrable, inarguable fact.