Washington Times: Steele gives in to hardliners on finances

Yes, I know it's the Washington Times, but they probably have this one right.

As we noted earlier, RNC members wanted to force Steele to convene a meeting on 20 May to discuss restricting Steele's control of RNC finances. Apparently Steele had to back down on the financial controls, and on the plan to issue a resolution condemning the Democratic party as "socialist", and on the role of a key RNC operative he had fired. Such backbench rebellions are rare. Perhaps Steele backed down in order to avoid being fired outright.

You have to wonder -- the RNC chair was already a thankless job, even before Steele sailed into torpedo water in his first months on the job. Why did Steele take the job in the first place? Limited options?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/steele-yields-powers-to-foes-in-rnc/