The original piece bafflingly buries the sexed-up lede in the sixth paragraph, beneath some fairly ho-hum reporting about Michael Steele “once . . . rais[ing] the possibility of using party money to buy a private jet for his travel.” So to the DC editors, the story is not that the chairman of the Republican party expensed a lesbian sex show, it is that he thought about doing something else that might be seen as wasteful and abusive of his office.Ignoring the pros or cons of a lesbian show as a team building event (err, that would be some team*), is this the first salvos of the battle to de-fenestrate Michael Steele? If so, who's the replacement? Sarah Palin?
* I thought you said we'd ignore that. (Come on, this is Journalism. isn't it?)