August 23, 2010
— Ace The Daily Caller reports:
“It’s standard operating procedure” to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that “at least half the bloggers that are out there” on the Republican side “are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales.”
No, it's really not. This is some guy offering this reporter the quote he wants -- but it's not SOP, at least not that I've heard.
...One pro-Poizner blogger, Aaron Park, was discovered to be a paid consultant to the Poizner campaign while writing for Red County, a conservative blog about California politics. Red County founder Chip Hanlon threw Park off the site upon discovering his affiliation, which had not been disclosed.
Okay, there's one guy. But The Daily Caller uses that one instance to prove a general trend through that article-making "standard operating procedure" quote.
...Besides campaigns, industry groups and other political groups oftentimes pay bloggers for their insights.
Dan Riehl, who writes the Riehl World View blog, is one of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s most vocal defenders in the conservative blogosphere. When The Daily Caller reported the RNC spent $1,946 at a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex acts, Riehl blasted the piece as a “pathetically weak story tailored to play to the Left and create problems for the GOP.”
“Riehl World View” readers might be interested to know that Riehl is not simply a blogger, but also a paid consultant to the RNC. In an interview, Riehl said he was paid an amount in the “hundreds of dollars” for writing a strategy document on how the RNC could better reach out to bloggers. Riehl said his motivation for defending Steele was to aid the Republican Party, and that he didn’t disclose his consulting work because, “I didn’t see it as having anything to do with my views.”
“I never made enough money to be bought,” he said.
Other bloggers openly lament how few campaign dollars are flowing their way. Conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain complains that politicians aren’t purchasing more advertising on blogs. “Advertising buys good will,” he says.
If it appears that conservative bloggers are more likely to take campaign money than their liberal counterparts, there may be a reason. According to Dan Riehl, conservatives canÂ’t rely on the infrastructure of foundations and think tanks that supports so many liberal bloggers.
Riehl has made it a goal to mobilize conservative benefactors and organizers to establish a funding infrastructure mimicking what the liberal “netroots” created during the Bush years. “They did it the smart way,” Riehl says.
On the left, many of the once independent bloggers are now employed by, or receive money from, liberal organizations like Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and Campaign for AmericaÂ’s Future.
It was not a secret that the RNC paid me a few hundred bucks for a document.I devoted hours and hours of my own time over a period of months trying to coordinate an effort involving many top bloggers and the RNC to improve communications and legal, legitimate cooperation in a partisan sense. I stress that, as it was the RNC that made me aware of certain FEC restrictions, which we were careful to not violate. That's why money wasn't involved. I made phone calls, took meetings, paid Metro and lunch costs, all out of my own pocket because I am dedicated to improving the blogosphere in an ethical manner - as well as winning politically for Republicans at the ballot box. I won't name which top bloggers were involved, but there are many that could vouch for these facts if they wanted to. If they want to stay out of it, that's fine, too.
If I had done it as a consultant, I'd likely have charged in the tens of thousands of dollars. I didn't. When all was said and done, the RNC asked me to write up a concise document based on the knowledge that was discovered from the process. It's called knowledge transfer, actually. I promptly disclosed to all involved bloggers that I had a chance to make a few hundred bucks for doing that, and only that - and I was taking it, if there were no objections. If they had any objections, none were conveyed to me at the time. So, see, it never really was a secret. It was so insignificant, especially in light of the many, many hours of non-paid, volunteer work I had done in the effort, it never even occurred to me to disclose it on my blog. It was simply insignificant as compared to the larger non-paid effort.
As a consultant, I would have billed a few thousand dollars for the document. DC consultants are notoriously over-paid. Instead, I charged a few hundred, mostly it was as a token of appreciation, really. And guess what, the Daily Caller's silly strip club story killed all that work. The RNC pulled in on itself, staff changes were made - and, so far as I know, the document I did designed to help the blogosphere and RNC relationship as a whole, simply got shelved. And, by the way, the out of pocket expenses some struggling bloggers paid on their own for calls, or a meeting, that all went down the drain, too.
Heckuva job, Tucker, heckuva job, you clueless idiot. And now everyone knows why I was so pissed and fought back so hard at the time. It never was about Steele, money and, or for, me, it was about helping all struggling, unpaid, Indie blogs and bloggers, each and everyone.
First of all, here's the answer to the question people are probably asking:
No, but... kind of.
Twice I had conversations with people in DC in which the notion of a pushing a story for pay was suggested, once very vaguely, once more tangibly. The first time I didn't say anything because I wasn't really being asked; the second time I said no.
As I tried to sell it to myself I just couldn't. And I did try to sell it to myself. I tried every argument I could think of to somehow figure out a way that me getting money was a proper thing.
I didn't run anything on either, by the way. (And neither did any coblogger, and neither was there a link... there wasn't anything about it at all.)
The problem with this is that was that even if the story I was being asked to push was the sort of thing I would push... well, I couldn't get past the pay-for-play aspect of it. Because even though I would push it, if I came across it and found it interesting, the problem was I wouldn't typically come across it and find it interesting. It was a good story, but... Eh, I couldn't do it.
Not just because I'm such a terrific and ethical guy, but because I knew, let's face it: At some point an article like the Daily Caller's would come out, and I would have to write this post, and I would either have to lie to readers or confess I'd lied to them earlier.
Now here's the part about "kind of:" That project Dan is talking about, about trying to set up some sort of system on the right like they have on the left to help fund struggling bloggers?
Yeah I know of multiple such plans cooking. Many bloggers in the DC area have been trying to get that sort of thing off the ground for ages. They never do. But I hear about them.
One guy recently mentioned that to me, his efforts to get some kind of funding pool set up for the blogosphere, and lamented (as all these guys do) that Republicans with money are simply not interested in the internet. The way it was explained to me is thus: They're older and more conventional. They haven't embraced the internet. They use it, but they don't really appreciate it as a legitimate form of communication.
(I'm speaking here of wealthy Republican donors generally and not, say, the people who donate to this site, who are clearly internet-friendly. I mean as a general matter.)
They like things that are tried-and-true, tested, tangible. They like donating to the RNC -- hey, it's a corporation with an organizational chart and office space. They will donate to magazines: They're tangible things; everyone understands that a magazine can inform and persuade.
To one guy I said: The trick you have to pull is to sell this partly as a physical magazine each blogger will contribute an essay or article to. You set it up as half for the magazine, half for just keeping the blogosphere going; but at the end of the day, they want something physical they can hold in their hand. You sort of have to make-pretend with the magazine aspect and give them that because they just don't want to donate to anything as sketchy as the internet.
Anyway, it has long been my belief, based on personal experience, that this was a necessary thing, and that unless that happened this site, and a bunch of others, would simply go away.
Now back to the "kind of:" At long last one of these many plans seemed to be making genuine progress -- and that caused me to pull punches about the RNC, because I didn't want to seem like the sort of guy who wasn't a team player, and who thirsted to do Red-on-Red attacks. Given that these donors are conventional guys and like the RNC, I didn't want to be seen as Joe Tear Down The System Wild Man.
This was about, I don't know, 8-12 months ago. The restraining-myself thing happened for like two months (but also during a period of a lot of anti-Steele stories).
But since this thing never actually happened -- funding for the blogosphere on the right is the future, and always will be just the future -- I said to someone one day, "Jeeze, I'm acting like I'm bought off and no one's even given me a dime." And on that day I went Red-on-Red and shellacked Steele.
But there was a corrupting thing, in that I wasn't popping off about Steele the way you might expect me to, and yes, that was because I was trying to refrain from Red-on-Red, and yes that was because I didn't want to seem like a lose cannon who would attack other Republicans. I wasn't really defending him, but I also wasn't jumping in to attack as frequently as I otherwise would.
No one said I couldn't or shouldn't pop off about Steele; but the idea was in my head anyway, and I refrained from dumping on him as much as I wanted to or typically would because I thought (wrongly) one of these many projects was finally going to happen and I didn't want to be That Asshole Who Ruined Everything For Everybody.
But yes; Corrupt. I did not write exactly what I wanted and yes this was due to the thought of money out there, somewhere, somewhere at the end of the rainbow.
You know when someone's easy to bribe? When you don't even have to give them money, you just have to put it in his head that maybe, one day, someday, there might be some money.
By the way, that had nothing to do with my semi-defense of the RNC for the Daily Caller-promoted "Voyeur" affair: The media shits kept implying it was a "lesbian bondage sex club" when in fact it's a bar, with, yes, a theme of that sort of thing. But it's not a sex club any more than NYC's Jekyll & Hyde is a transform-into-a-monster club. A "theme" is not a reality.
I thought that was a totally overhyped attack on the RNC -- No, the donors should not have been taken to that club (even if they asked) on the RNC's dime, given that the RNC has so many Christian donors who object to such stuff. But to portray a bar with a kinky theme a "sex club" is yet another media lie designed to hurt conservatism.
The media is always incredibly eager to push wedge issues that hurt conservatives -- if a story splits conservatives and independents, they love it. If it splits conservatives from the main conservative party, they love it.
They never push such wedge issues that hurt Democrats -- in fact, they try their level best to either disappear such stories entirely or convince the feuding factions that there really is no dispute, that all sides can agree and move on (and vote together in harmony).
But still, yes, the decision generally not to carpet-bomb Steele when frankly that's what I wanted to do (and that's what most readers wanted me to do) was made with the idea that hey, if I go too hard on the RNC, I'll scare away whatever donors might be persuaded to give a little bit to a general funding mechanism for the blogosphere. Instead of hitting Steele maybe six times, I hit him three instead.
I can only say in my defense: Dan Riehl's quite right, this sort of thing has to happen at some point, or else there just won't be the sort of right-wing blogosphere you see now. At some point you get too old to be working for minimum wage.
I can also say: I found out fairly early that there were not the votes to remove Steele-- quite the opposite -- and that the RNC had decided it was better to limp along with him than push a high-profile black chairman out office. I disagreed with that assessment, but I knew that was the assessment that had been made, and to further attack Steele was in fact a distraction, because no matter what happened, he wasn't going anywhere.
I also know that there is factionalism going on here, with anti-Steele stories being pushed by the anti-Steele faction. Which I have no problem with, because I'm no fan of Steele; but at the end of the day, if you're going to take a shot at the king, make sure you hit him.
But if the RNC is determined to keep this guy through his term (which it is), what is the point of this fighting over him? He's not going anywhere, and no one is going to do a damn thing about him. Honestly, and this isn't a corrupted decision, I really think this:
If you're not actually going to take him out, why the hell are you pushing stuff like this? If you're not going to follow through with the solution, why are you spreading word of the problem? If you have no solution, stop highlighting the problem.
Michael Steele's a retard. Everyone knows this. But if you're going to keep him in place, maybe stop with all the retard leaks.
So that's my story. I never took any money for any story.
On the other hand, I did refrain from going full-throttle on Steele because, without being told I should keep quiet and act as if I were bought off, I did in fact keep (mostly) quiet and act if I were (kinda) bought off. No one said I should do that, but I took it upon myself to act the way I thought a Good Soldier who wanted to take the king's coin should. I passed on like two or three anti-Steele stories and I only hit him like three or four times. I was sparing in my Steele coverage, by design.
And to this day I still haven't had any RNC ads running on the site. That's part of the temptation to do this, by the way: There are professionals in politics who draw a decent and stable salary for the work they do for the cause, but bloggers are expected to do it for free, to be volunteers; that everyone will save on costs by getting free media in the blogs.
Which works out nicely for everyone... except bloggers.
This causes resentment. I got annoyed when the Tea Party Express kept asking me to promote Joe Miller. I know they all get paid -- they're professionals. But instead of buying an ad and paying me, they just wanted me to promote their fundraising for Miller.
I didn't push Miller the first day they asked because of that annoyance. But the second time, I realized what I was doing: I was taking out my resentment at the you-do-this-for-free conservative organizations against a very good candidate I would otherwise support, just because I was annoyed that it had been decided I was Mr. Cheap Date.
So I promoted Joe Miller, as I should have on Friday; I endorse him enthusiastically and without reservation.
But there was distortion here due to money: I didn't promote him on Friday because I was annoyed at the Tea Party Express. (Oh: And I specifically included the direct donation page to Joe Miller, in case anyone didn't want to go through the Tea Party Express; that was my passive-aggressive way of noting that I don't really need them, either, to highlight Miller's campaign. In included the Tea Party Express' donation page just for convenience of readers, figuring many of them probably had already donated so that would make it easier for them to donate again.)
I don't know really how all of this is going to shake out. I do know that organizations like Tea Party Express and the RNC and National Republican Trust and all the other cash-raising ventures have to stop treating bloggers like all we are is a free media opportunity or else sometime in the next year there's going to be a die-off of half the major independent blogs as everyone just finally gives up and gets it through their head that it's time to grow up and get a real job.
These free media opportunities are not going to remain opportunities forever. Either it's not going to be free or this particular media isn't going to exist.
Oh: The reluctance of the Money Guys to embrace the internet as a legitimate, and potentially professional, communication medium is creating these moral hazards: If a guy who's not making any kind of money at all is offered three hundred bucks to write a post he might have (might have) written anyway, it's really increasing the chances he's going to sell himself on the idea that it's okay to do so.
Seriously: I did try to convince myself it was okay to do. I really did. In the end it just wasn't right, and further, it wasn't even a smart move in a cost-benefit analysis: Getting caught (which is something I believe is all but inevitable) is just too costly a proposition.
Still... I can understand how someone could convince himself this was kinda-sorta acceptable. He would know it's wrong, but people are very, very talented at convincing themselves that the thing they want to do is the thing they should do.
Posted by: Ace at
08:07 AM
| Comments (203)
Post contains 3192 words, total size 18 kb.
Wait.
They pay you (a blogger) AND expect you to keep the fact of compensation a secret? That's not right.
But I have no issue if a blogger wants to get paid (like a freelancer) to publish an opinion on a matter...as long as it's disclosed and as long as it's an authentic endorsement. Sorta like columnists are paid for their columns.
Posted by: fiscal ferret, social fruit bat at August 23, 2010 08:44 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Filly at August 23, 2010 08:46 AM (/JOeE)
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 08:46 AM (Cxsey)
Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at August 23, 2010 08:46 AM (OefT/)
Posted by: Penfold at August 23, 2010 08:47 AM (1PeEC)
Of course, the FEC never considered the MFM shilling and lying to protect their favorite America-haters to be in-kind contributions.
Personally, I never understood this problem with having personalities being paid for opinions. If someone is stupid enough to take the word of the person, rather than analyzing their argument, then that person is too stupid for anything useful, to begin with.
I'd prefer if we just went after the obvious violations of law, such as the Indonesian Imbecile having allowed ANONYMOUS campaign donations on his site (intentionally, since the default AVS checking was turned off). That is more than enough for a quick impeachment and conviction ... but no one has the guts to even talk about it. That is the problem. Maybe I can pay some bloggers to pound on that issue?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 08:47 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Fresh Air at August 23, 2010 08:48 AM (mQ6sV)
Posted by: Navycopjoe on his IPhone4 at August 23, 2010 08:48 AM (tkTH3)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at August 23, 2010 08:48 AM (0GFWk)
On the other hand the checks from the Kitteh National Committee always arrive on time via direct deposit. The same cannot be said of the DoggehNC.
Posted by: Mætenloch at August 23, 2010 08:50 AM (LNaPt)
So... the upshot is that political money for bloggers doesn't pay more than hobo pelts. The article itself claims that this political money pays more than advertising. Ergo, hobo pelts pay more than advertising?
Posted by: Anachronda at August 23, 2010 08:50 AM (NmR1a)
Ha.
Is this the best that Tucker can do? I guess it is better copy and less work than investigating/writing about the tangled web of liberal Democrats front groups, union connections, kickbacks and sex parties with farm animals.
Posted by: Marcus T at August 23, 2010 08:51 AM (9hDVG)
Posted by: toby928 at August 23, 2010 12:43 PM (S5YRY)
I knew it had been too long.
Posted by: The Republican Party at August 23, 2010 08:52 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Palin Steele at August 23, 2010 12:51 PM (OWjjx)
Any truth to the rumor Axelrod pays in Skittles?
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 08:53 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 12:46 PM (Cxsey)
The three front-running theories for CJ's weirdness were:
1. Insanity
2. Blackmail
3. Money
If it's common on the Left, then number 3 would make more sense. I just thought the guy got a GF and was an asshole.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 23, 2010 08:53 AM (oIp16)
Yeah, sure, it might taint our view of the blogger if he's a GOP shill rather than a principled conservative, but you read a blogger because he or she can write well about politics from a point of view that you expect.
Posted by: AmishDude at August 23, 2010 08:53 AM (T0NGe)
Amen, either get rid of him or keep him and STFU.
As for the big thing on paying bloggers, I would only consider that unethical if the blogger was touting himself as a news organization.
There is no secret that AOS is a conservative site and that it favors Republicans.
Posted by: Vic at August 23, 2010 08:54 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 12:46 PM (Cxsey)
I had thought that, or maybe a threat.
Posted by: maybe wack at August 23, 2010 08:54 AM (WqzOq)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at August 23, 2010 08:54 AM (0GFWk)
What? I've been promoting the Kittehs for free. I feel taken advantage of.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 23, 2010 08:55 AM (9PzaA)
"Yet, after all why not? Why shouldn't I keep it?"
Bilbo Baggins, obsessing over a seemingly nondescript golden ring...
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 23, 2010 08:55 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 12:46 PM (Cxsey)
He followed the same arc as Andi Sullivan, anyone ever figure out why he flipped?
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 08:55 AM (7BU4a)
Stolen from Drudge.
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 08:56 AM (Cxsey)
Posted by: SarahW at August 23, 2010 08:57 AM (Z4T49)
Posted by: Sam at August 23, 2010 08:57 AM (Cxsey)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 23, 2010 08:57 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Lurker Above at August 23, 2010 08:58 AM (BBLil)
I don't think it really matters. We get blamed or possibly possibly investigated (Nancy) for taking money from Big Oil/Big Mosque-haters for having ANY opinion counter to the MFM/liberal elite/'sciencey' betters.
Take the money and state so up front, since they say you already took the money when you didnt, it eliminates their only arguement in many cases.
Posted by: Schwalbe at August 23, 2010 08:58 AM (UU0OF)
He followed the same arc as Andi Sullivan, anyone ever figure out why he flipped?
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 12:55 PM (7BU4a)
Sullivan flipped? I have never heard him being conservative. Never. The first few times I saw him on some panel or interviewed and they called him a conservative I kept asking myself, "WTF?" Having been editor of the The Spew Repubic should have tipped anyone off, from the start, anyway. I mean, really.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 08:58 AM (Qp4DT)
Let's pray--HARD--that the country doesn't reach that same conclusion in 2012.
Posted by: tsj017 at August 23, 2010 08:59 AM (4YUWF)
Invited bloggers would go dark on their own site and blog exclusively on the NRCC's special site for one week. The purpose would obviously be to raise fund, highlight races, and get campaign volunteers.
The bloggers would be paid a fee for the 'blogathon,' disclosure posted on both sites.
Boom. NRCC gets whatever coverage they want and funding, and bloggers get some money.
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at August 23, 2010 09:00 AM (oL8lS)
If someone gets paid to run a story or put a slant on it - they need to disclose it.
HOWEVER
It is equally important to disclose if you got the story from your buddy/source who just happens to work for/donate to some Dem Senator, or some guy who just got turned over for promotion at the State Dept...
These latter forms of disclosure are honestly just as important, and the State Media sees no problem with withholding this information...
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 09:00 AM (7BU4a)
If it's common on the Left, then number 3 would make more sense. I just thought the guy got a GF BF and was an asshole.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 23, 2010 12:53 PM (oIp16)
More likely the reason.
Posted by: Nighhawk at August 23, 2010 09:00 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: tsj017 at August 23, 2010 09:01 AM (4YUWF)
I never considered that you were being paid by the RNC and if you are they deserve a refund because you are not giving them full value for their money. It's an integrity thing, if you take their money you should be humping for them at every turn and never criticizing them and if that's the goal, you suck at it.
Kind of ironic, though. I hate listening to the cable dorks because they are obviously being compensated either through direct payment, access, etc., for their opinions and I like reading this and other websites because they aren't being paid and just call it as they see it. By ironic I mean you're getting shafted.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 23, 2010 09:01 AM (VW9/y)
We now live under Caveat Vendor, as any good nanny-state should. Pathetic. Truly.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:02 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at August 23, 2010 09:03 AM (yTIlT)
Posted by: Concerned Christian Conservative at August 23, 2010 09:03 AM (LEynS)
What's wrong with having a disclaimer at the bottom of a post that says "This article payed for by the RNC" or whoever?...maybe with a link? I have no problem with that. It's like buying ad space only it's an article.
Leave the astroturf to the lefties, it'll come out eventually.
Posted by: CanaDave at August 23, 2010 09:06 AM (A8VBw)
What's wrong with having a disclaimer at the
bottom of a post that says "This article payed for by the RNC" or
whoever?...maybe with a link?
Posted by: CanaDave at August 23, 2010 01:06 PM (A8VBw)
Why should that be needed? An article stands on its own.
People are confusing a problem with possibly cornering the opinion market with whether any individual article is paid for by someone. But those two problems are fairly independent, as the left and the Dems have cornered the market on opinion in the MFM without paying them a dime.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:09 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: ace at August 23, 2010 09:10 AM (QbA6l)
"Because if you donÂ’t feel embarrassed about it, then you have no conscious, you got no heart you got no integrity. DÂ’ya understand that? Then all you do is you take the fuckinÂ’ money and youÂ’ve got no substance, remember that. People of substance and character care about what the fuck they do and they fix it. OK? And I think that youÂ’re working with me because I think thatÂ’s the way you are. And I donÂ’t pull any punches with you guys. I am telling you that his job is on thin ice. And you know how fast I move."
Posted by: cthulhu at August 23, 2010 09:12 AM (/0IOT)
Posted by: Tom Servo at August 23, 2010 09:12 AM (I6tMU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at August 23, 2010 09:14 AM (0GFWk)
But it's not a sex club any more than NYC's Jekyll & Hyde is a transform-into-a-monster club
Wow! theres a blast from the past, Jekyll & Hyde's-think I did my first Yeager ice-slide shot there back in the early 90's. Still dont remember how I made my way back to Jersey those nights. Good times
**sigh**
Posted by: dananjcon at August 23, 2010 09:14 AM (pr+up)
This.
I think the Daily Caller blows. They have some contacts in "conservative" or GOP circles who talk to them - I assume liquour is involved the way these stories seem to come out - and from those conversations the DC goes and prints an article "exposing" nefarious activities in the GOP (or conservative movement). Trouble is, they never bother to do deep investigation to flesh out the stories and have no good contacts in the Left, so there is very little treatment of what the fuck the Left is doing.
The original DC piece waits 'til page two to say anything about the Left and what they do say is minimal and not particularly detailed. Of course, Morrissey doesn't mention that in his post this morning.
Why anyone in their right mind talks to the DC is beyond me.
Posted by: Precedent Uniter at August 23, 2010 09:14 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:14 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: eman at August 23, 2010 09:15 AM (Nw/hR)
I thought we read this Blog for the Double Posts?
No, we read it for the double posts.
Ace, I appreciate you spelling it all out. It's not exactly a clear and established process, is it?
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 23, 2010 09:16 AM (XdlcF)
Cause there's this girl I work with who is hot and reads all you blogger and I am pretty sure that the only chance I have to get in her pants will require a vast right wing conspiracy.
How about it my right wing men?
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 23, 2010 09:17 AM (HqpV0)
If you don't want to whore yourself to the highest bidder that's one thing. You have integrity. You ain't gonna pimp Soros or somebody.
But if you actually believe what you're being asked to write, if it's the sort of thing you'd write anyway for free - take the damn money. Get payed.
Posted by: Entropy at August 23, 2010 09:17 AM (IsLT6)
It's very simple. You say "I don't take money in exchange for writing articles for you. I'm independant."
Then you write what you believe, post it, and remind them if that if they like what you write they can hit the tip jar.
Posted by: Entropy at August 23, 2010 09:19 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Honda at August 23, 2010 09:20 AM (ladck)
"If you can't drink a lobbyist's whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in the morning, you don't belong in politics."
Jesse Unruh
Feel the force, Ace
Posted by: Atomic Roach at August 23, 2010 09:22 AM (rMMMP)
Posted by: Valiant at August 23, 2010 09:24 AM (UKSRV)
Honda, I was having a similar thought run through my mind. These articles seem well timed.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at August 23, 2010 09:26 AM (RZ8pf)
Sullivan flipped? I have never
heard him being conservative. Never. The first few times I saw him on
some panel or interviewed and they called him a conservative I kept
asking myself, "WTF?" Having been editor of the The Spew Repubic should
have tipped anyone off, from the start, anyway. I mean, really.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 12:58 PM (Qp4DT)
Back in the early 00s he was a conservative or at least center/right. He was arguably the strongest voice on the internet for the WoT and exterminating jihadis.
Yes, he was gay and wobbly on social issues. But on national security he was to the right of Bush.
And then he flipped. Completely. Torture this, Bush lied that.
One theory is the gay marriage debate took off and he became a one issue man. But flipping from John Bolton to Media Benjamin? That's pretty extreme...
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 09:27 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: ace at August 23, 2010 09:27 AM (QbA6l)
Honda, I was having a similar thought run through my mind. These articles seem well timed.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at August 23, 2010 01:26 PM (RZ8pf)
/Whistling
Posted by: Journolist V2.0 at August 23, 2010 09:28 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: eman at August 23, 2010 09:28 AM (Nw/hR)
Disagree with this, "pop."
Granted, the payments may or may not be direct cash handouts, but I've always felt there is a definite quid pro quo at work here.
On the wider issue, I reject that notion that there is something inherently awful about paid promotion of beliefs and policies. Doesn't matter who the beneficiaries are, right or left; time is money.
Where it all goes off the rails is in the sanctimonious bleatings. Does anyone doubt that Markos Moulitsas gets his back -- or his whatever -- scratched by the groups he shills for? Is it somehow impossible that Arianna Hunffington isn't fluffed and tweaked by her lib pals? No one talks about that. Instead, they pick on the conservative bloggers. Worse, we set out on integrity witch-hunts and eat our own.
I don't care if the "Pillsbury Doughboy" is somehow influenced in his writing by those who pay him. The Squish Lobby needs promotion, too.
If people are dumb enough to let bloggers like HuffNPuff or "the Captain" shape their opinions, they deserve what they get.
Better -- as "pop" suggests -- to go to the source, and go after campaigners and officeholders who take illegal money and favors, spending their ill-gotten gains on illegal practices. That would be you, Osama Obama. Bloggers are most important to themselves.
I hope ace is raking in some hefty coin for this site. It seldom seems to me that his choice of topics is governed by anything other than a) concern, b) Valu-Rite or c) hobo blood-lust. Whoever is payin' him off under the table is getting good value.
Posted by: MrScribbler at August 23, 2010 09:29 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: David Frum at August 23, 2010 09:30 AM (AZGON)
Actually though, how many people could actually take money to flip their opinion on an issue and really argue well enough to convince others?
If you paid me to right an article in favor of say Cap and Tax, it would be poor at best no matter how hard I tried.
Hmm...then again, reading the State Media perhaps I just stumbled across the source of their incompetence...
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 09:30 AM (7BU4a)
... as the left and the Dems have cornered the market on opinion in the MFM without paying them a dime.
I disagree...I think at some stage in the chain the lefty media are being paid...nobody stays as consistent and on message without being paid. That might be something like General Electric getting stimulus money and ordering NBC to protect and promote the Dems. TV news is losing money last I heard, so the only reason to keep them around is for the political power they have.
Posted by: CanaDave at August 23, 2010 09:32 AM (A8VBw)
Posted by: eman at August 23, 2010 09:32 AM (Nw/hR)
Didn't Avarois (sp?) admit recently he did "dirty work" for the Obama administration? Did anyone ask him if he got paid or services in kind?
Posted by: 18-1 at August 23, 2010 09:33 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: George Stephanopoulos at August 23, 2010 09:34 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: wirenut at August 23, 2010 09:34 AM (BGJIZ)
Posted by: George Stephanopoulos at August 23, 2010 01:34 PM (AZGON)
Thanks George. Next up on Hardball - is Obama perfect, or merely more awesome then a human being deserves to be?
Posted by: Chris Matthews at August 23, 2010 09:35 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: The Guild of Little People Pornographers at August 23, 2010 09:36 AM (AZGON)
Honda 64, yeah, I've been wondering about that too. Basically a distributed movement to corrupt the squishy Right and to silence the principled Right.
As to Ace's integrity kick, I'll go with a mix of Entropy 62 and CanaDave 47. Do your normal thing for free / donations; and if some RNC hack comes to you and says, "run this for money" then... take the money and run it, with a disclaimer at the end "Elephant McShill paid for this... but I also agree with it, so I'm running it".
Posted by: Zimriel at August 23, 2010 09:36 AM (9Sbz+)
All right, I admit it. When I gave money to Ace, I mentioned how much I enjoy seeing double posts.
Is it wrong that he keeps me happy by continuing to double post??
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 23, 2010 09:37 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 09:37 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: cthulhu at August 23, 2010 09:37 AM (/0IOT)
HEIGHEST!
Posted by: PALP at August 23, 2010 09:37 AM (7BU4a)
I disagree...I think at some stage in the chain the lefty media are being paid...nobody stays as consistent and on message without being paid.
Posted by: CanaDave at August 23, 2010 01:32 PM (A8VBw)
You would probably call such a person an "idiot" ... or maybe even a "useful idiot".
Peer pressure in the MFM, for that handful of people in the MFM with IQs north of 90, has a greater effect than money.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:38 AM (Qp4DT)
Is it wrong that he keeps me happy by continuing to double post??
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 23, 2010 01:37 PM (XdlcF)
Just wait until you see your credit card statement, you'll be ecstatic!
Cha-ching!
Posted by: Not Ace at August 23, 2010 09:39 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 23, 2010 09:39 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 09:40 AM (AZGON)
You would probably call such a person an "idiot" ... or maybe even a "useful idiot".
Peer pressure in the MFM, for that handful of people in the MFM with IQs north of 90, has a greater effect than money.
No doubt there is some of that, but George Stephanopoulis and Katie Couric cost a lot of money and it's gotta come from someplace...
Posted by: CanaDave at August 23, 2010 09:41 AM (A8VBw)
I really don't get that so many are fixated on being paid to write something. The writing stands on its own. Bloggers are not that powerful that they just write any crap they want and their readers will just follow. That's a leftist notion.
ANd, I reiterate my earlier question (to those so concerned about disclosures of funding for opinion): do lawyers have to publicly reveal who pays them? Would that not be considered a bit more important than who's paying some blogger because he thinks that the blogger is a pied piper with a following of non-thinking rats who will follow his every word?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:41 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 09:41 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: wirenut at August 23, 2010 09:44 AM (BGJIZ)
---
Which leads to the ongoing problem of who is making the content decisions: the blogger, or his paymasters.
Posted by: Retread at August 23, 2010 09:44 AM (HcmXZ)
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 23, 2010 09:45 AM (XdlcF)
I'm sorry but the right side does not need a paymaster to survive ... it will continue to grow ... it will not be the same folks from one year to the next ... it may not be Ace .... (sorry) but it will be somebody ...
if you get centralized you create a target to attack which must be defended and you all know the Alinsky fans will do it ...
call it creative destruction ... thats how it started and thats how it must continue ...
I do wish it were otherwise and right side bloggers could be "full time" bloggers like some on the left ... but you will end up selling your soul ... look at how much you fought with yourself about ONE article ... imagine that with every post !!!
let's say that some huge foundation decided to put an ad on every worthy rightside site (worthy being like minded writers and a certain amount of traffic) to spread some walking around money around. Not for specific content but to ensure the bloggers stay alive online ... Does anyone really think that they could possibly spend enough money to really keep a failing blogger up and running ?
Your biggest expense is your time ... I assumed you gave that for free or you'd charge for access ... anyone who stops blogging becasue of hardware or technology expenses is not a blogger but a blogger AND something else ... I don't know what ...
Posted by: Jeff at August 23, 2010 09:46 AM (A3tpD)
For some reason he convinced himself that GWB was going to be the Man that would get conservatives to back Gay Marriage (I know, the idea was nuts, but so is Sullivan) and the instant Bush publicly came out against Gay Marriage, Sullivan changed his mind on everything including Iraq.
The best and only way to predict what Sullivan will say is just to ask yourself what Sullivan's Gay Dick would say. That's who calls all the shots in Sullivan's psyche.
Posted by: Tom Servo at August 23, 2010 09:46 AM (I6tMU)
Ace,
I'll kick in ten bucks to the jar if you blog about how huge my cock is. Fifteen if you mention how many lesbians it has reformed.
Posted by: Dick Cheney at August 23, 2010 09:47 AM (la188)
Second, what a joke the Daily Caller is for going after Dan Riehl for picking up a couple hundred bucks off a strategy document.
Woooo! Big money!
I do some freelance writing myself. A few hundred bucks is nothing. It's chump change. Acting like this was some big payoff is shamelessly dishonest.
Third, ace, you have GOT to find a better way to monetize this site. All these eyeballs are worth a ton of money if you can sell them something they're interested in.
The thing I don't get about most of the ads that run here is that they're not targeted in anyway to the viewership. If you had more advertising selling conservative books, bumper stickers, tees, etc... that would make a lot more sense.
Posted by: Warden at August 23, 2010 09:47 AM (fE6tn)
Posted by: ace at August 23, 2010 09:48 AM (QbA6l)
I would make a correction, here. Arabs/muslims don't do suicide bombings because they are self-hating (they aren't). THey do suicide bombings because they are too cowardly and incompetent to succesfully carry out attacks and get away alive. The suicide bombing as main tactic is only because they suck at every other sort of attack.
Make no mistake, there is almost no self-hate in the arab/persian/muslim world. They hate others (as a shame/revenge society naturally falls towards). The main goal of a suicide bombing is not suicide, but bombing innocents.
That said, the prevalence of gay sex in the arab/persian/muslim world is quite stunning. But they have no guilt about that, as is proven by the fact that guys gang-raping another guy is considered a legitimate punishment. It's a weird, weird world among the APMs.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 09:52 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 09:52 AM (AZGON)
This is because they want to lie. They might not see it this way, but, it is undoubtedly true. When you contract a journalist/publisher (like a blogger) to write an article and publish it in their periodical (their blog), and insist that their is "no fingerprints" on such a piece; you want the public reading the article to believe what is not true, that the piece was spontaneous journalism, like any other piece in the publication. Now wanting someone to believe what is not true is one thing, but taking overt action to try and foster beliefs which are not true is lying, even if it is merely by omission.
This all stems from the desire of campaigns to put as heavy a hand on the scales of public opinion as they can, while trying to appear, pure as the wind driven snow, not to have their hand on the scales at all. This manifests in some questionable behavior regarding manipulation of information with leaks and the like, and in immoral behavior like hired hit pieces which are supposed to appear as a normal column (Hi Will, hit any more hot politicians and just feel the need to come clean?).
I too think that as long as the fact that a piece is hired is placed at the head/foot, it is sufficient disclosure to maintain ones reputation and honor. A man has to buy ramen some way after all. However the insistence of no disclosure is the insistence to lie by omission.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 23, 2010 09:52 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 23, 2010 09:53 AM (i6UsH)
Posted by: Fritz at August 23, 2010 09:55 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 23, 2010 09:57 AM (i6UsH)
Posted by: ace at August 23, 2010 01:48 PM (QbA6l)
Shows that you're on the wrong streetcorner, or that you need more of a push-up bra.
In a slightly more serious vein, you could probably have gotten more of this type of offer had you indicated more of an interest. Instead, they probably figured you as the type that would agonize over it for months and then cough out a couple of thousand words on how it made you feel.
Posted by: cthulhu at August 23, 2010 09:57 AM (/0IOT)
Posted by: George Sorass at August 23, 2010 09:59 AM (p/npo)
Am I supposed to be impressed by statements attributed to unidentified "campaign operatives?" Not only are such people often slime by nature, in this case they are anonymous slime. "Standard procedure?" "Half?" Bullshit.
Many of the "professional media" are in the tank. They generally don't do this for a direct payment from Soros or the DNC. They do it to keep their jobs and the approval of their social circle. In a few cases the jobs pay mighty well.
Conservative bloggers don't make a lot of money. They put up with that because for them, it is an avocation. It it were all about the money they would not be doing it in the first place.
There is a larger point. I don't take what somebody like Ace writes on faith. I emphasize: There is no faith involved. He's only as good as his writing, reasoning, and presentation of the facts in any given post.
Michael Steele for example, gets paid good money to push the GOP brand and he stinks at it.
This story smells. Obvious hypothesis: As it finally sinks in that people don't believe the MSM/Democrats any more, a conscious campaign to discredit alternative media as pay-for-play shills has been initiated. Look for the propagation of the talking points, using the same keywords, through the MSM. They have been, and still are, too lazy to bother changing the wording.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at August 23, 2010 09:59 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 09:59 AM (AZGON)
Good on you and I admire your spirit for having written this. I was at one of the moron-paloozas here in NYC (organized by 'someone') but I had to get lost before you got there. Anyway- may I suggest:
• TAKE THE MONEY- especially from actual candidates. Just say"Joe Politlical, who is running in NY's 1st district, has flowed the money to the AoS. Here is why he is a good candidate whom even a moron can vote for..."
Then list 3 things that YOU like about the candidate.
• Keep everything in the open- no journolista bullshit
• Don't give 'em more than they pay for
• Any candidate who flows money had better not be caught with a live boy or a dead girl (opt out- cash not refunded)
Posted by: No One In Particular at August 23, 2010 10:01 AM (uAJic)
Posted by: George Orwell at August 23, 2010 10:02 AM (AZGON)
Something saying that money is or is not coming from certain sources that may influence editorial content.
Taking money for posting political articles is no more wrong than Car and Driver taking advertising money from Toyota. The only problem comes when it is hidden
Posted by: nine coconuts at August 23, 2010 10:02 AM (DHNp4)
Posted by: andi sullivan (LGBT) at August 23, 2010 10:03 AM (AZGON)
I think the Daily Caller blows.
I do too. After that "rollout" of Journolist, I don't trust them to report the news news. Carlson is too wired-in to his fellow journolists to dump all the data properly. Journolist itself was a story, not just the things they said. We should have had a chance to see all of what was going on.
But he has Paaaaaaaals there.
Posted by: rdbrewer at August 23, 2010 10:03 AM (p/npo)
Personally, I don't care about that, either, but I would imagine that anyone who follows the "pied piper theory of blog readership" would consider that much more serious.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 10:03 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: cthulhu at August 23, 2010 10:04 AM (/0IOT)
Posted by: Cabela's Hobo-Hunting Store at August 23, 2010 10:06 AM (AZGON)
Driveway detergent.
Engine degreaser.
And fine spirit.
Available at the bargain price of $6 per half gallon.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 23, 2010 10:06 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 23, 2010 10:06 AM (i6UsH)
Posted by: random at August 23, 2010 10:09 AM (PUpEa)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 23, 2010 10:11 AM (i6UsH)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 10:18 AM (Qp4DT)
The Daily Caller should be ashamed to publish crap like this.
----
Yup.
Posted by: Y-not at August 23, 2010 10:18 AM (osFsP)
Why does it feel like it would be okay to "appear" in other publications for money but wrong to take money for articles here? Seems like it would be fine to take money for an article somwhere else, as long as there isn't any agreement about specific positions held. They'd know they were paying "Ace from the right," but they wouldn't be paying Ace to support issue "x" or candidate "y." But they would know "Ace from the right" would probably write in favor of candidate "y" who is, say, a local politician covered by the publication.
You could take money to do a hit job in Rolling Stone, but you couldn't take money to do a hit job at AOSHQ, as it were. Is that right?
I'm sure there's some convention or general trade custom on that. I just don't know what it is.
Posted by: rdbrewer at August 23, 2010 10:19 AM (p/npo)
Posted by: Drew in MO at August 23, 2010 10:22 AM (LnxrS)
The implicit assumption is of course that corporations have a given political lean by virtue of being corporations, which is laughable.
Posted by: Ian S. at August 23, 2010 10:33 AM (p05LM)
I left that part out, above. It's obvious, and was the connection to the DJs' personal abuse of corporate air time and Payola, but it probably still should have been explicit.
Management LBOs are even worse, on this scale, since, if the company can support some massive loans with its income and assets, then the management should have borrowed that money and distributed it to the shareholders, having them retain their ownership. But, try to find a law school or business school that says this.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 10:34 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: sexypig at August 23, 2010 10:35 AM (0t7L8)
Initially it was buy sales alone, then by a combination of sales and jukebox play. In the 50s more and more of that was shifted to radio and the amount of air time a record received.
So people found out that some radio stations and DJs were paid to push a particular record to artificially increase its play and thus its sales and chart ratings. Some people were "outraged" that their tastes in music may have been impacted.
Of course then congress became involved and we got a new federal law. Never mind that there is no section of the Constitution that gives congress the authority to regulate "payola". They did it anyway.
Posted by: Vic at August 23, 2010 10:41 AM (/jbAw)
And, truly, your the man and not The Man... who still sucks.
Cheers!
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 23, 2010 10:48 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 23, 2010 10:49 AM (WZFkG)
Posted by: Vic at August 23, 2010 02:41 PM (/jbAw)
I think the "perception" of a problem with Payola was as ginned up as anything. People ought to be more outraged that they were fed such a load of crap - and swallowed it. And, as I wrote, much of Payola was just illegal in that it was in unreported cash payments.
Congress getting involved, above and beyond the issue of unreported income (which isn't to Congress, anyway), was just a legal/Constitutional disaster and stupidity of monumental proportions. But, that's why included the insanity of management buyouts. Our law schools teach total crap.
That said, the idea that rigged TV game shows were some sort of fraud was far worse. I still can't help but laugh at anyone who subscribes to that silly notion. A rigged TV game show is fraud, but a Precedent and Congress blatantly lying about a health scare bill (that is totally un-Constitutional to begin with) is .... no big deal.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 10:52 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: km at August 23, 2010 11:11 AM (oUaBK)
>>>ANd, I reiterate my earlier question (to those so concerned about disclosures of funding for opinion): do lawyers have to publicly reveal who pays them? Would that not be considered a bit more important than who's paying some blogger because he thinks that the blogger is a pied piper with a following of non-thinking rats who will follow his every word?
When the RNC pays someone to advocate for the RNC, it might be a good thing for the subjects of that advocacy to know that it is being paid for. That it's not just a free-be. The LACK of information that paid advocacy is even taking place may be harmful to the subjects of the advocacy.
With the lawyer situation, there's no lack of knowledge that advocacy is taking place. You don't see court cases styled "Lawyer A vs. Lawyer B." You see them styled "Party A vs. Party B." Or "People v. Defendant." Not People v. Secret Defendant's Lawyer.
Similarly, when the lawyers send a letter--for example, a cease and desist--they don't say "my client does not want to be known, but you are ordered to stop harrassing him." That's just stupid. You know exactly who the lawyer is advocating for; more than that, you know absolutely that he's advocating for the named client. So there's no LACK of information that advocacy is taking place. It raises none of the ethical problems in the paid blogging context, where the subjects of the advocacy may not even know that there's a paid-for element to what they're reading.
So, I'm wondering what progressoverpeace is talking about when he says "do lawyers have to publicly reveal who pays them?" Do they have to? Well, no, I guess not. But in almost any case you can think of, they'd have to. Otherwise there would be no point to hiring a lawyer.
Furthermore, instances of when a lawyer may be paid by someone not his client are sharply regulated by the various ethics and professional codes. They vary from state to state, but in every state, the lawyer must always be advocating for the client, not an unnamed third party who paid on the client's behalf.
Progressoverpeace, you got any way of narrowing down your question? Like, what are you talking about? You got an example where the lawyer refused to disclose who he was working for?
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 23, 2010 11:22 AM (B2LxR)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 23, 2010 03:22 PM (B2LxR)
Sure.
If a lawyer is hired to defend A, does the lawyer have to publicly disclose who is paying for that defense? Just because the lawyer is defending A doesn't mean that A is the one paying for it.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 11:29 AM (Qp4DT)
Gabe, I am not in favor of requiring full disclosure of those paying for representation/advocacy. Personally, I don't care about it. I was just drawing an analogy with a much more serious aspect of advocacy (legal representation versus opinion on blogs) that people seem to have no problem with having anonymous, at all. The point is not that the lawyer's advocacy is known - that is the same for a blogger who writes an article. We know what the blogger is saying. This issue is all about who is paying for that advocacy, and that should apply (for those who take this view, of which I am NOT one) to lawyers more than bloggers. But, that is assuming that lawyers are allowed to keep those who pay their bills secret - which I wasn't sure about, so I was asking. If lawyers must disclose who pays them, then this is all a non-issue (as regards the analogy).
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 11:43 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Firelight at August 23, 2010 11:51 AM (1kUwC)
Blogola!
Heh. Blogula!
Dig all that enriches
And burn through the riches
I scam in the back of my
Blogula!
Posted by: free association guy at August 23, 2010 11:56 AM (p/npo)
Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 23, 2010 11:58 AM (WuMZ3)
-->Furthermore, instances of when a lawyer may be
paid by someone not his client are sharply regulated by the various
ethics and professional codes.
You'll excuse those who find lawyers' "various ethics and professional codes" to be laughable, at best.
-->They vary from state to state, but in every state, the lawyer must always be advocating for the client, not an unnamed third party who paid on the client's behalf.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 23, 2010 03:22 PM (B2LxR)
You have no way off knowing how much advocacy someone is doing and for whom, in the end. I can appear to argue for someone's case, but do it in a way that serves some other interest, either moreso or in addition to. Anyone with a brain is capable of that. In addition to that, the competence of the advocacy is not an issue in this discussion; possible alterior motives are, along with possible connections that would be of great interest to people.
Like I said, I don't care who pays for whose advocacy - neither for bloggers nor lawyers. The arguments live on their own. But, I am NOT one arguing that bloggers being paid to write for some positions is anything that anyone should care about, legally. But, for someone who does claim to care, the issue stands with lawyers and it is much more serious.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 12:13 PM (Qp4DT)
I have always been mystified that anyone accepted this crap. It is truly stunning. The real beauts were the ones where the investment banks hired to appraise the company, for the shareholders, ostensibly, would come out the day after the LBO and announce a new appraisal far higher than that offered to the shareholders for the transaction. Great stuff, that is.
But, even aside from that, do lawyers really not understand that when someone is hired to manage something that someone else owns, he cannot be a bidder/buyer for that same thing while he's managing it (and probably should be not be able to make any bid until long after he's been out of the job of managing the private information for that company)?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 23, 2010 12:35 PM (Qp4DT)
You know when someone's easy to bribe? When you don't even have to give
them money sex, you just have to put it in his head that maybe, one day,
someday, there might be some money sex.
FIFY. You're welcome. And women have been doing this since, probably on the order of 10,000 years. Maybe even 100,000 years.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 23, 2010 12:39 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: The Doctor at August 23, 2010 01:00 PM (WZFkG)
Posted by: William_Shatner's_Pants at August 23, 2010 03:40 PM (xET1A)
is it any difference than the media whoreing for democrats--yes. conservative whoring makes the world a better place. you can see what democrat whoring has done.
Posted by: befuddled at August 23, 2010 07:07 PM (xJU23)
Posted by: Josh Reiter at August 23, 2010 07:37 PM (GrIEA)
Posted by: gotta be a way at August 23, 2010 07:48 PM (xtFZk)
Posted by: gotta be a way at August 23, 2010 08:01 PM (xtFZk)
Posted by: gotta be a way at August 23, 2010 08:16 PM (xtFZk)
Posted by: gotta be a way at August 23, 2010 08:40 PM (xtFZk)
Posted by: FeFe at August 23, 2010 10:22 PM (TjlA2)
Posted by: Timberland boots at August 24, 2010 12:31 AM (vtZf+)
It's rather refreshing that Ace finally came clean. Ethics and morals are not for sale among decent people - Just axe Armstrong Williams. They don't change just because über-wealthy Dems fund the leftist hate sites.
All of the behind-the-scenes machinations could easily be translated into a business proposition. Perhaps a business class or two would guide one as to how one may accomplish that and still be ethical. But then again, maybe not. How about:
"I've noticed that you have never advertised on my blog. I make no promises, but advertising dollars would give me and my blog the time to mull it over."
No charge for the advice.
~(Ä)~
Posted by: Rocketman at August 24, 2010 02:27 AM (9a5ev)
Posted by: section9 at August 24, 2010 03:02 AM (H6lGz)
Posted by: tekmentum at August 24, 2010 03:49 AM (GZRVN)
Posted by: tekmentum at August 24, 2010 03:51 AM (GZRVN)
Posted by: tekmentum at August 24, 2010 03:52 AM (GZRVN)
Posted by: tekmentum at August 24, 2010 03:53 AM (GZRVN)
Posted by: tekmentum at August 24, 2010 03:56 AM (GZRVN)
So there you have it, Ace et al, until you can find a Soros on the right, with billions to spend and nothing to lose, look forward to dragging yourself to the keyboard every day and counting your pennies in front of your readers.
Just do us one small favor, and make sure when this mythical Soros Right materializes, that he's actually an American invested in the future of this country, and not some furrener trying to pull puppet strings to turn America into his own socialist (in our case capitalist) playground.
Posted by: The Schaef at August 24, 2010 04:06 AM (KXHNK)
Posted by: spotify to itunes at August 30, 2010 06:43 PM (MQaaz)
Posted by: laptop battery at August 31, 2010 07:31 PM (agL+a)
PDF Creator
JPEG to PDF Converter
GIF to PDF Converter
PNG to PDF Converter
Posted by: machen at September 05, 2010 05:17 PM (m/iXn)
authentic jerseys
authentic nfl jerseys
authentic nfl jerseys cheap
authentic nfl jerseys wholesale
authentic nfl throwback jerseys
authentic throwback jerseys
cheap jerseys from china
cheap nfl jerseys from china http://www.jerseyswonder.com
Posted by: Cowboys jerseys cheap at November 07, 2010 11:23 PM (cqqOX)
Posted by: www.jerseyswonder.com at November 07, 2010 11:27 PM (cqqOX)
Welcome to www.cheapjerseysstore.com jerseys store. As the world-leading NBA Jerseys store, We are the manufacture of jerseys sport in Hongkong, Recently established in 2009. Fast Delivery! A Week To Your Door! By (EMS/DHL). Our company specialize in wholesale nba jerseys, Cheap NBA Jerseys,Cheap NFL Jerseys,Authentic MLB Jerseys,Discount NHL Jerseys. we must be the most suitable for you.Every transaction is made under third-party platform which safeguards the rights and interests of buyers!
Posted by: cheap jerseys from china at November 19, 2010 07:54 AM (Owprr)
Posted by: thomas sabo jewellery at November 23, 2010 07:53 PM (eaBkY)
Posted by: PS3 Jailbreak at December 02, 2010 04:46 PM (fwOe4)
Posted by: Sonic Producer review at December 04, 2010 07:07 AM (8Pduj)
Posted by: wholesale hair weave at February 21, 2011 04:49 PM (pt3L+)
Posted by: Los angeles seo at February 23, 2011 10:51 PM (2AhdI)
Posted by: prom dresses 2011 at February 25, 2011 06:08 PM (z52Y9)
Longchamp Outlet "Moussaoui death! Death Karroubi! Moussaoui and Carew should be hanged over!" Pro-government supporters yesterday, the end of Friday prayers at Tehran University after they joined the demonstrators on the streets, marched to the Revolution Square 0 percent In fact, the United States more dependent than other countries of foreign investors to buy its debt A week later, the young man again, this time with two bottles of Australian wine Although the beginning of spring, but Beijing is far from the real warmth of spring to come"Based on the responsibility of the armed forces and its commitment to protect the people and its keenness to protect the nation Jonathan said he was shocked at the loss of life and ordered Longchamp Bags an immediate investigation He pointed out that there are four ways to help people deal with inflationYemen, 18 anti-government protesters called for more demonstrations, which may lead to demonstrations there until next week Shiyin Yin's father told reporters that his staff is not in the companySI lay on the grass Longchamp Le Pliage , lying in a wildly desolate wasteland, watching the breeze yellow leaves rolled up, like a lithe dancer, crony of flyingHowever, the ADRs trade in U Moreover, even if the unemployment rate fell to promote economic growth in the job market there are still structural unemployment, that is, labor supply and demand mismatch caused by unemployment Willard, commander of U??He estimated it would take at least six months to a year for the country's tourism industry to restore to normal Longchamp Sale
Posted by: Longchamp Outlet at March 20, 2011 06:01 PM (VIFbS)
Posted by: Jerseys Sale at March 24, 2011 06:55 PM (6a8YO)
Posted by: missmoz at April 08, 2011 05:25 PM (wUjCu)
Posted by: Tablet PC at April 15, 2011 05:51 PM (+Sw42)
Posted by: wantong123 at April 19, 2011 12:23 AM (nVyIQ)
Posted by: venoous at April 19, 2011 04:06 PM (rPs1n)
Certainly, dry-cleaning is often a most secure means, the actual clerk in the dry-cleaning store is usually skilled, and so they really realize the proper way to shield a person¡¯s jersey very good. Nevertheless dry-cleaning are normally as well high-priced,so you can go to the <a title="NFL Shop" href="http://www.yahbooks.com/">NFL Shop</a>. Cleanup by arms is actually much risk-free in comparison with programmed washer, you can rub <a title="Custom NFL Jerseys" href="http://www.openbrackets.com/">Custom NFL Jerseys</a> tenderly to help wipe out grime and work by utilizing quite a few harmonious cleansing clean. Try to remember usually do not place ones jacket originating from a over-hot issue in order to dried after you ultimately cleaning this along with waters, that may surely kill ones jacket <a title="Custom NFL Jerseys" href="http://www.customauthenticjersey.com/">Custom NFL Jerseys</a>. Just take care of your jacket thoroughly clean, can the life span often be extended.
We might connect with an hour and hr the condition that the nice thing is usually ditch for the jacket. At this time, in case you toss the item apart? When it charges everyone somewhat income, in particular an old-fashioned <a title="Cheap NFL Jerseys" href="http://www.yahbooks.com/">Cheap NFL Jerseys</a>? Absolutely no, you won¡¯t need to let that happen. Take a person¡¯s jersey for a fixing class, it¡¯s easy to pay your pit with the exact or similar resources, and also the jersey stays being exactly the same. Never spend your hard earned money.
Posted by: Cherise at April 26, 2011 01:37 AM (842qh)
Certainly, dry-cleaning is often a most secure means, the actual clerk in the dry-cleaning store is usually skilled, and so they really realize the proper way to shield a person¡¯s jersey very good. Nevertheless dry-cleaning are normally as well high-priced,so you can go to the NFL Shop. Cleanup by arms is actually much risk-free in comparison with programmed washer, you can rub Custom NFL Jerseys tenderly to help wipe out grime and work by utilizing quite a few harmonious cleansing clean. Try to remember usually do not place ones jacket originating from a over-hot issue in order to dried after you ultimately cleaning this along with waters, that may surely kill ones jacket Custom NFL Jerseys. Just take care of your jacket thoroughly clean, can the life span often be extended.
We might connect with an hour and hr the condition that the nice thing is usually ditch for the jacket. At this time, in case you toss the item apart? When it charges everyone somewhat income, in particular an old-fashioned Cheap NFL Jerseys? Absolutely no, you won¡¯t need to let that happen. Take a person¡¯s jersey for a fixing class, it¡¯s easy to pay your pit with the exact or similar resources, and also the jersey stays being exactly the same. Never spend your hard earned money.
Posted by: Cherise at April 26, 2011 01:38 AM (842qh)
Posted by: hottestjersey at April 27, 2011 01:22 AM (qtZJj)
It sounds really amazing !I suppose if you like sports?I think choose right sporting clothes is very important!
Posted by: cheap clothes online at May 04, 2011 11:26 PM (eB2Vr)
Posted by: Jordan Shoes at May 10, 2011 06:13 PM (1xZsM)
Our lace wigs are made of 100% Indian Remy or Virgin human hair to make it look like the real one. Human hair wigs have become extremely popular today. You would be surprised if you know how many people were wearing human hair wigs around you! Human hair lace wigs are made so well today that it is easy to use to have a completely new look or enhance your natural beauty.
Posted by: full lace wigs at May 22, 2011 09:58 AM (jnFlJ)
Posted by: cheap true religion jeans at May 23, 2011 12:23 AM (VDR/A)
Posted by: Chanel bags at June 11, 2011 12:15 AM (xTO50)
Posted by: tablette android at June 12, 2011 09:53 PM (jWW3g)
Posted by: Federal Loan Consolidation at June 16, 2011 06:28 AM (V0Oc7)
Posted by: Asics Onitsuka Tiger at June 24, 2011 04:45 PM (9tAYm)
Posted by: ƒNƒŒƒWƒbƒgƒJ[ƒhŒ»‹à‰» at June 26, 2011 10:47 PM (tPShh)
Posted by: Swiss Replica Watches at June 30, 2011 11:44 PM (0SyPz)
Posted by: Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood at July 04, 2011 10:14 PM (xJe3c)
Posted by: Mercedes-Benz Mobil Mewah Terbaik Indonesia at July 04, 2011 10:15 PM (xJe3c)
Running isn't 1 day Jordan Shoes event. Whatever race you purchased the shoe for, there is another race within the future and that's precisely the reason why you should purchase a durable shoe to steer clear of unnecessary expenses and also wastage Nike Air Shoes of tough earned resources. The Air Jordan Shoes is created to last. Whenever you purchase this shoe, aside from the comfort, you'll appear spectacular. Good looks don't hurt and it is an additional advantage when you bust into glory after winning the race.
Posted by: Jordan Shoes at July 06, 2011 01:00 AM (+PYxS)
Posted by: hats for sale at July 09, 2011 04:49 AM (2raFg)
Good article makes constant progress, thank you share, the accumulation of knowledge is to keep learning, attention is the beginning of wealth.
Posted by: P90x Dvd at July 10, 2011 06:43 PM (h1lcP)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.265 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Mr Pink at August 23, 2010 08:39 AM (yVCKZ)