« Speaking Of Gannon And Fisting... | Main | Quote Of The Day - Admirable Restraint Edition »

Perverted Blogging Economics

Back during the "dot-com boom" of the 90's, I was one of those observers who constantly expected the dot-bomb collapse to arrive any minute. I couldn't understand how anyone could buy into the notion of pouring more and more and more money into internet businesses that had absolutely no clue how to get any of it back. And when it eventually did fall apart I had a hard time working up the slightest trace of sympathy for those who lost their shirts.

Hold on to that thought for a minute. I'll get back to it.

Political beliefs have usually been tied to certain economic beliefs. The left tends towards socialism, with communism the extreme. The spectrum runs from goverment regulation of the economy to government control of the economy to government ownership of the economy. "The people own everything. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability." Everything made affordable, or free.

The right tends towards capitalism, with plutocracy and utter laissez-faire being the extreme. Buying and selling is good. Big business is good. Profits are good. Corporations should be as unfettered as possible to maximize their own benefits.

But here's where the perverse nature of the Internet cited above intervenes. In the blogosphere, the political sites are the "big boys." And here, we've fallen into topsy-turvy land. I did a quick perusal of Truth Laid Bear's Ecosystem rankings, and one bare fact leaped out at me.

Several of the biggest blogs on the left are wholly owned and operated subsidiaries of private companies. Atrios, Kos, Oliver Willis and others all blog for a paycheck. A purely capitalistic "payment for services rendered" system. On the other hand, the biggest conservative blogs (Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Powerline, (ahem) Wizbang) are pretty much "vanity" sites -- the owners are the bloggers, and they do whatever the hell they want. They make some money off ads and donations, but they mainly do it "for the common good." They have the ability, so they provide.

(A personal note here: I've often joked about "selling out," but lack any interested buyers. I am actually rather proud of the fact that I have never asked for a single thing as compensation, and don't foresee ever doing so. I write here purely for the love of writing, for the thrill of the feedback, and the excitement of actually, somehow, making a difference -- something I've never been able to do before in my life. I owe Kevin a huge debt of gratitude for sharing this tremendous stage he has built, and I don't think I can ever thank him adequately. Nor can I thank you, the readers, adequately.)

I have absolutely no idea what deep, profound message is concealed behind this observation. Maybe it's tied into the old theory that the political spectrum is actually a circle, and the extremes eventually meet and cross. Maybe it's just what I alluded to above in the perverse nature of the Internet, and its tendency to invert conventional logic. Maybe it has something to do with the conservative's tendency to value the accomplishments of the individual, while the left tends to have more faith in large groups and institutions and collectives.

But I think it's at least something worth kicking around.

J.

(Update: Perhaps I should soften my definition of "paid to blog." How about if I pointed out that most of the big conservative bloggers have "day jobs" unrelated to their blogging, while the bigger liberal blogs seem to have jobs that encourage and support their blogging. Does that soften the blow a little, Atrios?)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Perverted Blogging Economics:

» basils blog linked with Friday Lunch Special:

» basil's blog linked with Friday Lunch Special: Money and More

» ZuDfunck linked with The Big Boy Blogs; Are at it Again

» EGO linked with BLOG SUPPORTERS AND SPONSORS

Comments (31)

Or it is evidence that the ... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

Or it is evidence that the myth that the rich are Rep is in fact a lie. Billionaires tend to be anti American - Soros, Turner, Redstone... or Dem - ABC, NBC, WPost.... They spend money to hire "reporters/blogers" to defame America or Rep.
In thc case of the America haters (Soros, Redstone,Turner, et. al. ) they are very passionate about destroying America and consider losing $millions to do it money well spent.

This is why:Leftis... (Below threshold)
Johnny-O:

This is why:

Leftists would NEVER do any manner of charity of "free" work for their fellow man. That's why they want the government to force people to do good works at gunpoint-- because they can't imagine doing good of their own free will, and they project this forward.

The entire dynamics of blog... (Below threshold)
puppetz:

The entire dynamics of blogging stats is completely different than 99% of the other sites on the web. Much has been made of sites "inflating" their importance by reporting pagehits instead of uniques. Personally, I feel pagehits is a better indicator because it shows someone is hitting you, then surfing around your site instead of hitting inadvertantly, then clicking off.

This is harder to quantize on a blog, because most blogs are only one page (plus archives, but the meat is on the main page and regulars will just hit the index and move on.) Uniques are rendered meaningless by the practice of keyword whoring, which Wizband practices nearly daily, resulting in "empty" hits- that is, viewers who are suckered in by keyword placement that has nothing to do with content, like naked celebs and other highly searched words. The extreme irrelevancy of the keywords used in this tactic probably guarantees that most of these victims of what used to be called a "blind link" are going to click off in disgust.

What has been gained? Well what has been lost is bandwidth squandered (if you are really a big site this is unnecessary bleeding that wastes resources) and the dilution of the efficiency and usefulness of search engines. What has probably been gained is only the artificial inflation of Sitemeter stats for the Wizbangers, so they can brag on how they are a "Higher Mammal" on some ranking engine.

A better gauge of a blogs popularity and influence would be repeat visitors. Even the practice of crosslinking is not as relevant as a popularity indicator because blogs routinely misuse this practice by crosslinking each other's keyword whoring, pumping them all up. Its highly doubtful someone looking for naked Paris Hilton pics is going to be interested in the latest post about the President's visit to Europe.

The upshot of all this is that blogs further aggrandizement of themselves and over-estimation of their own importance and reach. Being a vet of the webmaster game, I'd guess at least half Wizbang's stats (by search engine referral ) are junk hits. Not impressive.

I don't blog for a paycheck... (Below threshold)
Atrios:

I don't blog for a paycheck. My blog is not a wholly owned subsidiary of a private company. Neither is Markos's, or Oliver's.

It might be considered bord... (Below threshold)
Jay:

It might be considered borderline by some, and it's possible a given host might choose to exclude it, but because there is a subclass of entries as much about blogging as business, and because this is about business and capitalism and associated perceptions too, you could enter this post in Carnival of the Capitalists.

On another note, I was thinking about the wealth/status quo conservation factor and resultant leftism among the already rich the other day, while reading State of Fear, and thinking about posting commentary along those lines.

Lovely article, JayTea!... (Below threshold)
BR:

Lovely article, JayTea!

Puppetz, stop wasting bandwith if you're so into scarcity.
Didn't you know conservatives can play the whole piano, from light-hearted fun to serious research? Not like some one-note-sambas on the left. Hee hee.

Didn't I just read in a link in Kevin's previous thread that Atrios is Duncan Black? You must be getting really BIG, wizbangblog, if this is the first stop in the morning after they get their Kool Aid from Bernard Weiner's site!

Its not the scarcity of ban... (Below threshold)
puppetz:

Its not the scarcity of bandwidth you idiot, its the fact that any TRULY popular site has high bandwidth costs and doesn't want to add to them with "empty" hits. Its only weak or begging sites that need resort to non-relative keyword whoring, or can even afford to.

I'm going to beg to differ ... (Below threshold)

I'm going to beg to differ here. I think you are going waaay out on a limb by saying the right bloggers do it for the common good and the left bloggers do it for the money. Are you forgetting those lefty bloggers you mention were all blogging long before they got any money out of it? What were they blogging for before the money came along, then?

Also, I don't think their sites are wholly owned subsidiaries of anything. Oliver works for Media Matters, but his blog is not part of Media Matters and he would still be blogging if he did not work for Media Matters.

Take into consideration: Command Post is a business. We are incorporated. I write for Command Post, but I also write (about some of the same things) at ASV - does that make ASV a subsidiary of Command Post? No, it doesn't.

I think you're looking way too hard for a way to say that right bloggers are better people than left bloggers. Controversy for the sake of controversy or do you really believe that?

What about Libertarian bloggers, or Independent bloggers? Are they doing it for the common good or for a chance to maybe make a few bucks off of ads? I think you're fooling yourself if you believe anyone really, honestly blogs for nothing more than the common good. Bloggers on the whole are vain people. We do it mostly because we are opinionated. The fact that I make money off of ads on my blog makes it all the sweeter.

So am I a sell out? A shill for Command Post? A bad right winger? Or do I just love capitalism and listening to myself talk?

Much ado about nothing, Jay.

Thomas Sowell<a hr... (Below threshold)
it:

Thomas Sowell

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/046508995X/103-9928037-2249433

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy

RE: michele's post (Februar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: michele's post (February 25, 2005 08:55 AM)
Also, I don't think their sites are wholly owned subsidiaries of anything. Oliver works for Media Matters, but his blog is not part of Media Matters and he would still be blogging if he did not work for Media Matters.
[emphasis added by ADriveler]

Hmm, sounds a little like Armstrong Williams, his advocacy, and his payola. [Get ready, O.Willis will appear shortly to defend his honor and say this is utterly incomparable.]

Media Matters is a source of financing for Liberal causes and Democrats. In essence it is part of the secondary government (in wait), for a lack of better terminology, in that while not having direct influence on US policy, it certainly has an indirect one through the minority party actors. O.Willis is an extension of that activist arm and is receiving subsidy to further that cause as a profession. That he presents similar material on his "personal" blog throughout the day (during working hours perhaps?) certainly blurs those lines between private and non-private funding for his advocacy. That's not to say that there is anything right or wrong about what Willis does (it is most assuredly legal), but I find the distinction between professional advocacy and private penning to be extremely fine.

What does this have to do with Jay Tea's philosophizing? Not much. But it does have something to do with the separation of public and private advocacy and the true sources of funding for each.

Are there differences between Williams' and Willis' advocacy? Absolutely, but there are striking similarities too. Just adding to the discussion since this thread borders on the philosophic.

Great. Now I feel bad about... (Below threshold)

Great. Now I feel bad about shopping my Dead Pool around to some funeral homes for sponsorship.

"The right tends towards ca... (Below threshold)

"The right tends towards capitalism, with plutocracy and utter laissez-faire being the extreme. Buying and selling is good. Big business is good. Profits are good. Corporations should be as unfettered as possible to maximize their own benefits."

You have an odd idea on what most conservatives and libertarians mean by "capitalism" or "laissez-faire." Or were you trying to be ironic with leftist stereotypes and misconceptions?

The fact is that leftists are the ones who favor concentration of political power, which leads to big business and governements subverting free markets. Read some Von Mises or Milton Friedman some time, you might be shocked on what they say about Big Business and corporatism.

Instie, Vodka, etc., the right blogopshere, are entreprueners. They are market pioneers. They use their site for their own value, not to push their values on other people.

The Left blogosphere is the like the Offline Left, they are funded by Big Business (like Soros), because Big Business thrives off of State-control of markets (pushing their values on other people by State-power). Take a look at at who funds the Left (DiscoverTheNetwork.org) - you will see a lot of Big Business interests (Ford Foundation, etc).

Read some history (do you know who funded the Bolsheviks? Who favored the "Progressive" legistlation in the 1900-1940s? Hint, it wasn't the Free Marketeers, it was Big Business).

The idea that the Left is "against" Big Busines is laughable. They are two sides of the same coin. Both hate laissez-faire and both hate free market capitalism.

Puppetz said: U... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Puppetz said:

Uniques are rendered meaningless by the practice of keyword whoring, which Wizband practices nearly daily, resulting in "empty" hits- that is, viewers who are suckered in by keyword placement that has nothing to do with content, like naked celebs and other highly searched words. The extreme irrelevancy of the keywords used in this tactic probably guarantees that most of these victims of what used to be called a "blind link" are going to click off in disgust. [ed- Then he says:]

Being a vet of the webmaster game, I'd guess at least half Wizbang's stats (by search engine referral ) are junk hits. Not impressive.

That's not 100% correct. And in fact, I can produce evidence to support an argument that the exact opposite is true. From reading your wording carefully, I know that already know the "correct" answer... *There is none.* --But having said that, we can use the data we have to make some guesses. And as I say, the data points to other guesses.

You accurately describe the various ways of measuring web stats but you jump to a flawed conclusion.

But first let me address two things... This might seem like an odd dichotomy and you can choose to believe it or not... I am the biggest google baiter here and I almost never look at stats. HUH? (I'm a weird guy) Basically it boils down to this... I'm a hacker. I love to beat google, but I do it for the love of the game... If you google "Carrie Underwood" we are second only to FOX. We were first for a long time. TO ME that is the reward. The people hitting that link don't really matter that much to me. If they come, fine, if not, I really don't care. To me, the game is beating google, not making the stats graph look good. AND FURTHER and it is a big further... You are 100% wrong when you say people follow dead links to Wizbang. If we say we have naked pictures of celebrities, then Dammit, we have the naked pictures of celebrities. (we have a reputation you know ;-)

OK, now let's get to the meat.

Since, as you say, pageviews are meaningless to blogs, we have uniques and this newish metric called links. You speculate that half of our referrer traffic is celeb search engine. I don't follow it that close but that number is way high. (Though it does spike when Paris gets hacked but that IS news after all)

But here is my point... If you look at our link numbers, we are consistently in the top 15. If I had to put an exact number on it, I'd guess that as a running average we are #12 or 13. That shows that a whole bunch of people have thought enough about Wizbang to link it at some point. (and we thank you all)

But if you look at our traffic numbers, you'll see something odd. OH CRAP- You won't see it today... (damn) As a general rule we are in the top 20 in terms of traffic and my best guess would be #17 or 18. So our traffic (usually) lags behind our links. (Naturally the day I go the link the data it does not look that way, check next week, it will.)

The numbers are skewed (IMO) because many of the sites to the extremes of the political spectrum get more commenters... KOS and LGF will always get a ton of comments so they get more traffic.

So to FINALLY get to the point.

If we got so much traffic from celeb search engine traffic, our traffic would be inflated compared to our links. But the opposite is (usually) true. Again, there is no sure answer but my best guess is that if you take the excess unigues generated from the comments out the stats, our links and our uniques would probably be about the same.... No great bump from celeb traffic.

Read some history (do yo... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Read some history (do you know who funded the Bolsheviks?

One of their largest sources of funding and other support was the German government who saw them as a way to drive Russia out of World War I, freeing up German soldiers to move to the Western Front.

In essence it is part of... (Below threshold)
mantis:

In essence it is part of the secondary government (in wait), for a lack of better terminology, in that while not having direct influence on US policy, it certainly has an indirect one through the minority party actors.

Media Matters is a 2nd government in wait? I'm going to have to call Congressman Willis and have him come fix this pothole.

There is one way to settle ... (Below threshold)

There is one way to settle this argument, gentlemen. All you have to do is look at the timelogs of each post and you can tell. There are some blogs that have tons of postings timestamped throughout the entire day. Please tell me folks, which job out there will allow folks to blog throughout the day. Folks with real jobs probably blog around day close or lunch. Maybe early in the morning. But throughout the day? Be real. Or maybe this is just a simplistic view of the whole debate. Maybe.

Canis, Some people h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Canis,
Some people have jobs where they aren't required to be in an office from 8-5 with only their lunch hour to do other things.

That still doesn't address ... (Below threshold)
puppetz:

That still doesn't address my point. A lot of your links are other blogs riding the red wave of keyword whoring (the Debbie Gibson post is a good example). If you want to really be honest about this, and you have any kind of decent stats analysis, look at the keyword referrals for your site and see what the top ones are.

Someday, if you ever do get the point of a site that has really high volume (we do 80k-120k pagehits a day and our bandwidth costs are astronomical) you may live to regret whoring empty hits just for rankings. And your protestation that you just do it to game the system is bull, you constantly brag you are one of the top rated blogs- my contention is that any site that whores keywords gets a lot of hits, and by doing so you make the validity of hits suspect re: content:viewers ratio. "Stickiness" of the hits you are getting is another important indicator: do your viewers click off after 10 seconds or stick around for at least a couple minutes. Do they come back to read your next update. Even more importantly once economics comes into play, do they click your sponsors? This should be your goal, not big hit stats, which are pretty meaningless and pure banner pages salted with selected keywords do as well as Wizbang in that regard.

You spin this an interestin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You spin this an interesting way. But even assuming your basis is true (which it clearly isn't), it could simply mean that the left-bloggers are so committed to their values that they seek to dedicate both their personal and professional lives to their ideals, while the right-bloggers are mere armchair hobbyists.

Conservatives and libertari... (Below threshold)

Conservatives and libertarians tend to split up the personal and political. Blogging is just part of their lives, along with their professions, families, etc. I suspect for many, blogging is a form of enterainment and education, to learn more about the world and other people, and a way to build relationships for personal, political and professional reasons.

For the Leftist, the personal is the political and vice versa. They define themselves as "activists" first and foremost, and blogging is an extension of their activism. The aim of blogging is naked power, which is why they are so sharply focused on political influence.

Posted by: mantis at Februa... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Posted by: mantis at February 25, 2005 12:52 PM
Media Matters is a 2nd government in wait?

Nice twisting there mantis. Context my dear mantis, context.

...it (Media Matters) is part of the secondary government (in wait), for a lack of better terminology, in that while not having direct influence on US policy, it certainly has an indirect one through the minority party actors.

Of course the statement is provocative, and I half expect O.Willis to respond to such a proclamation and to bring his shovel because he spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over "Payolagate". Heck, I said as much in my earlier post when I typed "O.Willis will appear shortly". He may or may not address this blurring of lines between paid and personal advocacy and the impact of financiers to promote the cause of a minority political party, but he typically does. I think it's a worthwhile debate and parallels the concept of payola though they are not identical.

I implore you, mantis, at a minimum to not remove contiguous keywords when attempting to interpret them. It affects your reasoning and misleads others. You weren't trying to mislead were you?

Example:
Mantis is not trying to mislead us.
Mantis is trying to mislead us.

This edit has the subtlety of Lawrence O’Donnell "debating" John O’Neill over Kerry's Vietnam so I'm assuming you get my point. Further, even little words have meaning.

Wow, AD, it was just a joke... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wow, AD, it was just a joke. I got what you meant, I just thought the idea of Willis filling a pothole was funny.

- Has anyone seen Kerry lat... (Below threshold)

- Has anyone seen Kerry lately....I wanted to ask him about that form 180....

- I blog because I enjoy the give and take, and the freedom to express ones views, unabashedly, without regard to reward....

- Besides, aside from normal work I'm just too damn beat to worry all that Ad's stuff, although I do put up Ad's that premote others efforts.... no bucks....

- I only link when I see something apropos to something I've posted or in a blog roundup review. I'm sure WhizBang can live without my 4 or 5 faithful readers, but since the quality of the work here is consistant I link when its right....

RE: mantis's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: mantis's post (February 25, 2005 08:31 PM)
Wow, AD, it was just a joke. I got what you meant, I just thought the idea of Willis filling a pothole was funny.

[AD Passing hand over head in whooshing action] Sorry mantis. I, obviously, missed the joke.

I think I'll skip the Willis and pothole stuff for a while. I seemed to have fractured my funny bone. [murmur] Damn potholes.

Anything I write here will ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Anything I write here will be ground down somewhere by someone and it's anticipated that it won't be by liberals. The "conservative" group of general "big" bloggers you refer to are also comingled into something that I really don't care to know much more about.

So, the picture I get is that there is ample bad behavior of a suggested covert kind among all political opinion on the internet, but especially a certain type of monopolization of opinion in two polar areas, with a questionable level of reprimand and harassment about anyone who asks questions about both/either. In my experience, as someone registered as a Republican, with donations planned to the GOP and volunteer efforts to many for socio-political (among other) purposes, if and when too many bloggers blindly accept systems as set, as definitive, you just get more wiki-ing of information. On and by both polarities.

Commercial efforts should be made known on sites that are commercially related. By all and any. I find it suspect that a blogger has to stumble upon sets and groups of bloggers only to realize that they are not at all disparate by one host or organization. There's a story here, but most individual readers seem to be oblivious to just who it is who sets tones and pushes what information to and upon whom.

Perhaps it is wise to be suspect of the general, so-called conservative bloggers AND the other extreme of bloggers, those liberal names you mention here.

All anyone can do is go on their own experience. About anyone, anything. Sometimes that means working past the surface hype about whatever, whomever and forming your own relationships apart from those that may make you feel uncomfortable, for whatever reason.

Unfortunately, intermingled... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Unfortunately, intermingled blogger relationships can and do, also, attempt to discredit those who raise issues, questions, attempt to share information that may not be complimentary to an assumed standard.

That's not unusual behavior by any political, business/commercial interest -- but what surprises me is when there's an appearance of coordinated denigration about sources. I always take pause when that happens and/or happens too often, ongoing. I may be one of the few who use the internet and live my life by questioning anyone/everyone when there's reason to do so, and what I mean by that is that I just never rely on public opinion to formulate my own. Personal experiences are where it's at, and sometimes you have to just form your own territory while yappers yap at your ankles and always will when you're not remaining under their influence.

Being popular is not necessarily, inherently, a "good thing." It only means you've got a lot of hands on you, it isn't an indication of worth but of availability.

Good article Jay, you are c... (Below threshold)
Oleg:

Good article Jay, you are converting me into a Republican.

I think that you are confusing "right" with libertarian.

"The right tends towards capitalism, with plutocracy and utter laissez-faire being the extreme. Buying and selling is good. Big business is good. Profits are good. Corporations should be as unfettered as possible to maximize their own benefits." -- so far there is little evidence of the right being hands-off.

You are right about the blogs. I love blogging because it is an outlet for my thoughts. I do not consider myself left or right. Yet the biggest left-wing blogs are somehow backed by a major entity. Heck, even Randi Rhodes of Air America whom I greatly respect is paid by frigging Clear Channel that she hates so much.

It is not right-wing blogs that you are talking about. Quite a few people who think they are Republican are actually Libertarian.

What we need to do is spread this message. We are libertarians for heaven's sake, not Republicans or Democrats. Those might as well be called Republicrats or Demoblicans because they are hardly different from one another...

Ok, I am done rambling...

Could you little schoolgirl... (Below threshold)
TCO:

Could you little schoolgirls leave this kerfuffle of pagehit subsidies for a second? It amuses me and touches me to see you struggle with each other on the content and then back each other up as the new media. But there is a bigger issue here (IOW the content).

The issue is what does capitalism mean to a Democrat. A true economic libertarian (still at the core of the Reagan/Goldwater heart of the Republican party...despite that knife that GWHB stuck in our backs when his lips became not worth watching) believes in the power of pure competition. The pro-business Democrats, Summers, Rubin, the whole NY/Goldman Sachs crowd and a lot at McKinsey (Chelsea is there for a reason) believe in a world of oligopolies and payoffs.

The corner hotdog stand is not the model for the Krugman-lovers (though Krugman himself likely knows better). It is Richard Daley and the Chicago alderman dispensing favors. It is Whitewater, cattle futures, &ct. Is it any surprise that they herald a sort of anti-Keynsianism to be some new economic theory? That their one accomplishment was full of hot air (the dotcom bubble)?

Now, this is not to say that every Democrat is taking bribes. But it is a meme that affects their thinking in many ways. Nor are all Republican businessmen ethical. Human weakness is common. But if you look at the ethic and think about it, you will see that the Goldman crowd's thoughts are dominated by the machinations of Robert Machinist (read Micheal Wolfe's BURN RATE), which are all about distribution in the end, while the economic libertarians still champion the noble innovator/businessman ala the Wright Brothers who contribute to society by creating new wealth.

Jay Tea - could you referen... (Below threshold)
BR:

Jay Tea - could you reference your link(s) for funding of Atrios, etc.

Here is a link to a 3-part series which describes the groups Soros funds and/or guides: The Shadow Party by David Horowitz & Richard Poe, Oct 6 - 11, 2004.

Part II contains this:

"By early 2004, the Shadow Party’s infrastructure had assumed a coherent shape, under Soros’ guidance. At its heart lay seven ostensibly “independent” non-profit groups which constitute the network’s administrative core. Let us call them the Seven Sisters. In chronological order, based upon their launch dates, they are:

1. MoveOn.org - Launched September 22, 1998

2. Center for American Progress (CAP) - Launched July 7, 2003

3. America Votes - Launched July 15, 2003

4. America Coming Together (ACT) - Launched July 17, 2003

5. The Media Fund - Launched November 5, 2003

6. Joint Victory Campaign 2004 - Launched November 5, 2003

7. The Thunder Road Group LLC - Launched early 2004"

*****

<a href="http://www.frontpa... (Below threshold)
BR:

Part III has this:

"By pushing McCain-Feingold through Congress, Soros cut off the Democrats’ soft-money supply. By forming the Shadow Party, Soros offered the Democrats an alternate money spigot – one which he personally controlled. As a result the Democrats are heavily – perhaps even irretrievably – dependent on Soros. It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that McCain-Feingold, from its very inception, was a Soros power play to gain control of the Democratic Party."

(The details on how Soros pushed it through are also there.)

aaaaaagh...we're off the ma... (Below threshold)
TCO:

aaaaaagh...we're off the main page now.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy