The Drudge Retort has been kicked out of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, a group of 75 liberal sites organized by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD under the guidance of BlogPAC, a political action committee that Moulitsas and Armstrong began in 2004.

Bowers personally invited me to join the network in May 2005, sending several e-mails until I agreed to become one of its founding members. I thought it was a good way to bring liberal blogs closer together and make some money in the 2006 election year, so I've been working on it for six months, running the network's "Advertise Liberally" ad on the Retort 6.5 million times during that span and setting up a private blog for members.

Liberal Blog Advertising NetworkThe network has been experiencing a double super-secret flamewar since Bowers announced in mid-October that they were unilaterally changing the rules in a way that excludes several well-trafficked members, including the Retort, Raw Story and Smirking Chimp.

At this time next year, I planned to be sunning on the deck of a new yacht bought with political ad riches, thanks to our country's lack of meaningful campaign finance reform. I saw myself picking up the New York Times, reading about the newly elected Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the first day of Karl Rove's prison term and the Texas Rangers' victory in the World Series.

Instead, I've just given six months of effort and free ad space worth $2,200 to a liberal ad network that's now my competition.

Some conservatives will have a field day with this, suggesting that liberal bloggers don't know the business world because we're up in our ivory towers smoking medicinal marijuana as we search for gay spotted owls who want to get married. But things could be worse for the liberal ad network -- it could be Pajamas Media.

I think the moral of this story is simple: Practice due diligence before getting into business with Moulitsas, Armstrong and Bowers. A trait that makes them entertaining bloggers -- a talent for getting into fights they don't need to have -- doesn't translate well to making a network of weblogs advertiser friendly.

I realized this a few weeks ago when Moulitsas used the Daily Kos front page to threaten potential advertisers:

... campaigns should advertise on blogs to reach readers, not to "endorse" the publication. We're bloggers. We'll say things that are "controversial". If campaigns don't think they can weather such storms, then by all means they should NOT advertise on blogs.

Because every time a campaign freaks out at a blogger and pulls their ads, we're going to raise a stink about it and inevitably make that campaign look bad. So they should think long and hard before putting money into a Blogad campaign.

My jaw dropped when I read this response to the Kaine gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, which pulled an ad from Steve Gilliard because of his provocative depiction of an African-American politician in blackface. The political situation for a Democrat in a tight race, days before the election, was less important than a blogger's need to keep it real.

Moulitsas can afford to say crazy stuff, because Democratic politicians view Daily Kos as an ATM machine and assembly line for grass-roots liberal activists. He charges $1,400 a week for ads and regularly sells 6-8 of them.

For the rest of the 75-minus-me members in the liberal ad network, "don't pull an ad or we'll hurt you" is a bit of a tough sell.

-- Rogers Cadenhead

Comments

Anything we can do to help?


 

What was the reason(s) given for the exclusion of those three sites?


 

Wow! That's really crudy. Sorry you won't be on that Yacht. Moulitsas, and his little crew need to rethink what they're saying and doing. I think the Democrats may be on their way back to controlling the Senate but anything could derail this comeback. Even a Liberal butthead Blogger. Peace and Love but don't push and shove!


 

sounds like France and the EU.


 

As a conservative I was heartened and delighted to read your comment "suggesting that liberal bloggers don't know the business world because we're up in our ivory towers smoking medicinal marijuana as we search for gay spotted owls who want to get married."

Finally a liberal who speaks the truth. Something must be done about those gay spotted owls before our way of life is threatened.


 

provocative depiction of an African-American politician in blackface.

"Provocative?" Is that a synonym for disgusting? Racist? Slanderous? Reprehensible?

Just wondering what it takes to offend you folks.


 

I was trying to avoid this becoming another venue for the blackface argument. I'm an avid reader of Steve's blog, but I disagree with his belief that blackface is an acceptable form of ridicule of a black politician, regardless of the race of the critic.


 

Just wondering what it takes to offend you folks

Well, Pat Robertson offends me with his lunatic screeds. Bush offends me pretty much everytime he opens up his mouth (and sometimes when he just stands there). InstaRube offends me by claiming to not be a Republican while carrying the water for the Republicans every moment of every day. The frat boys at Powerline offend me by being dumb as a box of rocks but still being willing to comment on anything. Rush Limbaugh offends me by being a junkie. Bill Bennett offends me by being a degenerate gambler. DeLay offends me with his criminal mischief. Frist offends me by violating pretty much every canon of medical ethics by diagnosing Terry Schiavo on television. Wingnuts offend me continuously by claiming to hold the patents on patriotism and virtue.

Should I go on?


 

Ditto on the fact that this sucks, and also to the question about the reasoning. Are these sites not considered "blogs?"


 

I just LOVE it when you guys turn your guns on each other. Very amusing, and it uses up a lot of your time and energy.


 

Should I go on?

Yes, please, but be sure to wake me when you get to things that are offensive in a non-rabid partisan way.

Rogers: point taken.


 

So hypocrisy offends you unless it's in blackface?

I don't get it.


 

So, I guess your little liberal world view has taken a bit of a hit, hasn't it. How could it be that some of your left wing buddies could be so mean?

Really, if you got into blogging for the money, then you got into it for the WRONG reasons.

Enjoy the fun of knowing that your fellow left wingers can be a bunch of ruthless, racist kind of guys, and remember that the next time you want to criticize the other end of the political spectrum.


 

Look at all the mouthbreather Republicans expressing their joy. The true amusement comes when you consider their party is feeding on itself far worse than this.


 

Funny, I state a series of facts (Frist did break the canon of medical ethics, Rush is a junkie, Bennett is a gambler, etc.), and you dismiss them as rabid. That says much more about your wholesale acceptance of your party's corruption than it does about my off-the-cuff depiction of it. As someone in your own party recently said about the Abramoff scandal:

"I don't think we have had something of this scope, arrogance and sheer venality in our lifetimes," Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote recently. "It is building to an explosion, one that could create immense collateral damage within Congress and in coming elections."

So I'm going to continue to be offended by this crew, and you can continue to rationalize their behaviour because they are on "your side."

Have a nice day!


 

As a conservative myself, I am looking at some of the other comments from conservatives on this page and I have to apologize for their behavior. They dont have room to talk.

Bunchve bloodthirsty partisans... thats all anyone is anymore...

No one wants to persuade the other side. They want to annihilate them. No one says, "Lets present our arguments and try and convince them to come to our side." Now it's just "Why persuade them when we can slander and destroy them?"

Bah.


 

Rogers, please consider writing an essay on the importance of the privilege to offend in a free society.

I hesitate to call it a "right to offend," because few things in this world are actually rights, but I think the importance of the freedom to offend has been lost on liberals.


 

Very interesting. As a conservative I have to say that it doesn't say anything to me about liberals, but does confirm many of my longheld views about Moulitsas (and btw, I think he's a crappy blogger. He's the left wing equivalent of crap conservative blogs like Powerline).

But what was the real problem here? Was it that DrudgeRetort,etc. traffic was so high that it absorbed most of the ads or got most of the attention? Was it a blog vs. linkblog issue? Or was it the threats to advertisers?

You kind of hint at different things but don't actually say what the specifics of the conflict were that led to your site being exclude.


 

I am also a conservative blogger and just wanted to complement you on your writing.


 

I suppose that as this story spreads around the right side of the blogosphere that much of it will come down as Kos once again being a bit Stalinist. They would be wrong; I can't see the ideological divide that would cause the expulsion of, say, Smirking Chimp.

What this is about is ego, and the biggest blogs, of either side, seem to pander to a specific group of Angry People to feed it. Powerline leads the charge of the Angry Elephants and Kos and MyDD clearly enjoy the outrage of their reader's offended liberal sensibilities.

And you have to ask yourself "do those guys _really_ believe everything they write"? Or does having a 500 comment thread of mostly Me-Toos feed the ego?

I'm betting Ego. Just like Kos's odd claim several months ago that he was going to have some sort of coup against the DLC......

This highlights why I think that such blog-operatives as PJ Media and Liberal Ad Network are, in the end, doomed to failure. There are a few that carry the water for the respective Parties and interest groups but the vast majority of bloggers want to say what they want when they want to. Often it may be the Party Line, but it is also the desire to step on a soapbox and yell defiance.

I don't think there is room on my soapbox for me and someone else's hyper-inflated ego and I don't think I'm alone.


 

Someone Moulitsas would pay attention to should publicly call him out, and demand a retraction of his response to the Kaine gubernatorial campaign.

I'm having a difficult time letting go of your fantasy of picking up the New York Times and reading about those wonderful things.

It looks so good in print.


 

i think we're all getting tired of the goodfellas routine. its childish, and it isn't good for the party. even the the littlest of blogs, like A9, seems to be having some pretty cutthroat tactics aimed at it. silly. absurd. can't say much more. glad you're bringing this to light though. there's more there i'm sure.


 

Charles Giacometti


 

Where's the McChimpy McBushHitlerburton references? There's a surprising lack of BDS on this site. I'm disappointed, in a way.


 

Charles Giacometti:

The Republican Party and this administration have plenty of ethical issues to confront, not doubt about it. However, while you and your fellow left wingers express horror at their antics, work on cleaning up your own shop.

As far as this "mouthbreather" is concerned, this adminstration is far from perfect, it has the potential to truly implode in the next election, and no one of any intelligence on the right "accepts" or tolerates the ethical issues created by this adminstration.

Only problem is, your party offers no alternatives. It can't be trusted with the defense of the nation, and you have just as many power hungry scum wating to crush the little guy as do the Republicans.

Finally, if you can't take some heat over a very public indicator of the power hungry methods of your most extremist bloggers, go find a sense of humor and take a few days off.

r/ Bedrock Guy


 

But what was the real problem here?

Bowers announced in mid-October that there would be new guidelines imposed without discussion on all member sites in early November. The biggest was that sites which are not blogs are not eligible.

The Retort is a blog, though the front-page view is unusual, so I didn't expect the axe.

The weird part about the change is that all of the sites kicked out were invited to join. It's completely Pajamas.


 

Instead, I've just given six months of effort and free ad space worth $2,200 to a liberal ad network that's now my competition.

That's a shame. But hey -- just think of it as a tax you pay even though you didn't vote for it and don't think you should have to pay it, for the enrichment of people you don't think should be benefitting from your hard work just because of their conviction that they have some natural-born right to the fruits of your labors.

Now you know what it feels like to be a Republican.


 

tall dave:

spot on.....


 

"The weird part about the change is that all of the sites kicked out were invited to join. It's completely Pajamas."

I don't get the Pajamas reference; as far as I know, nobody who was invited to join PM has been kicked out.

I'm not sure where PM is headed, but I gotta say that the money looks pretty good. Unlike some others, I was pleasantly surprised with the offer they gave me.


 

There is a difference between an offensive statement not directed at you and one that is not "(i.e. Dick Durbin saying that our military uses tactics akin to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot is generally offensive but, unless I am a military person, I don't take it personally.) But apparently there are things that personally offend Giacometti even though they have nothing to do with him:

Pat Robertson's "lunatic screeds".

I wonder how this is so offensive unless Giacometti is in bed with the Communist thug in Venezuela, or he lives in some seedy part of a town that Robertson said God will deal with. Just how are his "lunatic screeds" personally offensive to him?

Bush offends him just by his prescense.

Wow, this is a pretty low threshold for being offended. Bush, probably one of the most unassuming and moderate presidents in modern American history, offends just by "stand[ing] there. Just how is he offensive? He didn't veto the big spenders in Congress enough? He let's too many illegals across the border? He agrees with Clinton on Iraq? He worked on an Education bill with Kennedy? He passed the prescription drug benefit? He got the Israelis and the Palestinians to talk to each other? He jumped started the economy after the Clinton recession of 98-99? He liberated Afghanistan and Iraq? Just which of these things are offensive to you CG?

He is offended by "the frat boys at Powerline" because they are "dumb as a box of rocks".

Okay, the fact that the Powerline bloggers are some of the brightest guys writing on the Internet today aside, how is commenting on "anything" offensive given that IT IS A BLOG AFTER ALL!!!. That's what bloggers do, for goodness sake. But to complain that some lawyers are commenting on a blog because they are too dumb to write is maybe even a lower threshold for offensiveness than the "just standing there" measure.

Then Giacometti is offended by Rush Limbaugh because he is a "junkie". Setting aside for the moment that he is a recovering prescription pain medication addict like millions of other Americans and not a "junkie" (i.e. someone who is currently abusing heroin), how does his addiction affect you much less "offend"?

"Bill Bennett offends me by being a degenerate gambler".

Now this is just silly on its face (even sillier than the previous examples). Who are you to be so moralistic about gambling? And furthermore, what is so "degnerate" about gambling? Whether you buy a lottery ticket or play the stock market, you are gambling. Millions do it. It may be slightly worse than being overweight or watching too much TV but talk about being sanctimonious. Sheesh!

"DeLay offends me with his criminal mischief."

Since he has committed no "criminal mischief" I can't, for the life of me, imagine how this could offend you. But just for argument sake, were you offended by either Hillary's or Bill's "criminal mishief"? They committed about every white collar crime out there and a few blue collar ones as well and my guess is that if either ran for office again you would vote for them no? Bill Clinton, a guy that made Richard Nixon look like Mother Theresa, a guy who used the IRS against his enemies, a guy who was accused of raping a woman, a guy who is the darling of the left is loved, and you are offended by phony allegations against DeLay?

Well, some of us are offended that the state can bring the full weight of the legal system against a citizen simply because he takes a different political viewpoint than the person who is wielding the power. The Ronnie Earle affair smacks much more of Stalinist Soviet Union than of the U.S.

"Frist offends me by violating pretty much every canon of medical ethics by diagnosing Terry Schiavo on television."

Yes, it violates medical ethics to defend the right of a person to live. I just so want to live in a world where doctors (many of whom were out on the air "diagnosing" that Schiavo was a vegetable) are the ones being "ethical" when they are advocating the execution of the weak and helpless. ;-)

But, again, how is a doctor standing up for the rights of a private citizen who is about to be executed offensive?

"Wingnuts offend me continuously by claiming to hold the patents on patriotism and virtue."

Which "wingnuts" are we talking about here? Holding a "patent"? I know of no one who claims such a thing but I do know a lot of leftists who get real defensive when someone challenges their patriotism.

The lefts definition of patriotism is "attack George Bush". My sense is that most people think that patriotism means "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it".

Love of country is about the bottom of the Left's hit parade and very few "sacrifice for it". Even on the Right, few, except those in the armed forces, actually sacrifice for their country but at least we love our country.

Hey, CG, you don't have to love the country but don't claim to be a patriot when you are tearing it down.


 

HOw could you possibly think doing business with Kos was well-advised?! No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you'd have to be blind not to instantly recognize that he's a freaking nut!

You got EXACTLY what you deserved. By the way, I hear Howard Dean has some great wetland property he's selling in Florida...


 

Perhaps there aren't enough attorneys on the internet? Maybe you need to take your emails and notes of phone conversations to a local lawyer, and where you might find some hope to hold your business partner(s) to their agreements.

If you were deserving of a splendid yacht, with their help you can probably acquire at least an 18' Bayliner. . .

Otherwise, if you think you might acquire significant advertising in the future --- get an attorney. . .


 

Dear Beeblebrox

on: "Wingnuts offend me continuously by claiming to hold the patents on patriotism and virtue."

There is an old country saying that applies here; "A hit dog hollers"

nuff said.


 

Beeblebrox:

Wow, you spent a lot of energy completely misunderstanding everything I wrote, but, hey, more power to you! This is a free country. If you need to, consider it a total victory on your part.

One quick favor, though--can you tell me if you are a regular reader of Instapundit? I am doing a little survey.

But let me say this. I did not "tear down the country." I tore down a bunch of politicians and political gasbags. Big, big difference. Politicians and political gasbags are down there with lawyers, car salesman, and Kenny G.

Charles


 

Most of you are douches.


 

No we are not.


 

Yes, you are.


 

Nuh-uh.


 

HA HA!!!! HA HA!!! HA HA!!! THIS BLOG IS FUNNY AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY!!!


 

I hate both sides. Both equally hypocritical. Both equally unethical. Both equally full of sh1t.


 

I'll bet anyone a buck that "Sam Adams" came here straight from Instapundit.


 

I'll raise you $20.


 

Most of the items that bug you (offend, annoy, anger or what have you) bug me also. I disagree about the instapundit but I can see how you might feel that way. I think he's being pretty honest and correct when he claims to be mostly libertarian. Except for defense where he clearly supports the current administration. That's the big issue for the left at the moment so that's the litmus test. Anyway, sorry that things didn't work out. My hope is that the internet will weaken the partisan control of government and strengthen the idealogical.


 

You could easily have field day with democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron)?
Clinton - accused rapist
Byrd - former Klansmen
Sharpton - anti-semite, supporter of Tawana Brawley
J. Jackson - adulterer, lied about MLK, for God's sake, anti-semite
Ted Kennedy - Chappaquidick
Biden - plagiarizer

My point - every party sucks - debate issues not people, you idiots.


 

You could easily have field day with democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron)?
Clinton - accused rapist
Byrd - former Klansmen
Sharpton - anti-semite, supporter of Tawana Brawley
J. Jackson - adulterer, lied about MLK, for God's sake, anti-semite
Ted Kennedy - Chappaquidick
Biden - plagiarizer

My point - every party sucks - debate issues not people, you idiots.


 

Rush Limbaugh offends me by being a junkie.
A person who develops an abusive relationship with a prescribed painkiller but never graduates to non-medical narcotics and takes serious measures to become and remain clean falls short of meeting my definition of junkie.
Bill Bennett offends me by being a degenerate gambler.
If he were a degenerate gambler he would have played roulette or bought lottery tickets. A properly selected video poker machine played competently will give back something like seven cents for every ten dollars run thru it.
DeLay offends me with his criminal mischief.
The first indictment against him will require proving that specific money in was identical with certain money out. Otherwise half the PACs in the country are guilty. The prosecuter had to beat up on two grand juries to get the second indictment. You must be real easy to offend.


 

Oh Internet.

Same stuff, different people.

I could go to any one of ten thousand other blogs on the internet and there'd be the same type of snide retards in the comments sniping at each other. The vast majority are little better than Livejournals that have a specific focus in their postings.

This just in: Don't get in any sort of business agreement with anyone unless you've signed a contract.

Yeah, fine, great, you guys like the noises each other makes. Sign a contract anyways. This is called "covering your ass".

That being said, while you were dumb to not do this, that guy is indeed a grade-a jerk to just suddenly yank the rug out from under some people.

Leftists: Stop acting like you're god's gift to discourse. Just because you say it does not make it automatically correct, and continuing with the Bush-Chip-Hitler-Oil stuff just alienates moderates.

Rightists: Why are you arguing in the comments section of a liberal blog again? It's a waste of time, no one here will ever agree with anything you say, so you might as well go do something a bit more useful.

To both sides: Does it really matter who's right in the long run? In the end the historians will all sort it out anyways. It's not like the country will be destroyed from one President you hate. If one pisses off enough people, then in the next election, you can toss him out and put in your guy, and then it's the other side's turn to whine and complain for the next four to eight years.

The only real difference about Clinton and Bush so recently is that with the advent of the Internet, more like-minded people can get together and talk with each other. You think pretty much every other president didn't do a lot of things that a majority of certain groups hated?

The news just gets around easier these days, that's the only real difference.

Either way, in fifty years, the United States will still be here regardless of what you or I or the President or anyone else ever does.

Also, yes, I know, tl;dr =p


 

"I'll bet anyone a buck that "Sam Adams" came here straight from Instapundit."

A blog has to take the love where ever it comes from right? I clicked the link from Instapundit, so one little tick on the hit counter is from me.

Good luck with your efforts, Rodgers. I'll have to check out what you've got under the topic of "publishing" before I go.


 

Here's a conservative who came here from fark.


 

Your post is on the front page of Fark.com, an adjunct wing of Fox News run by ber-conservatice Drew Curtis.


 

That's supposed to be über, as in u-with-diaeresis ... Drew Curtis is a shill for the right wing.


 

I see your $20 and raise you . . . something relevant and politically witty.


 

Whipped pussy.
Can not fight like a real man so you run and ask your one-eyed, one-legged grandmother to fight for you. What a generation of wussy.

Stop crying or I'll slap you some more.


 

Hey, Rogers! He's right! You're famous, now, for sure!

The title of the Fark reference to you:

Liberal bloggers get into a hair-pulling sissy fight over advertising network

I didn't think you sounded all that 'sissy' though, and who was pulling whos hair?


 

SISSY FIGHT!!!


 

I didn't think you sounded all that 'sissy' though, and who was pulling whos hair?

If I had known this was going to be on Fark, I would have borrowed my friend Mark's gay French superhero outfit.


 

"how pajamas" ... indeed! Lots to that statement that I don't understand. But today, of all days, I happen to read two stories linked from two sources , one about someone who put lots of work into pajamas media and got disinvited, and you, here (I'd link to this but why? everyone on this page is here already) who've been part of a different ad thang and got disinvited.

Don't know what it all means, other than "what a koinkidink" *and* be careful who you do business with.


 

Beeblebrox:

George Bush raped me.

There. Now G-dub has been accused of raping a woman, and by your standards, as outlined above, should disgust you, right?

After all, I can prove my allegations as well as any of the National Enquirer cover stories could prove theirs. Just get our side's equivalent of Scaife to buy me a couple of Texas state troopers to say anything I want 'em too, and I'll be all set!


 

I wouldn't imagine there's much money in ideological advertising, anyway, most certainly on the side in which heavily-promoted outlets like 'Air America' failed. However, there are some great commercial advertising services out there. Bravenet Advertising, for example, promises a dollar a day from it's advertising services, which I understand is better than the low end is getting for Google ads.

I consider that a great alternative for some of the upstarts to use. There are also some other small advertising rings existing for primarily for traditional webpages, that new blogs could use until their google value rises.


 

LOL, Fark is right-wing? I have been banned from Fark twice for using the word "liberal" as a pejorative. I defy anyone to consitently criticize liberals or Democrats in Fark threads - even the political ones - and not get banned. There is such a left-wing tilt on Fark it isn't funny.

Search on Fark under "UCLAJD" or "Republitarian" to see my comments if you don't believe me.


 

Kos is a true believer and aint in it for the money. Sound a lot like you are.


 

Mon frer,

About being on Fark, your friend Mark, is he French Canadien?

I am a Family man, and a good Doctor of the Gonzo school.


 

Wow, how dare you question anyone's patriotism.

"Bush, probably one of the most unassuming and moderate presidents in modern American history, offends just by "stand[ing] there. Just how is he offensive? He didn't veto the big spenders in Congress enough? He let's too many illegals across the border? He agrees with Clinton on Iraq? He worked on an Education bill with Kennedy? He passed the prescription drug benefit? He got the Israelis and the Palestinians to talk to each other? He jumped started the economy after the Clinton recession of 98-99? He liberated Afghanistan and Iraq? Just which of these things are offensive to you CG?"

All of them, except the misleading way you state them.

Unassuming and moderate? Are you out of your mind?

His Supreme Court Appointments alone refute your points. Everyone has to have extreme religious viewpoints, or else no consideration.

You think he's not a big spender because of his "tax cuts"? Look at what the two wars this man has created have cost us. Or, the deficit. (wasn't that a thing of the past under Clinton?)

He agrees with the Clinton admin says on Iraq? Didn't he run on the fact that the Clinton admin didn't do enough on defense, and then boost it? So, now he wants to hide behind Clinton's in-effective defense agency findings? What did that extra money buy?

My dad, a 72 year old man asked me to figure out the benefit to him in the drug "benefits" passed. I tried real hard after reviewing his cheaper, better plan. (he was concerned if he signed up for one, he would rightly lose the other, and he was right.) I was forced to report to him that there was NO benefit.

He got the Israelis and the Palestinians to talk to each other?

Are you out of your mind? They came back and asked for the fuvcking Clinton proposal.

He jumped started the economy after the Clinton recession of 98-99?

Huh? My salary tripled under Clinton, and I lost two jobs and now make half what I made under Clinton in a job I hate under Bush, just so I can keep my kids in America. (I work in manufacturing, a industry Bush hates, and has moved out of this country to Malasia, India, singapore, etc.)

"were you offended by either Hillary's or Bill's "criminal mishief"? They committed about every white collar crime out there and a few blue collar ones as well and my guess is that if either ran for office again you would vote for them no? Bill Clinton, a guy that made Richard Nixon look like Mother Theresa, a guy who used the IRS against his enemies, a guy who was accused of raping a woman, a guy who is the darling of the left is loved, and you are offended by phony allegations against DeLay?

Phony, not yet. The court, if we can find one white, Republican, and partisan enough to satisfy Delay, then yes, someday we will have an answer.

What evidence of crimes that independent investigation of the Clintons could not find to impeach do you have that you were remiss to share?

This type of post infuriates me, as your complete absence of facts seems to offend you and your kind not a bit...


 

Sure, comment here on Cadenhead's blog. Try coming over to www.cruel.com with all your nonsense and WE WILL KICK YOUR PUSSY ASSES! Love, Horseonovich (google me!)


 

Dstringman says, ". . .What evidence of crimes that independent investigation of the Clintons could not find to impeach do you have that you were remiss to share?"

Your own selective blindness is apparent in this misdirection. You ignore that Clinton's perjury qualified as an impeachable offense and wasn't implemented because of partisanship, and not any sort of honest judgement based on the evidence.

This entire back-and-forth, and which is the type of post that 'infuriates' you (although you indulge yourself in the same exercise) was begun by 'progressive' partisans (Mr. Giacometti) in an effort to smear the Right in a typical misdirection. . .

. . .but you knew that, and decided to issue your own copycat effort to smear the Right and using the typical misdirections. . .sad. . .


 

(Will this make any difference? Is the horse dead yet?)
Anonymous Woman,
"George Bush raped me."

I think you were taking about Paula Jones. I think Beeblebrox was talking about Juanita Broderick. Her story was the one buried by NBC until after the election.


 

It is truly a case of "virtue from the lips of a whore" for Republicans to be attacked by bedmates of Bubba and Teddy the Troll.


 

Funny thing is that med pot is more popular in Montana than Bush.

Bush got 58% in the last election, med pot got 61%.


 

Heh, I check out Drudge Retort all the time and never knew there was a blog version of the site. I had to look all over your homepage to find your hidden link to the blog.

So you were banned because your homepage is not a blog? Seems logical since it's called the Liberal BLOG Advertising Network.

Now if you changed your homepage to the blog and they still kept you out, then I think you'd have a legitimate complaint.


 

"So you were banned because your homepage is not a blog? Seems logical since it's called the Liberal BLOG Advertising Network."

so true.

LOUD NOISES!


 

I don't post on fark, but I do tend to read it daily. Bottom line, there are all kinds of headlines on that site, and people bashing both sides in the threads.

As near as I can tell, the only clear bias Fark exhibits is one in favor of explicit pictures and malt beverages - and against Duke.

The bottom line is that it's a continual string of flame wars. One's reminded of the line in Fifel: An American Tail where the narrator notes that food in the household was plentiful, as long as one liked an endless variety of bread-crumb based dishes.

In a similar vein, Fark provides an endless variety of nourishing flamewars. Some days it's religion in the form of FSM, other days in the form of a fountain in Italy from which money goes to the Roman Catholic Church. Some days it's politics in a thread about Libby's steamy romance novel, other days it's politics in a thread about the Jordanian government's internal reaction to a recent bombing.

Mixed in is a romp through the world's stupid criminals, baby animals, breaking news and unlikely happenings.

To call it partisan, well that might just earn you a dumbass tag.


 

I appologize for my excessive use of the phrase "bottom line" in the above post. The bottom line is I'm sorry, I'm tired.


 

I saw a photo of Delay tonguing Abramoff's chocolate starfish


 

Ads? I didn't know there were ads on any of these blogs. My reality just doesn't accept them as real, so I don't see them.


 

Just more dead weight from the left whinge I guess.


 

my pussy hurts


 

These comments are horrifique.

Your friend Mark is terrifique.


 

Your remarks about medicinal marijuana are indicative of a true understanding of the meaning of all these bloggable blurbs.

Giddyap!


 

fark has headlines that take jabs at republicans, democrats, and third parties...the people there are about 75% liberal and 25% conservative, with about the same ratio of extreme crackpots on either end, 3 wackadoodle libs for every extreme neocon.

/i should charge fark $20 for the advertising


 

As a conservative libertarian, I simply must say I think you should start a bigger better Liberal Network, Contact all their members with your story. By all means build a more ideologically sound liberal conversation. It would help both sides of the debate if we could get rid of some of the opertunistic hypocrits on the liberal side of things....

Besides you still might get your boat


 

One quick favor, though--can you tell me if you are a regular reader of Instapundit?

I did, and frankly, I'm appalled that somebody would behave the way Kos/Bowers did. I also have something to say to the conservative wingnuts making a game of flaming: Please, seriously, stop being jackasses. There's a reason that I read very few "conservative" blogs, and mostly stick to the libertarians like Reason's Hit & Run: you people are all at least as crazy as Armando at Kos.


 

"I think the moral of this story is simple:"

Get involved with assholes, and you're the one who gets screwed.

You are actually surprised by any of this? If you are, then you are very naive.

This is the guy who said "Screw 'em" to Americans murdered and butchered in Iraq. You think he gave half a sec to your feelings, your efforts or to common decency in general?

You can view this as a cheap shot troll if you want, but it does not mean it is not the truth.

Believe it or not, I am sorry you were screwed over. I winced a little bit when I read this account.


 

KOs is intolerant of any attempt at "Fair and Balanced" debate. It is pathetic to watch posts over there get deleted because posters "decide the content should not be viewed". INTOLERANT!!!...and Fark is not right-wing...that must have been posted by a Kos flunky.


 

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT


 

Pajamas Media was a wack business conception, but so is doing business with a wacko like Moulitsas.


 

I am blogging blog in Ulan Bator. Am look for comments ideas? So this how crazed american talk to each other? These statesmen are siko.


 

I don't know what we're yelling about!!!


 

My eyes! I clicked on the [url]maxham.com[/url]
and now I'm BLIND!
*whimper* his socks, where are his socks!?!?!?*whine*

P.S. Have you ever heard that the definition of a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged? Welllll, I am not saying that you *have* been mugged, lightly rolled, maybe, but I hope you take this opportunity to examine some of your compatriots behavior, and their "it's all good as a means to the end" sort of attitude. Good character it is not.


 

Go easy on Mark. He wore that suit with pride. If someone made one for me, I hope I'd do the same.


 

I think too many liberals were sick of me skull fucking them regular like...........The retort is my beat down territory; Rogers my personal bitch............That being said any libs that want it handed to them, come on over to the retort for the raping of a lifetime........

Your pal!
Rex


 

Ecce Homo.


 

I'm changing the name of my fantasy football team to the "Gay Spotted Owls"!


 

We already got that one.


 

That's what happens when you get in bed with entertainers.


 

We are a union of singers, knights, and free spirits. You guys are welcome to join, especially Mark.


 

You are discriminating against gay spotted owls who Don't want to get married.

They have lawyers for that, you know.


 

Rogers, I thought you knew better. If you want political ad riches, you have to co-operate.


 

Just what we need. Another dime-store philosopher.


 

When choosing between two evils, I always choose the one I've never tried before.


 

Rogers,

As another Conservative, I find two things in these series of comments. First, from my fellow "Conservatives" I should say I am surprised but am really not that they are jumping on your expulsion as Liberals feeding upon themselves. Just as there are all shades of Conservativism, there are all shades of Liberalism. Just look at Zell Miller and tell me that Democrats can't be Conservative wingnuts. A man who purports to have been a Democrat but has attacked every one of his fellow Democratic Congressmen that he served with for so many years. Then there is Joe Lieberman, the Senator representing Israel. Most people don't know that Israel has representation in America's Congress, but Senator Lieberman is an outstanding example of a man who cares more about another nation than his own constituents.

As for you Rogers, the same is true. Just is my more rabid "Conservative" fellows who have posted here, you seem to believe that Liberals are of a uniform belief and not of broad beliefs.
Elections drive politicians to choose between two parties that have different basic beliefs here in America. Yet in reality, America is no different than Britain and even more so Italy. In Italy there are no less than 16 political parties represented in their Parlament. One of these is called the RepubblicaniDomocratici Party! Guess they are trying to cover all bases with that party. What is interesting is that the Rightists got about 30% of the 2001 vote, the Communists got about 20% and the Centerists and fringe parties got the other 50%.
So you see, where people have a real choice they show their true feelings politically.
In America, where in most cases it is either/or, the parties try to draw the conclusion that one or the other is the stronger of the two when in reality, neither really are.
I can't tell you how many times I have voted for myself as a write in candidate because I disliked BOTH the Democratic and Republican candidate. I don't think I am unique in this feeling either. Given a true choice of candidates, I think you would see a really different outcome to many elections in this country.


 

As The Man said, "Carlysle?...Now there's a babbler for you". This poor fellow seems to be confused. He thinks bloviation is a good thing.


 

It's no coincidence that a lot of liberal bloggers (the older ones mostly) used to be Republicans. Republicans don't like working with jerks any more than liberals. Kos is a case of flaming egotism, based on nothing. MyDD needs Kos to look important, he needs them to look smart. Nobody else can stand the guy, and they have good reason not to.

I refuse to visit or link to Kos. It's a shame, really.


 

Tolerance is liberal value. Those who are intolerant of dissent among their own liberal ranks are frauds.


 

The truth cannot be denied. But it is helpful to find a neutral zone for discussion.


 

BlogPAC has no role in Advertising Liberally.


 

Here's the first two lines of the e-mail Bowers sent me in May inviting the Drudge Retort to join the network:

"I just wanted to let you know that in conjunction with Blogads, BlogPac is putting together a new blog advertising network that we would like Drudge Retort to join.

"The basic plan is to create a liberal blog advertising network so as to increase our advertising revenue. Blogads is moving toward network advertising, so at BlogPac we figured we would make our own."

The network was touted as a BlogPAC effort many times.


 

Just wondering what it takes to offend you folks.

DaveG | 2005-11-15 01:57 PM

Usually, all it takes is a Republican


 

Just throwing in my opinion.. the Drudge Retort isn't really a blog, is it?

Sure, it's shitty that you were allowed to participate in AL and now they randomly toss you off -- but the main purpose of your site is not blogging (I can't find any blog entries). Ditto Raw Story (and I'm a huge Raw fan, so that's not meant to be insulting). I have no idea what the chimp site is, but after looking at it for 25 seconds, it doesn't really seem like a traditional blog either.

Demographics are important in advertising, and they can be real goddamned specific. And while the argument can be made that blog-readers and Raw/Drudge Retort/Chimp readers are basically the same, the more news-oriented aspect of these sites could disqualify them from being part of a 75-blog deal. Advertisers may want 75 straight-up blogs.. and maybe it was an advertiser complaining about the inclusion of news sites that led to the dumping..?

Now, having said all that, your treatment in getting dropped seems to have been very shitty, which definitely justifies the anger you feel. While I feel the decision was not necessarily wrong, they could've handled it better. And not reimbursing you for the adspace you gave them for six months is the lowest of the low, quite frankly.

Good luck with future ads.. hope you don't get screwed again.


 

Just throwing in my opinion.. the Drudge Retort isn't really a blog, is it?

Depends on what a blog is. If you look at the front page, the Retort has reverse chronological links like a blog but is presented like a news portal. If you look at the weblog view of the same stories, it's clearly a blog.

Personally, I think the new rules should not have applied to the sites Bowers invited into the network. All of the expelled sites worked in good faith to support the project.

I also think imposing new rules by fiat without even asking members for input was lousy management. It should be a network of liberal bloggers working together, not a network of bloggers working for Bowers, Armstrong, and Moulitsas.

But that, of course, is no longer my problem.


 

There should be another liberal network. Open PJs Media is seriosly whacked on the other side and provides many examples of what not to do.

Huffington Post has been better than expected, TPM Cafe is surprisingly dull. MyDD is too focused. Daily Kos is so huge by itself I'm surprised it didn't push everyone else off the boat.


 

Dear Sir, or Madame (Anonice):

Not to quibble (well, why not?), if your knowledge of the Smirking Chimp site is limited to what you could absorb in twenty-five seconds, how can you deduce that "...the argument can be made that blog readers and Raw/Drudge Retort/Chimp readers are basically the same..."?


 

i agree with easter lemming...

tpm is nap-inducingly dull
kos is bloated and full of itself

i dont waste time reading them anymore


 

Stuff like this is like giving Christmas presents to Republican / corporate interests. It also shows the difference between the two camps. The so-called "conservatives" (they don't deserve such a title in the least) would stab knives in each others' backs in silence and act all buddy-buddy. It's the same trait that makes them such likely cheats and frauds in the econo-political arena. Democrats & liberals will just plain call it like they see it even if it looks like the Grand Canyon being carved out of what needs to be a united front. It surprises me not in the least, and after all, we liberals have an image to keep up. One for saying what we think even if it looks stupid to expose to the opposition.


 

I don't visit Daily Kos. He refused to give me access to post (one of the few blogs that require registration). And when I tried several times to get clarification, I was ignored. It's too frustrating to not be able to post comments on a site that puts up such provocative material.


 

It's ridiculous for conservatives to make such a big deal out of this, it's a business deal gone bad. And as usual it has something to do with the big fish's big head getting in the way of common sense or good business practice.
Whoopee! This shit has gone on since time began.

I feel sorry for you but you know the old line, so go start yourself a pitcher of lemonade and remind yourself the yacht project is delayed but not dead.

Personally I think Kos is overrated. I only go there as a last resort. But, I'll add yours to my faves.


 

Dan Stafford: When an opposing opinion is deleted from a site that claims to be for the minority, and the champion for the unrepresented, that is a Grand Canyon of integrity. Kos is a fraud. And as others have said it's unfortunate...and greatly promotes GROUPTHINK.


 

Fark is neither liberal or conservative -- it's libertarian. Which is one reason I stopped hanging out there a couple years ago.


 

"BlogPAC has no role in Advertising Liberally."

Except, of course, that there are only two people on the board of BlogPAC: Kos and Jerome. Two. Two people who also happen to also make up 2/3 of the Advertising Liberally leadership. And, if the rumors are true, they're two people who are gonna find themselves in a whole lotta legal hurt when tha man comes down on their, um, creative use of the PAC. But, then, rumors are just that.

Maybe Kos and Jerome wear special hats when they work for BlogPAC, and other special hats when they work for AL. I hope they're funny ones.

Don't they also have a book they're co-written or something? Well, a book Kos wrote while Jerome blew smoke up his ass. And weren't they partners in something else for a while? Geez, you'd think no on else wants to work with them.


 

As a conservative myself, I'd like to see all civil rights in this country outlawed, homosexuals killed, Muslims imprisoned, and slavery brought back.
I thought the picture of the black politician depicted as a minstrel was terrific. I don't know anything about this advertising business you're talking about, but I sure love getting drunk and playing with my handguns.
And George Bush is a great President.


 

RightAllTheWay:Are you saying Liberals don't get drunk?


 

Midwest Mama wrote:

"I just LOVE it when you guys turn your guns on each other."

Christ, why are right-wingers so addicted to violence? It can't ever be a question of difference or dispute settled rationally, no. It's always about guns-in-faces, gonna blow you away rhetoric, like that dunderhead on LGF calling for the murder of Patrick Fitzgerald - only the most recent example.

Wingnuts make Gangsta rappers look like kids on an episode of Romper Room, to be frank. They love blood, cruelty, and getting away with murder. Seriously, that's why they're against abortion, on the whole - it's a conscience bandage, a loophole that lets them claim they're not really in favor of the total bloody annihilation of everyone except themselves.

Simply enough.


 

Toe Rag:

Quibbling not minded at all.. but the argument that "an argument can be made" doesn't require a lot of basis, since I'm basing the argument on someone else making the argument for me... not to quibble or anything :)

My comment on SC was based on looking over there for news analysis and seeing only news postings (like Raw and Drudge Retort) (and it was probably more like 10 minutes -- I was being flippant). Analysis is to me a main part of being a "blog" as opposed to a news portal. And while most liberal blog readers probably also read liberal news portals (I certainly do), they aren't necessarily the same type of site and they don't necessarily attract the same type of readership.

That's basically what I was trying to say above.


 

Your point "Analysis is to me a main part of being a "blog"..." is well made, though I might quibble with anthropomorphizing a blog.

I have to say, though, that your first paragraph might be confusing to a casual reader. It reads like a zen koan, or alternatively, like something intended to confuse.

I wasn't aware that arguments require varying levels of basis. Who sets the graduated scale for argument, and where can I find it, for examination?


 

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: p, b, i, a, and blockquote. A comment may not include more than three links. Participants in this discussion should note the site's moderation policy.

:
:
: