Category Archives: conservative bloggers


Nope, no War On Women here:


Honestly, after all of the ginned-up fauxtrage the right has spewed over comparatively tame comments made by the likes of Melissa Harris-Perry, David Letterman, and even President Obama himself (“OMG! He said Trayvon Martin could’ve been his son! WELL I NEVER!”), the above should result in non-stop Fox News outrage, right? Calls for apologies and boycotts?

But of course it won’t, because IOKIYAR, and feminazis, and socialism, etc. etc.

Oh, and meet “the artist” here.

(h/t, Ana Marie Cox)


Filed under conservative bloggers, feminism, sexism, women's rights

Vast Right-Wing Cesspool

If you haven’t read The Trials Of Nadia Naffe, then stop what you’re doing and go read it, now. It’s a long, in-depth piece that outlines in agonizing detail the collusion between the Republican Party, Fox News, conservative Sugar Daddies, and James O’Keefe’s smear operations.

Here’s a sample:

The idea for the next Project Veritas mission originated with John Fund, a Fox News contributor and author of the 2008 book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. In January 2010, Fund emailed the Republican National Lawyers Association and other hard-right affiliates about an incriminating tip he received about the Massachusetts Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — Greater Boston’s brotherhood of janitors, health-care workers, and other mostly low wage earners. Fund’s “normally reliable” source, he wrote in an email that has since been made public, claimed the SEIU planned to help Democrats steal the special Senate election between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. According to Fund, the union would accomplish this by chartering buses in the liberal and minority-rich neighborhoods of Roxbury, Mattapan, Roslindale, and Jamaica Plain. “If you’re black or brown,” he wrote, “they’ll rope you in and take you to the polls. Registration can be worked out.”

Shuttling voters to polls is perfectly legal, of course — but pretty soon emails were flying between members of O’Keefe’s associates, rife with speculation that the SEIU would try more nefarious ploys, like paying for votes and helping people to vote twice.

Such hypothetical shenanigans sounded like surefire fodder to Steve Friess, son of investment billionaire and Rick Santorum bankroller Foster Friess. The elder Friess is perhaps most famous for telling MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that, back in his day, “gals” “used Bayer Aspirin for contraception.” To plug conservative causes, Freiss has a whole foundation that’s run by his son Steve, who relished the prospect of causing “image problems for SEIU.” With their support in place, O’Keefe jumped on board, and he brought Naffe along with him. Not only did she have her star turn in the Waters series to recommend her, but she also matched the request from Freiss for “black/Latina conservatives [who] could be wired for video, and get picked up on one of these busses.” Less than a week later, Naffe flew into Logan airport. Her first task was to snoop on an election-eve rally for Coakley at a Dorchester union hall.

John Fund? Foster Friess? Foster Friess’ son? It’s always the same characters in right-wing land, isn’t it? (By the way, that attempted SEIU sting was a big bust. The suspected fraud never existed and Brown won the election.)

Also, I don’t understand why Nadia Naffe never questioned the fact that these Project Veritas “stings” almost exclusively targeted minorities, the poor, and those serving them. Maxine Waters? Shirley Sherrod? ACORN?

I mean, I understand the Planned Parenthoood sting: conservatives hate abortion, and PP is identified with abortion, that makes sense. But ACORN? From the article:

His big score came in the fall of 2009 — O’Keefe’s decisive blow against ACORN, which at the time was among the nation’s leading advocates for poor and disadvantaged people. ACORN had also been historically integral in getting out the minority vote; after the rise of Obama, this made them the object of widespread conservative consternation.

That’s it? ACORN got out the minority vote? That what put them on O’Keefe’s hit list? Umm … isn’t that a little … racist? That strikes me as an idea rooted in a campaign office or party headquarters, not some young activist trying to make his name with a “gotcha” video attacking a notable liberal figurehead. Who had even heard of ACORN before this?

I’ve always been suspicious about why ACORN was even targeted in the first place. Who sent O’Keefe their way, anyway? Aren’t right-wingers always saying that non-profit groups like, well, ACORN should deal with the poor and disadvantaged? Not nasty old big gummint?

By the way, I meant to put this in my Good News Friday post, but last week it was announced that James O’Keefe will pay $100,000 to one of his ACORN victims, Juan Carlos Vera. O’Keefe’s accomplice, Hannah Giles, already paid Vera $50,000 last year.

I’m sure Foster Friess or PayPal cofounder/Facebook investor Peter Thiel, who gave $30,000 to make the ACORN videos in the first place, won’t mind chipping in. Because a community organization helping poor and disadvantaged people is just the most awful threat to democracy ever.


Anyway, go read the article. It’s an eye-opener.


Filed under ACORN, conservative bloggers, James O'Keefe, right-wing hate

Black People Are Scary

People keep telling me to stop trying to understand conservatives, but I can’t help myself. If they make sense to themselves, then really we should try to understand where they’re coming from. We don’t have to agree but for God’s sake let’s at least make the effort.

But I just haven’t been able to understand the reflexive defense of George Zimmerman from the right wing. What exactly are they defending here? Is it the NRA-guns thing? The “we don’t believe racism exists” thing? What are they defending when they rally around a guy who shot and killed a teenager? What is going on here?

It’s truly something to behold, these attacks on a 17 year old kid, and while I can maybe understand why they’d attack Sandra Fluke or someone else who came out in support of a hated Obama Administration policy, that’s not the case here. Trayvon Martin was a kid in his neighborhood coming home from the store. So all of this “he deserved to die” stuff puzzles me. Is it because hated figures like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are involved now? If those guys say the sky is blue then conservatives know it must be green?

The funniest thing has been the “revelation” that George Zimmerman registered to vote as a Democrat in 2002 (I’m not going to link to those sites, but you can Google it if you’re interested). A-HA! That proves …. what, exactly? That he was justified in shooting Martin? That he wasn’t a racist who immediately assumed a black kid was up to no good? That “stand your ground” laws aren’t dangerous? It means none of those things. What it does show us is that the right wing’s perspective is completely clouded by their hyper-partisanship and also that they assume everyone views the world through the same hyper-partisan lens. But no one ever said George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because Zimmerman was a Republican. Yet that’s what right-wing bloggers and pundits seem to have heard. I just find that truly bizarre. I really want to understand what’s going on here.

Max Read put it really well in his column “Your Guide to the Idiotic Racist Backlash Against Trayvon Martin”:

That right-wing cranks, caught in the storm of their own horseshit, would be unable to distinguish between “being 17” and “being a criminal” isn’t particularly shocking (to most of them, there is no distinction). It’s embarrassing for a theoretically respectable site like Yahoo! to provide cover for clearinghouses like Drudge with equivocating articles that worry about “the difference between the typical teenager Martin’s family and supporters say he was and the way he presented himself on social media” and quote the “we don’t know what happened” hems and “it’s complicated” haws of Business Insider’s Michael Brendan Dougherty and’s David Shane.

But mainstream and gutter are both running from the same source: an anxiety about young black men. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Martin’s suspensions are completely irrelevant to the case, and it’s why there’s a push to sidestep the specifics of the encounter in favor of interrogating Martin’s character.

As Read pointed out, this reached its zenith when Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera told black kids to stop wearing hoodies. What he was really saying was, “stop being so scary.” That a teenager carrying Skittles and iced tea could justifiably be viewed as scary indicates the problem might lie with white folks’ irrational fear, but there it is. And surely there can be nothing scarier to conservatives than seeing hundreds and even thousands of predominantly black faces rallying in the streets demanding justice. That has got to be really scary for these folks, hiting them on a visceral level and harkening back to the race riots of the ’60s. White people scare really easily, it seems to me, which is why it’s such an effective political tool, and has been for decades.

This also reminds me of the question we all asked in 2010, the summer of crazy: “What If The Tea Party Was Black”? Walking around with guns and threatening signs, vowing to overthrow the establishment, what then?

I think the hidden message of the conservative attacks on Trayvon Martin really has its roots in this: black people are scary and white people are justified in being afraid. They are defending fear. This is a very useful message because scared people can be easily manipulated into doing all sorts of things in the service of their rulers. This is a truth as old as Plato and it will never change.


Filed under conservative bloggers, conservatives, fear, fear porn, racism

You Can’t Spell “Bullies” Without “Bull” & “Lies”

The attacks on Sandra Fluke have taken a decidedly nasty, personal turn. It was bad enough that Rush Limbaugh would stoop so low as to call her a slut and prostitute and demand she post sex videos on YouTube, all based on his completely made-up thesis that she wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control (she never said anything of the kind).

But now even her boyfriend and his family are being attacked. The pile-on started with Bill O’Reilly, who first revealed the identity of Fluke’s boyfriend, giving the right-wing bloggers their fresh meat. And now we have hacks like Jim “Dim” Hoft, who calls Fluke a “far left activist” and attacks her boyfriend as a “socialist.” (Other hacks refer to the boyfriend as A “socialist Jew.”) Hoft lifted year-old vacation pictures from her Facebook page, the message being, “she wants you to pay for her birth control so she can have hot sexy sex with radical leftists in Yurp. Yer tax dollahs!!!”

Again: this smear is based on Rush’s original lie, because nowhere in Sandra Fluke’s testimony did she ever say that she wanted taxpayers to foot the bill for anyone’s birth control: hers or anyone else’s. But don’t let facts stand in the way of a good smear.

Well, there’s a reason we call Hoft the dumbest man on the internet. Weigel does a good job debunking Hoft’s many lies and misrepresentations, but Right Blogistan is in full bully mode and there just isn’t enough bandwidth in the universe to debunk all of the sludge. Here’s a representative headline from a place called TheGraph, and you’ll just have to Google it because I refuse to give these hate sites any hits:

Or, Google “Sandra Fluke boyfriend” and you’ll see what I mean.

This has been the week in All Things Sandra Fluke Hot Sex Babe, which led up to the smear’s shining moment: CNN’s Dana Loesch, writing on her website that Fluke’s boyfriend should pay for her birth control because,

His father donates heavily to Democrat candidates. The couple is currently enjoying spring break in California, which poses the question of how Fluke can afford a trip across the country when she can’t afford birth control pills.

CNN should be so proud. Again: she repeats the lie that Rush started, but this one has an extra twist with the Democratic donor stuff. It’s gotta be a conspiracy, I tell ya!

This kind of bullying is what we’ve come to expect from the right wing blogosphere. It’s only a matter of time before Michelle Malkin reprises her role as trash-sifter in chief — if she hasn’t done so already. But let’s remember that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin dumb once in a comedy sketch. Both sides do it!

Surely there has to be more to this intimidation campaign. My guess is it’s designed to give any liberal citizen with the temerity to speak out on an issue pause. Speak out and expect the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News/conservative blogosphere to go in full attack mode. Not just you but everyone you associate with will be fair game.

I wouldn’t wish this on anyone but the more they attack based on an utter fabrication of her actual statement, the more ammo Fluke has for a defamation suit. And I really, really hope she sues Rush from here to kingdom come. The more right-wing bloggers make her life intolerable, the bigger her potential case. Especially since every one of these attacks repeat what Gene Weingarten referred to as Rush’s “invented calumny.” Textbook slander, indeed.

One of the most surreal images of the past month was that of the now-deceased Andrew Breitbart, glassy-eyed and repeating “be-HAVE yourself” over and over and over again at Occupy protestors. That, plus an interview in which he revealed deep paranoia about Media Matters and MSNBC, capped by a long, final Twitter stream of insults at strangers, are his last messages to the world.

I can think of no more fitting illustration of the right wing attack machine than this. Unhinged, paranoid, and full of hate, I have to wonder if these aren’t the last gasps of a dying breed, just as they were the last utterances of a dying man. I wonder if, like their standard-bearer Breitbart, they won’t soon be found metaphorically tits-up on a sidewalk, consumed by their own hate.

Sue, Sandra Fluke, sue. Sue and win. So no one else inspired to speak out on an issue they care about ever has to pay the price of character assassination and intimidation. Never again.


Filed under birth control, conservative bloggers, Rush Limbaugh, women's rights

Orwell Calling

In case you haven’t heard the latest anti-Obama “scandal” trying to make its way out of the right-wing cesspool and into the mainstream media, here it is: back when he was a state senator, Barack Obama attended a Chicago play about Saul Alinsky, and afterwards appeared on a panel discussion about the work.

This was Andrew Breitbart’s last scoop, the final devastating piece of information that was going to take down President Obama. It’s the scoop that convinced his tin-foil hat followers that Breitbart was taken out by Obama’s thugs. Because of a ’90s-era play about someone most Americans have never heard of.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha …

So let’s get this straight: the people waltzing around in George Washington wigs and knee britches hollering about how they’re “losing their freedom” and decrying “government involvement in our lives” are trying to attack the President over a play he attended back in the 1990s. So beware, future political leaders of America: be careful what plays and movies you see because “freedom” loving conservatives actually view this information as a legitimate target to attack you with. And why stop at theater? Next it will books, magazines and blogs. You read Catcher In The Rye? We know what THAT means! Only Atlas Shrugged and the Bible are acceptable reading matter!

Stop me if this all sounds a tad too hypocritical to be believed. And yet, this is what the folks blogging over at Breitbart’s ironically-named “Big Government” site are chewing over today. Oh, the utter lack of self-awareness. It’s just … sad.

Maybe I shouldn’t have taken in that touring production of “South Pacific” which played TPAC last month. And I’m sure “Lysistrata Jones” which we saw in New York last year has officially labeled me a Feminazi. If Mitt Romney gets elected in November will the fact that we saw The Book Of Mormon work for or against us?

Just trying to get a handle on the brave new world these conservatives envision for America. Oh, the unbearable hypocrisy of your modern conservative patriots!

I have to wonder if we aren’t seeing the last gasp of movement conservatism. With a second radio station dumping Rush Limbaugh today and over a dozen sponsors already saying “see ya,” it seems spewing hateful crazy crap is no longer cool. Who knew? Right wing bloggers are left picking apart such irrelevant information as what plays the future president attended? What panels he spoke on? And they say we’re the ones taking political correctness to extremes?

Okie dokie.


More from SteveM at Balloon Juice


Filed under Andrew Breitbart, conservative bloggers, conservatives, President Barack Obama

Andrew Breitbart Has Died?

And of course the tinfoil-hat brigade reacts in typical fashion.

Apparently liberals are really ineffective at things like governing, policy-making, national security, and taking out terrorists… but we’re terrifically efficient at bumping off nationally-known conservative figures.


This is bizarre, because Mr. Beale and I were just talking about Andrew Breitbart this morning. One is not supposed to speak ill of the dead, and as I did not know he had passed I will confess: my comments were not complementary. What’s even weirder is that what prompted our conversation was two bizarre dreams I had last night: one involved James O’Keefe and Breitbart (probably prompted by this story). In the other I was on a speeding boat and people were jumping out.

Make of that what you will.

I do not have anything nice to say about Andrew Breitbart. Let’s just leave it at that. A part of me wonders if this isn’t some bizarre hoax, and it’s a fair question considering Breitbart’s legacy of punking the media with his doctored videos designed to ruin reputations. Though the Twitter machine tells me the New York Times has confirmed his passing with the Los Angeles coroner’s office. So there ya go.

I will say this: I’m surprised he was only 43 years old. He looked a helluva lot older. He’d get into some big time arguments with liberals I follow on Twitter and usually these “conversations” would disintegrate into toxic bullying of the “LIAR!” “No YOU’RE the LIAR!” sort. The kind of stuff straight off a schoolyard playground. Children, all of us.

Sometimes I think we all need to chill out before we stroke out. None of this stuff is that important, people. I know we think it is, but it’s not. We all get whipped into a frenzy because that idiot said this and they’re doing that but fer crying out loud, the Republic has stood for over 200 years and it’s not going to crumble because Obama wants to give everyone healthcare or Paul Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare. Nothing is undoable down the road. Just because you don’t get your way on something now doesn’t mean you’ll never get your way.

Just .. you know, plod along. Keep working, keep your eyes on the prize, don’t give up, but don’t get so wrapped up that you forget the bigger picture: because last I checked, Breitbart had a couple of small children. And now there are some kids who have to grow up without their dad. That part is sad.


Filed under Andrew Breitbart, conservative bloggers, conservatives

They Don’t Get It, Do They?

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that right-wing assholes like Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe don’t understand the Occupy Wall Street movement. So let me explain it to them.

Perhaps you’ve heard that Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert was targeted at his home by someone pretending to be a Verizon employee. Details at the link but this should bring everyone up to speed:

“So he gets to the last questions, and he’s really reading intently off of his clipboard, and he says something about making the kind of salary I do, working from home, something something about the 99 percenters,” Boehlert said.

The man claiming to be a Verizon representative finally asked his question. “After he mentioned my salary and that I work from home, all the bells went off, and this is not who this guy says he is. Therefore, I kind of lost track of the exact wording of the question, but it definitely was like very accusatory of me and I’m a hypocrite and how do I have this supposedly cushy job while I’m writing about real workers and the people of the 99 percent,” said Boehlert.

We still don’t know who misrepresented themselves to Boehlert — Andrew Breitbart denies involvement — but this has all the classic hallmarks of one of O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas” minions, where “veritas” is not Latin for truth but rather wingnut for misquotes and misrepresentation.

As HuffPost reported, Breitbart accolytes like Mike Flynn have been harassing Boehlert on Twitter with such taunts as….

#ows, @EricBoehlert is cashing 6-figure checks to support you. When u r run out of Zuccotti park, beers and brats at his place in NJ

… “ows” being the hashtag for Occupy Wall Street, of course. And here is what Mike Flynn, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and the rest don’t seem to get: no one really thinks it’s problem how much money Eric Boehlert earns. No one cares how much money anyone earns, as long as they are paying their share of taxes, helping the guy below them on the success ladder, and not actively working to pull the ladder up behind them so we have a permanent underclass whose only recourse is to work as slaves to the rich.

Amazing that conservative activists don’t seem to understand this. Naw, scratch that. It’s utterly predictable. It also shows how out of touch they are, how phony conservative populism is, but there you go.

Right-wingers love to play the hypocrisy card, as if anyone earning over $50,000 a year has no right to criticize the multimillionaires for their greedy ways or have sympathy for those on welfare. But what the left objects to is greed, oppression, and inequality, not a well-earned salary.

I doubt too many good Lefties are going to begrudge people like Eric Boehlert their six-figure salaries (if that is indeed what Boehlert earns, I have no idea nor is it any of my business). Why? Because he is working on behalf of the 99% to make the system more equitable! He isn’t pulling the ladder up behind him, he’s trying to extend it to those below him on the economic scale. There is no hypocrisy here. What there is, actually, is someone working against their own economic self-interest for the betterment of others.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and it’s why conservative claims that no liberal should be allowed to earn any money are so hilarious.

I don’t begrudge Bill Maher or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert their millions. In fact, I want more rich liberals out there. That’s more donations to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU and the Sierra Club.

Rich liberals who extend a hand to those below them economically are not hypocrites. They’re altruists. Something we used to value in this country, by the way, until a godless conservative named Ayn Rand convinced some idiots that altruism was a bad thing. Now they’ve drunk so much Kool-Aid they don’t even recognize it when they see it.


Filed under Andrew Breitbart, conservative bloggers, conservatives, James O'Keefe, liberals

Umm … CNN?


Via Doug at Balloon Juice:

I would not be shocked if Palin eventually makes up some crazy story about an attempted attack on her, maybe along the lines of the Ross Perot story about how the Viet Cong tried to put a hit on him.

And her appearance on Hannity on Monday will be the perfect opportunity for her to tell us how oppressed and beleaguered she is by the big, mean liberals.


Predictably, CNN Correspondent Erick Erickson hated on the President’s speech in today’s column. No big shocker there. But he really wallowed in the mud on this one:

Out there somewhere is someone who would love to kill Governor Palin. God forbid they do it. But you and I both know there is some crazy MSNBC watcher and Media Matters reader who even now is dreaming of doing so.

And should they try, we can be equally sure of something else. The left will be divided into two camps: (1) bitch deserved it and (2) not my fault.

It is unfortunate. I hope it never happens. But you and I both know the reality in which we live.

Wow. Way to go, buddy. You really topped yourself this time. Way to take the whole “civil discourse” stuff to heart. As if Sarah Palin were even important enough to bother with. Well, maybe in her own mind, but really. Can you imagine? Most of us ignore her, except when the mainstream media insists on shoving her latest ghost-written Tweet or Facebook post in our faces. Then we point fingers and laugh. Not quite the same as assassination but then again, maybe it is to people like Erick Erickson.

I think those three paragraphs say a whole lot more about Erick Erickson than they do about the Left, Media Matters or MSNBC. And I can’t help but wonder why this hack still has a job on CNN.

Adding …. Mr. Beale heard that Erickson thinks some MSNBC watcher “would love to kill Governor Palin” and cracked: “Wait, I though none of ’em have guns?” Which reminded me: I’m always amazed at the right’s two completely contradictory characterizations of us liberals, which they seem able to hold in their minds at the same time. We’re either weak-kneed surrender monkeys who are “soft on defense,” want to offer therapy and understanding to our enemies, and can’t be trusted to keep the nation safe OR we’re the whacked out anarchists rioting in the streets and fomenting civil unrest.

Cognitive dissonance much?


Filed under CNN, conservative bloggers, Erick Erickson, right wing, Sarah Palin

>The View From Ground Zero Today

>Russell Simmons lives across the street from Ground Zero. Here’s what he did to his apartment windows:

Meanwhile the media seems bent on taking its cue from a crazy lady whose last big claim to fame was announcing President Obama is Malcom X’s love child. Well, that and her famous crush on John Bolton.

I remember a time when people like that were gently ushered away from the microphone and sent on a long cruise somewhere for their “nerves.” Today’s modern Republican Party hands them a Fox News microphone and the national news media decides there must be something to it because, well, they’re on Fox News!

Crazy world we live in.

By the way, Leviticus 19:18 referenced in Simmons’ window? It reads:

18 ” ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Gotta love how religious conservatives always overlook just those parts of Leviticus that are inconvenient to their politics.


Filed under conservative bloggers, Islam, media, mosquetroversy, religion

>Holy Crap I’m In The Wrong Line Of Work

>I don’t know why Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible when they do stuff like this:

“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.”

In California, where former eBay executive Meg Whitman beat businessman Steve Poizner in a bitterly fought primary battle in the campaign for governor, it sometimes seemed as if there was a bidding war for bloggers.

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.


But while Red County’s Hanlon expressed outrage at Park’s pay-for-blogging scheme, questions arose about his own editorial independence when it emerged that Red County itself had been taking money from the Whitman campaign.

In December of 2009, Red County received $20,000 from the Meg Whitman campaign, which has sent the site $15,000 a month since then.

The money is ostensibly for advertising, yet by conventional measures the numbers don’t add up. According to Quantcast, Red County reaches around 125,000 unique viewers per month. Two new media industry experts confirmed that, given such a readership, Whitman’s ad purchase is “ridiculously” expensive, surpassing the going market rate for such ads by 1,000 percent or more.

On the Republican side of the aisle, political campaigns are just one big gravy train, meanwhile George Soros still hasn’t sent me a fucking check. Dang.

Meanwhile, lefties can’t even get Democrats to advertise on liberal blogs. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this picture?

Obviously we’ve all known for years that some conservative bloggers are on the GOP dole; it’s also been rumored that the Republican Party and conservative organizations pay people to comment on blogs. I haven’t been able to verify if that’s true; of course a big chunk of my comment spam is paid commercial crap, selling jewelry and casino vacations and other nonsense. It stands to reason that conservative organizations would do likewise.

Anyway, $15,000 a month? Holy crap. Compare that to the $3 to $5 per 300-500 word article sweatshop pay which according to Craigslist, MediaBistro, Demand Studios, etc. is the going rate. So while right-wing Christian billionaire Phillip Anschutz’s throws a few pennies in writers’ tin cups, apparently we should all go straight to GOP candidates and rake in the big bucks.


Filed under conservative bloggers, Republican Party