Heh: Lefty Bloggers Whining That Democrats Aren't Buying Ads on Their Kook Sites

Alternate headline: Useful Idiots Realize They're No Longer Useful

What's the old adage? Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

I find it uproariously funny that some of the top progressive blogs are sniveling that Democrats aren't throwing money at them. Why bother? The Democrats aren't stupid. They know these folks are in the tank and these whiny propagandists figure they're entitled to a payday for carrying water for them all these years.

So why bother wasting money when they can target their ad buys elsewhere and try to reach an alternate audience?

Check out the pouting.

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.

A number of these top bloggers agreed to come on record with me after privately arguing to these groups that they deserved a share in the ad wealth and couldn’t be taken for granted any longer.

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Fellowships? Is she for real? Yeah, I can see some think-tank lining up to offer some freak like TBogg a fellowship.

Phew, I'll have some of what she's smoking.

“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.

Why do that when they have intellectual heavyweights like Keith Olbermann blogging for Kos?

Poor little maroon. So trusting, so naive.

“We don’t invest in the future, and Republicans do,” says John Aravosis, the founder of AMERICAblog. “The party committees really get that we can be effective as their partners and that we’re happy to help, and they take advantage of that. But even so, very little ad money comes from them. It’s more than just wanting to share in the spoils. We are small business-people who are fighting to survive economically in a really bad year.”

I hope for this moron's sake he's not trying to live off that junk he calls a blog.

Man, these people are dumber than I thought.

Adds John Amato, the founder of Crooks and Liars: “These groups actually believe that we should promote their stuff for free. Do they not understand that we need funds to sustain our viability?”

Ahh, a silver lining in a bad economy. These people might disappear from public view.

Best news I had all day.

Memo to Nutroots Bloggers: You Don't Run the Democratic Party

As we've noted a couple of times in recent weeks, it's beginning to dawn on the far left bloggers that their usefulness only goes so far. Clamoring for the change they were promised, they're now close to revolting. Well, actually, they are revolting in the aesthetic sense, of course, but why not give the guy a chance in office first? Isn't that what they demand of us before we dare to criticize Obama?

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Seriously, Obama doesn't have a thing to worry about with these people. They're not going anywhere and any attempt at fielding a far left candidate to their liking (think Dennis Kucinich) to challenge Obama in 2012 will leave them out in the cold.

Where they belong.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

Who the hell appointed John Aravosis king-maker of the Democratic Party? Is this guy so far out in left field he can't realize that, for example, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, to name two, are liberals?

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Not the first meltdown, and sure not to be the last. It's pretty clear based on their behavior they're deservedly on the outer fringe of the party and Obama is wise to avoid their advice.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Which it is. But sending the American economy is just fine with them so long as they get to stick it to the evil rich right-wingers.

Grow up, kids. Enjoy the fact you have a Democrat in the White House and please, just shut up for five minutes.

'If You Go To Utah, You're Funding Hate'

John Aravosis, Douchebag of the Day.

ORGANIZERS of the Sundance Film Festival insist 2009 is going to be their biggest year yet - an assertion that gay-rights activists will not be pleased to hear.

While the star-studded event announced the 118 movies in its lineup yesterday, activists remain up in arms over the festival's involvement with supporters of Proposition 8, the amendment that passed in California, banning same-sex marriage.

The festival is held every year in January in Park City, Utah, the state that's a stronghold of the Mormon Church, whose elders "organized its followers to support the amendment banning same-sex marriage . . . and encouraged them to give generously to the cause," according to The Advocate.

Sundance organizers screen many festival films in Cinemark Theaters, owned by Alan Stock, who made a personal donation of $9,900 to support Prop 8.

Political activist and AmericaBlog.com editor John Aravosis, who uncovered Stock's funding of the amendment, told Page Six: "If you go to Utah, you're funding hate."

A Sundance Institute representative said all the movies that screen in Cinemark theaters will also be shown at alternate locations. But Aravosis fumes, "Just moving movies around is not enough. Money from this festival is funneled directly to the Mormon Church and to a supporter of Prop 8. Sundance should simply say they won't screen films in a hate theater."

A hate theater?

Temper tantrums are so unbecoming.

Grow up, John.

Seething Gay Activists Urge Boycott of Black People

Oh, sorry, I meant against the state of Utah. Conveniently omitted from this story is the fact 70% of the black voters in California rejected gay marriage at the ballot Tuesday, but going after the base of the party wouldn't help the cause, so it's time for a diversion. Since these bigots hate Mormons, they make a convenient target.

Nice to see the Washington Post use an angry far-left blogger as a source here.

Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, spectacular red-rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford among popular tourist draws.

Gay rights activist John Aravosis, whose well-trafficked AmericaBlog.com is urging the boycott, is unapologetic about targeting Utah rather than California, where voters defined marriage in the state Constitution as a heterosexual act.

Utah, Aravosis said, "is a hate state," and on this issue, "at a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line. . . . They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don't do that and get away with it."

Typical leftist intimidation tactics. When the little babies don't get their way, they flip out, make threats and blackmail an entire state.

Meanwhile, one of the dumbest people on the planet said California voters were too stupid to understand what they were doing. She has a point. They did vote for her.

Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link.