The Latest Colorado Blogosphere Controversy

To summarize …

To the Right: Have you read National Review? Some investigative journalism done there shows that the Dead Governors (aka Colorado Pols) is funded by liberal sugardaddies Gill, Stryker, and Polis.

Dead Governors: Nuh-uh. Are not. Our views and agenda may happen to closely align with the wealthy Lefties, but we’re raising all our own money through paid advertising. You can’t trust that National Review anyways.

To quote the Pols: “We’ve never had financial backing at any point, nor is it required to do what we do; it really doesn’t cost much money to keep a blog running every month.” No, but it sure can be a nice incentive for giving your time to the cause.

If it hasn’t been said here clearly before, it should be said now: the Pols site has a distinct and definite liberal bias, one that has only become more and more pronounced. Are they funded by Gill et al.? There appears to be compelling evidence from a credible source, though the debate isn’t settled. And even if the accusations somehow are nothing more than wild rumors, they have been able to sustain life because of the clear connection between the Pols’ agenda and bias and those of their alleged benefactors.

(Sigh. Where are the wealthy conservatives who want to subsidize this blog so I can come back and adamantly deny it later? )

One final note: I’m not sure whether it’s more sad or amusing to see the anonymous bloggers on either side of Colorado’s political spectrum bickering now that the election is over. To the Right and Colorado Pols seemed to get along quite swimmingly about many things during election season, like taking turns throwing stones at the Beauprez campaign. (Not that it wasn’t always an easy target, but there is something to be said for a little self-restraint.)

Regardless, liberal Democrats have been doing a fine job purchasing political power for themselves in Colorado. The question is who is awake enough to do anything about it.

Comments

  1. says

    Thanks for the chuckle, Curious – there’s nothing like answering a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor in kind to warm up a cold and snowy day.

    The Independence Institute … “wealthy conservatives”? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … let me pick myself off the floor. Ha ha ha … sigh.

    Keep up with the Right Wing Conspiracy Theory analysis. You may be on track to write a page-turning novel for the Progressive Book Club.

  2. says

    So you don’t get paid a salary from them? And they don’t receive the majority (entirety?) of their funding from anti-government business tycoons like Howard Rich?

    How do you (and John Caldera) afford to eat?

  3. lalo says

    I thought Hugh Hewitt paid all you RMA blogger guys seed money and helped you get the sites started a couple years ago. That’s what Daily Blogster alluded to last year in an article about that right-wing leadership conference in Colorado Springs.

    If that’s incorrect, I apologize.

  4. says

    And of course, lets not forget the Coors and the Bradley’s. There’s so many rich conservatives behind i2i it’s hard to keep track of them all.

  5. says

    Ben,

    CS is just a liberal troll who rarely has a coherant argument. Keep it moving… there’s nothing to see here.

    Jim C

  6. says

    Ben

    Actually, one of his nutter compatriots — Lalo — accused Hugh Hewitt of funding Thinking Right… I wonder if CS and Lalo are the same person?

    Jim C

  7. says

    The Coors, the Bradley’s, Howard Rich – there are so many rich conservatives behind the Independence Institute, it’s hard to keep track. Looking further, I see the Coors and the Bradley’s are also large contributors to your alma mater.

    Someone’s paying the salaries at i2i and chances are, it’s one of the above.

  8. Rico Suave says

    But wait, I thought that II spent “Millions of dollars” instructing the teachers on their rights. If that is so, then I want my cut of the “millions.”

    Seriously, where do people get the idea that II is so very wealthy?

  9. says

    Lalo,

    Never received a single penny in “seed money” or any funding from Hugh Hewitt, though he has been a personal encouragement. I’m not sure where you got the idea that this blog or any other is subsidized by Hugh (or anyone, for that matter).

    CS,

    I.I. is my day job. While I occasionally use my blog to advertise work I’ve done through I.I., my blogging venture is personal and separate.

    I have never looked at the overall funding structure for I.I. – but I know we are supported in part by many smaller memberships. Big-time $$ is what Gill, Stryker, et al. spend here in Colorado. We just get more bang for our buck.

    I’ll have to echo Mr. Suave’s comments. It must be scary to be on the Left, realizing I.I. does such effective work so efficiently and imagining its funding is much greater than it really is. Tell you what … it sure makes me proud.

  10. says

    $1.4 million in revenue in 2004 is a pretty big number if you ask me. Less than $100k of that is fund raising revenue. How many employees at i2i? I’d also question how effective i2i has been in the last few years. I don’t see all that many (or any?) wins for i2i favored policies.

  11. says

    Jim, if you spent half the time presenting reasonable arguments as you spend dismissing me as a troll, we might be in danger of a conversation breaking out.

  12. says

    CS,

    My arguments are very reasonable and — unlike yours — are supported by facts. The only reason a conversation doesn’t “break out” between you and I is because every time I present a fact laden argument or position you come back with something completely ridiculous that is either spun to fit your argument or something that has absolutely NO facts behind it.

    Maybe if you spent half as much time backing your arguments up with FACT as you do trying to tear mine down with rumor, innuendo, and biased sources we’d have a conversation break out.

  13. says

    I’m fairly certain you’ve never once presented an argument to me. As I said, you’d have to stop dismissing me as a troll long enough to do that. If I’m wrong, please cite an example.

  14. Rico Suave says

    From where did the $1.4 million figure come? It seems that a little perspective is needed. Perhaps it would be enlightening to investigate the funds of Common Cause. How much does Tim Gill spend every election?

    Let us make an analogy:

    There are 1.4 million Frank Lloyd Wright style houses in the world. That is a lot of homes. Therefore Frank Lloyd Wright desigend most (or even a significat number)of houses worldwide.

    You see, the statistic means little without perspective. I would look up the numbers on Common Cause et al., but I thought you might find it a fun project.

  15. says

    Rico,

    It came from i2i’s tax filings. And let me point out, that 1.4 million cannot be spent on elections, because i2i is not a PAC. What Tim Gill spends on elections would have to be compared to what Jon Caldera and his affiliated organizations spend on elections – and as we found during the Amendment C&D fight, where Caldera’s affiliates had ads all over the radio and TV, he’s not willing to reveal that information.

Leave a Reply