Defending useless ground Why the Salon Kimberlin story matters

I haven’t done a lot on the Kimberlin story lately preferring to rely on Robert Stacy McCain to continue digging deeply and waiting for the other lawsuits to weave their way through the courts to their ultimate conclusion: the defeat and emasculation of the Kimberlin Machine’s attempt to silence conservatives.

There has, however been one question that I have been most interested in seeing answered but have not the time to dig into myself, namely: Does Kimberlin et/al have serious connections to higher-ups in the Democrat party and are they financing the actions in order to restrain our side during election 2012 and beyond?

I suspect that the appearance of this article at Salon might help answer that question

But most importantly, even if you don’t believe a single word Kimberlin says, no one has ever presented any evidence, at all, that Kimberlin is behind the “SWAT-ing” — at this point, they mainly insinuate it really hard. Or they claim that one of his allies is responsible. Or something. (Erick Erickson said he suspected it was a member of Kimberlin’s “fan club.”) Patterico accused two Kimberlin “associates” of being responsible, though he doesn’t even have evidence that they’re “associates.”

Now before we get to my question lets note some reactions to this piece by people who have done more than play stenographer for Kimberlin.

From Patterico post I suspect jaw is currently laying down on the floor somewhere after falling off in disbelief:

Actually, I have accused nobody. I have presented evidence. And the idea that Neal Rauhauser is not an associate of Brett Kimberlin’s is hard to square with Brett Kimberlin calling Rauhauser an “associate” in court, or Rauhauser showing up to numerous different court proceedings involving Kimberlin, handing him documents during the hearings, and such.

Is there any mention of Rauhauser’s obsession with Mike Stack, myself, and Weinergate? Any mention of the fact that Rauhauser wrote Stack at the same wrong address used by the SWATter? Any mention of the connections between Rauhauser and the “Gaped Crusader,” who threatened to “out” Aaron’s identity before it happened, published my home address, published a picture of a nude man claiming it was me, and cyberstalked several of us in other ways?

No. And Pareene never asked me about any of it.

Thus Patterico. How about Robert Stacy McCain? He not only replies with snark of a quality befitting a man who writes for money:

Well, if Alex Pareene would care to give me a phone call or send me an e-mail, perhaps we can discuss whether it is “character assassination” to suggest that the “unknown blogger” behind the “Breitbart Unmasked” site is notorious Internet menace Neal Rauhauser, who keeps showing up in Brett Kimberlin’s courtroom entourage and is almost certainly on Kimberlin’s (tax-exempt non-profit) payroll.

Pareene could call me to ask why the Kimberlin-Rauhuaser connection seemed to me newsworthy and relevant, and then I’d happily give Pareene the chance to deny that he’s a major opium distributor.

but notes that unlike Salon he manages to make an ( albeit small) living without losing millions:

No one knows how much money Salon has lost since 1995, although it was estimated last year that its annual operating loss was $1.5 million. So, cumulative losses by now are probably somewhere between $20 million and a metric buttload.

In 2009, Salon laid off six staffers out of a total editorial staff of about 30. Its marquee bylines nowadays are the execrable Joan Walsh and the keening hysteric Glenn Greenwald. At about the time Arianna was palming off HuffPo to AOL for $315 million and Tina Brown was buying Newsweek for $1, there was some talk of selling Salon to Michael Wolff’s Newser, but negotiations reportedly broke down because nobody could figure out what Salon was worth, if anything.

As for myself, while I would enjoy noting that the idea that Neal Rauhauser is not an associate of Brett Kimberlin is like implying I dislike hats, there is a much more significant point to note:

There is, in fact, no real plus side to defending Brett Kimberlin. At best he is a small player in the big game and even if he were more, Kimberlin & co are only effective if there is no attention to their activities.

With federal suits, the attention of bloggers around the nation, nearly 90 members of congress either signing documents against Swatting or asked about the same and Robert Stacy McCain not only continuing his revelations but getting so many instalanches it’s a wonder Charles Johnson hasn’t climbed onto a ledge, And argument for Kimberlin’s potential value and effectiveness for the left would be less plausable than the success of a national letter writing campaign in behalf of The Secret Life of Desmond Pfeiffer.

So if this is the case why on earth would Salon bring up the name of Kimberlin, let along defend him? Why would the left invest an asset that has existed for so long in such a losing endeavor? Why even if the MSM is doing their best to ignore developments even bother making the argument from the left in defense of the speedway bomber a figure that a party might not want to associate with in an election year?

There are clues to the answer.

The first being Salon has the same earning potential as the Secret life of Desmond Pfeiffer:

No one knows how much money Salon has lost since 1995, although it was estimated last year that its annual operating loss was $1.5 million. So, cumulative losses by now are probably somewhere between $20 million and a metric buttload.

In 2009, Salon laid off six staffers out of a total editorial staff of about 30. Its marquee bylines nowadays are the execrable Joan Walsh and the keening hysteric Glenn Greenwald. At about the time Arianna was palming off HuffPo to AOL for $315 million and Tina Brown was buying Newsweek for $1, there was some talk of selling Salon to Michael Wolff’s Newser, but negotiations reportedly broke down because nobody could figure out what Salon was worth, if anything.

So if Salon is not only a money loser but one that is so bad that people who were able to price Newsweek as slightly more valuable than a Wendy’s 5 piece spicy chicken nuggets couldn’t work out if it was worth as much as a Mounds Bar how does it stay alive, or perhaps the better question might be WHY does it stay alive:

it’s entirely possible that “investors” in such an enterprise don’t care how much money they lose, but are simply taking a tax write-off to support left-wing journalism. At some point, then, the calculation is more about political utility than about revenue potential.

We’ve talked the left bankrolling this kind of stuff before but the calculation assumes political utility and as I’ve noted Brett Kimberlin & Co’s values to the left is dropping in value like a Greek government bond. It’s one thing to sink millions into fighting the online battle and damn the losses, but if you are going to finance such assets why would you ever use that money to defend goods as damaged as Kimberlin & co? What is the value of such a defense?

Might it be that the connections that Stacy McCain has written about have more validity that what has already be revealed? Might it be that my speculation that Kimberlin & Company’s is funded by the left not because they were unaware of his background and tactics but because they WERE and wanted to use those tactics as a weapon in this election cycle and beyond more than mere speculation?

If such speculation was correct then it would be imperative that any evidence that would support it be inhibited at least during this critical election cycle.

I submit suggest and speculate that the left understands there is more information coming out along these lines. I submit suggest and speculate they’re trying to create a different narrative to counter it before it happens, and I further suggest that the use of Salon, an online magazine quoted by their friends and allies on MSNBC is being utilized in order to create that narrative in the MSM before an alternate one can bleed through.

I further suggest that if this Kimberlin business was just a question of a couple of minor players getting in trouble the left wouldn’t waste it’s time or an asset that it funds on it. They would just let it happen, concentrate on the election and be pleased we are writing about this rather than making fun of Obama.

What Alex Pareene and Salon are saying about Kimberlin is laughable to anyone who has actually followed this story. That they are saying it suggests there is a bigger story to tell and somebody not only doesn’t want it told but more importantly needs to preempt any possibility of it being believed or suspected by the true believers on the left or in the MSM.

——–

The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000. As we were just talking about liberals throwing money around let’s quote one more bit from Stacy McCain:

Look at the expenditures for four Republican presidential campaigns:

Tim Pawlenty ………….. $5.0 million — Quit: Aug. 14, 2011
Herman Cain ………….. $16.2 million — Quit: Dec. 3, 2011
Michele Bachmann …… $9.0 million — Quit: Jan. 4, 2012
Rick Perry ……………… $19.3 million — Quit: Jan. 19, 2012

Four candidates, two of whom quit before the first votes were cast, and two others who quit before the South Carolina primary, who between them raised and spent a total of $49.5 million.

Ask yourself, “How much journalism would $49.5 million buy?”

I don’t know about $49.5 mil but $3,000-$20K would keep thing rolling around here for 1-6 months for sure

Any help is appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.