I have a big problem with all of this. Capmag.com does it too. It's undignified and silly to be panhandling on the Internet. If your service is really worth allo that, then charge for it. Otherwise, shut up and try some merchandising. Not that even the most well read blog is all that expensive to maintain, not for someone who otherwise has a job. I think it's especially undignified to see conservatives doing it.

I respect Limbaugh for just being open about charging. If you can't get people to subscribe or pay directly for your content, then it ain't worth all that much, and you shouldn't be doing it but for the self-promotion and the vanity of it all.

Eh. I figure the market does what the market will do. If the blegging didn't work, we wouldn't see it happening.

Although I'll admit that after the first few, I started skipping any post bearing K-Lo's sig...

I understand what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree. I think it's a good way of getting operating costs without having to resort to charging everyone.

A while back, NRO had a reader survey up that asked all sorts of questions about what I like and don't like about the site. In the comments section, I told them that I loved the site and would like to see them charge for premium content. I still think that's the best way for NRO to go, but if they want to keep it free for everyone, who am I to complain?

Oh, and I feel a little odd criticizing this technique too terribly much. If I could raise $80,000 bucks just by asking, I'd do it, too.

I think the best model, though, is Salon.com. By offering a subscription or a day pass for viewing a monolithic advertisement, they give me the potential best of both worlds. The tough part is, Salon.com has advertisers willing to spend what must be a pretty hefty sum for that ad space, and I'm doubting that there are too many sites that could make the same demands of its readers.

The Wall Street Journal is pay only. So is Rush Limbaugh basically.