Final hours for Day by Day fundraising push

posted at 4:51 pm on July 31, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Chris Muir has spent the last few years delivering a consistently high-quality, trenchant commentary on politics and culture from a conservative-libertarian perspective, which has been so good that the term “comic strip” really doesn’t do it justice.  Day By Day is a daily must-read for me and for many others, and the best part of it is that my friend Chris relies on the support of the conservative community to raise the funds necessary to keep the site and work in operation.  Today’s strip is a great example of the kind of commentary Chris provides for us every day:

You can keep Chris in the game.  I’ve noted on the Obamateurism posts that the DBD fund drive has been roaring along, and considering the state of the economy, Chris has done a good job getting close to his goal.   However, with just a few hours left, DBD still could use your help.  If you haven’t yet contributed to the fundraiser, consider chipping in whatever you can to keep Chris going.  He has some lovely merchandise offers depending on your contribution level, and having received one of the packages last year, I can tell you that the lucky recipients will undoubtedly appreciate it.

Update: Since my description of Chris’ politics has stirred some debate in the comments, let me be clear that this is my description, not Chris’.

Update II, 10 pm: Chris gave me a call to thank Hot Air readers for pushing the fundraiser almost all the way to its goal this evening.  He actually will keep the contribution push open until the 12th, as his readers have insisted on keeping it open for a full month.  (I misunderstood and thought it only ran to the end of this month.)  He is thrilled to get such a huge response from Hot Air readers — as am I! — and says, “You did keep Chris in the game.”  Thanks!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Send your cash, I did.
And I think the hard copy book is well worth the additional scratch.

dougwinship on July 31, 2010 at 5:12 PM

a conservative-libertarian perspective

I never hear people calling themselves that. I like it. It seems to imply a respect for conservative values, but with an emphasis on drastic cuts in social spending.

For some reason it doesn’t give me the creepy feeling I’ve come to associate with the term “libertarian” by itself.

Most of them are “liberal-tarians.” They keep simultaneously demanding that I surrender about two-thirds of what I believe in, and promising that will win me their “support.” Hey here’s an idea: if you want somebody to join you, why not try showing some respect for their values — or at the very least not pissing on two-thirds of what they believe in?

I’d support the Hell out of liberaltarians if they tried to shove their deal-of-a-lifetime down Democrats’ throats: “Just give up on that silly little Communism bugaboo of yours, and we’ll fight tooth-and-nail to help you legalize drugs and abolish the military!” But, for some reason, they never seem to do that.

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

How come he’s not a daily feature on Hot Air? Wasn’t he on Captain’s Quarters? Just curious, not tryna stir anything up.

DaMav on July 31, 2010 at 5:37 PM

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I hear that quite a bit…but I agree it’s difficult to define. I tend to lean more libertarian on some social issues (as it relates to consenting adults), yet I’m still staunchly prolife. Definitely limited government, pro strong national defense and not an isolationist as many libertarians are. I’m somewhat a mutt. Or maybe just a conservative. :)

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I tend to lean more libertarian on some social issues (as it relates to consenting adults), yet I’m still staunchly prolife. Definitely limited government, pro strong national defense and not an isolationist as many libertarians are. I’m somewhat a mutt. Or maybe just a conservative. :)

Bee on July 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I hear that quite a bit…but I agree it’s difficult to define. I tend to lean more libertarian on some social issues (as it relates to consenting adults), yet I’m still staunchly prolife. Definitely limited government, pro strong national defense and not an isolationist as many libertarians are. I’m somewhat a mutt. Or maybe just a conservative. :)

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I tend to lean more libertarian on some social issues (as it relates to consenting adults), yet I’m still staunchly prolife. Definitely limited government, pro strong national defense and not an isolationist as many libertarians are. I’m somewhat a mutt. Or maybe just a conservative. :)

Bee on July 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM

OK, massive fail on that last comment. Sorry. My mouse is glitchy and copy/pasting sluggishly.

Apologies. :)

Bee on July 31, 2010 at 5:55 PM

I’m somewhat a mutt. Or maybe just a conservative. :)

Bee on July 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Per your president you’re a “mongrel” :)

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I’m in!

Mary in LA on July 31, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Donated too. A worthy cause, and a daily must-read for me.

DrAllecon on July 31, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Thanks for the reminder, Ed. I’m in. Day by Day is a daily read for me. My hat’s off to Chris Muir for his wit, art, and eye for beauty.

16MPG on July 31, 2010 at 6:19 PM

The sad thing is, there’s probably just such a statute in obamacare. Why not? Everything else is in there.

thekingtut on July 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM

I’d support the Hell out of liberaltarians if they tried to shove their deal-of-a-lifetime down Democrats’ throats: “Just give up on that silly little Communism bugaboo of yours, and we’ll fight tooth-and-nail to help you legalize drugs and abolish the military!” But, for some reason, they never seem to do that.

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

It’s because these “liberaltarians” are smarter than you give them credit for—they realize Democrats will never give up their dream of socialist utopia. Civil liberties always have been secondary concern to them.

novakyu on July 31, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Bee on July 31, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Conservitarian.

Holger on July 31, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I’d support the Hell out of liberaltarians if they tried to shove their deal-of-a-lifetime down Democrats’ throats: “Just give up on that silly little Communism bugaboo of yours, and we’ll fight tooth-and-nail to help you legalize drugs and abolish the military!” But, for some reason, they never seem to do that.

logis on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Goes to show some ignorance about the Libertarian movement that is expresses the Austrian School of Economics. Mises Institute or The Daily Bell would help you become informed.

The Libertarian movement is focused upon rule of law and the economy to protect private property. Drivel about legalized narcotics is gutter talk from juveniles (regardless of age) whose center of the universe is a drug habit. Quoting Alex Jones hardly qualifies beyond sensationalism; even when he is right, he’s blown out of proportion.

Drug heads would call themselves anything to assume a legitimate name. “Libertarian” suits potheads as well as “liberal” suits Marxists.

The MSM and drug addicts focus all their spin on illegal drugs, ignoring Copenhagen’s horrible criminal element given legalized drugs.

The Libertarians would not prosecute cultivation of “Hemp for Victory” to re-establish America’s finest canvas, ropes paper products, and ecological industrial goods such as Ford’s original Model-T automobile body and fuel. They also would not likely prosecute for any number of personal habits.

However, I dare you to find articles at either the Mises Institute or The Daily Bell proposing legalized narcotic use at the work place, engineering, working with machines, or with mass transit, etc.

maverick muse on July 31, 2010 at 6:39 PM

As a ‘conservative-libertarian’, doesn’t Chris believe in the market? In capitalism? In free trade?

Why doesn’t he have a business model yet that supports his hobby (look, if it requires a fund-raiser and isn’t a charity, it’s a hobby – or PBS). If the product is as great as some think it is, and there’s a market for it, Chris ought to be able to manage to generate enough cash with it without having to beg, seems to me.

Not trying to be mean here – this whole thing just seems weird to me. I expect libs to need fundraisers and largess from someone else in order to support their otherwise unsupportable endeavors that don’t really have enough demand to justify their existence (eg: PBS, Chevy Volt) – not accustomed to seeing ‘conservative-libertarians’ do so.

And if there *is* enough demand, well…

*shrug*

Midas on July 31, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Saying that the Libertarians do not believe that the USA needs a military is absolutely a stupid lie.

WHEN AND HOW to use the military remains a debate.

Nation building in Islam squanders American virtue, casting pearls before swine that turn to rend you.

That our Constitution is absolutely exceptional does not mean that what our presidents choose to do is necessarily good or right, despite their sale’s pitch. Right now we have a president who would like nothing better than to simply remain unengaged while his owners plunder our lives and blood.

maverick muse on July 31, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Goes to show some ignorance…
maverick muse on July 31, 2010 at 6:39 PM

EXACTLY!

That is what I mean by “liberaltarian.” Economics and social issues are equally irrelevant to the ego. Those five words tell the world absolutely everything anyone will ever need to know about any of you.

Fanatics are fanatics. Whether you call yourselves liberals, progressives, Jihaddists, or anything else doesn’t really matter. You all have the same sales pitch: “You are defective because you don’t sufficiently comprehend my wonderfulness!”

And that’s never a problem as long as you can be safely ignored. But eventually you people figure out that your marketing campaign isn’t working, and you have absolutely no alternative but to go for the hard sell approach.

logis on July 31, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I’ve emailed Mr. Muir a couple of times to comment on his strip. He’ replied every time within a day. I just sent my donation…

goddessoftheclassroom on July 31, 2010 at 7:34 PM

I consider myself to be a conservative with libertarian streaks as well, so no big deal there. I friended Chris on Facebook earlier in the month, and I believe that he does excellent work on a daily basis.

Of course I’m contributing to the cause! ;-)

itzWicks on July 31, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Bodda Bing….Bodda Boom….donated!

sicoit on July 31, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Donated!

Love Chris’ work, he’s a daily read for me as well.

smfoushee on July 31, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Donated early on.

I think Midas misses a point of capitalism.

The Fundraiser is a capitalistic model. If he gets enough donations to keep going, then he’s providing a service people pay for. He provides a service that people demand and pay for. What’s more capitalistic than that?

The_Livewire on July 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM

The Fundraiser is a capitalistic model. If he gets enough donations to keep going, then he’s providing a service people pay for. He provides a service that people demand and pay for. What’s more capitalistic than that?

I set aside Valentine’s Day each year to donate a book’s worth of money to my favorite daily reads — and my very favorite gets an extra round later in the year. I figure I get a book’s worth of wisdom, at least, and would like to see them around.

Mutnodjmet on July 31, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Chris Rocks!!

Sam too…

Maquis on August 1, 2010 at 12:23 AM

I’m always weary of sites that claim you need to send them money and they need to make this amount or else they will be forced to close their doors. Web hosting is fairly inexpensive and bandwidth is pretty much dirt cheap anymore.

I

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 3:04 AM

just wonder what these fundraisers actually pay for.

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 3:12 AM

just wonder what these fundraisers actually pay for.

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 3:12 AM

It pays the man’s entire operation and salary, and it’s damn well worth it.

Why the wank?

Maquis on August 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM

Maquis on August 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM

I didn’t realize this was his full time job. I thought it was just a hobby.

I was confused, mainly because it’s sort of a bizarre business model when you think about it. Do a “free” cartoon, then ask for $30, 000 a year to pay yourself a salary? Sounds like PBS.

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 5:41 AM

I was confused, mainly because it’s sort of a bizarre business model when you think about it. Do a “free” cartoon, then ask for $30, 000 a year to pay yourself a salary? Sounds like PBS.

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 5:41 AM

He went this way I think 3 years back, it gives him the freedom to do what he does best w/o having to please advertisers or kow-tow to investors and such. Sure, the ‘toon is free, but to a great many of us, he’s more than earned his pay and support. I never want to go without my Sam fix…

Maquis on August 1, 2010 at 6:16 AM

The sad thing is, there’s probably just such a statute in obamacare. Why not? Everything else is in there.

thekingtut on July 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM

One of the loopier things the New Labour crowd in the UK did in response to the rising crime rate was to mandate that people living in rental properties not lock their doors or windows. Why? So that yobs trying to get in wouldn’t damage the (mainly government-owned) premises. They also threatened to prosecute anyone who didn’t obey the edict for property damage if their rental was broken into.

As for the housebreaker (assuming they actually found him, which they rarely did), he received an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, or ASBO, to show up in court. Most never bothered. (They never asked them to return what they stole, either.)

With an example like that to emulate, do you seriously think The Self-Absorbed One will be able to resist?

clear ether

eon

eon on August 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I didn’t realize this was his full time job. I thought it was just a hobby.

I was confused, mainly because it’s sort of a bizarre business model when you think about it. Do a “free” cartoon, then ask for $30, 000 a year to pay yourself a salary? Sounds like PBS.

TheBlueSite on August 1, 2010 at 5:41 AM

Maybe, but it’s not too much different than the “annual subscription” model, but without limiting your readers just to those who subscribe. And the larger reader base makes his ad space more valuable. It’s a fund drive, no doubt, but PBS gets public money. Chris lives off of his subscribers. (At least, I don’t THINK he’s getting any government money.(/sarc)

Certainly worth $25/year to me, a repeat contributor.

Owen Glendower on August 1, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Certainly worth $25/year to me, a repeat contributor.

Owen Glendower on August 1, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I agree. It’s really a subscription model, except that the subscription is optional, and no little annoying postage-paid envelopes show up in your snail-mail box.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM