We promised ourselves we weren’t going to do this again, if only because it’s quite tedious. But today’s dish just makes you want to yell out: How the fuck did Andrew Sullivan come to the conclusion that $75,000/year is appropriate compensation for this bullshit?!?

Sullivan claims two things we find especially preposterous: 1) that he writes “tens of thousands” of words a month for the Daily Dish, with the only compensation for said work coming from reader contributions, and 2) that his blog has “displaced” a lot of his “paid” work.

We’ve offered our thoughts on these points before (here and here.) Someone argued that quoting is part of the blogging enterprise, and we don’t disagree. But when a blog becomes mostly quotes and insipid commentary, frankly we have to ask whether it is reasonable to tell your readers they should give you money. And when these quotes are from Democratic Underground, we have to ask “are you fucking kidding us?” The Daily Dish is the blog that presents itself thusly:

On more than one occasion Andrew’s website has demonstrated a power to move markets, to generate news, to set the terms of debate.

If setting the terms of the debate means getting linked to by Instapundit, then he has a point. Otherwise, just what contribution to the debate is he offering? Andrew isn’t pointing out these things for cheap comedy points (e.g. pulling an Amber Pawlik) — he’s out there writing for an audience that has a “strong following in government, the press, and business, among thinkers and policy-makers.” (Mind you, this is based on a survey that shows a large number of readers in the DC area — an assertion that while plausible remains speculative at best.) [We might go further and point out that a survey based on a self-selected sample is inherently flawed and should not be relied upon, but given that Andrew can’t even accurately report how many readers he has, it would likely all be too much for him.]

All of which is our way of saying that the most recent posts to the DD allow Mr. Sullivan to reach a new low (or is it high?) in the “nice work if you can get it” category, as Bailey the dog pointed out.

Today’s survey says:

Quotes from reader emails: 192 words.
Quotes for whatever award nominee: 306 words.
Quotes from newspaper articles: 291 words.
“Original” content: 256 words.

We’d be willing to bet that SullyWatch (who works mostly for free) posts more original (non recycled) content than Andrew does. Amazingly, he’s also able to make substantive points without quoting anonymous freepers. Yet Sullivan fancies himself the professional writer. Sadly, No!