Andrew Breitbart has died

That's a fair point, but the first thing that occurred to me when I heard the news is, the left majority on P&C is going to go "good, F him." And sure enough, the first comment was "F'ing A-hole." I'm not defending Breitbart, only been to his websites a few times, but this knee-jerk revelry to bad stuff happening to conservatives is predictable. Did anyone seriously expect to see something different here?

And yes, I'm sure right-leaning forums do the same when the situation is reversed.

"You guys did just what I expected of your side! How predictable! And we'd do the same to you. So I'm claiming the moral high ground!"

Wait, what?

I think we'd have about the same reaction if he was a liberal... well, him. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and I certainly would.

Not sad he's out of the "media", but I don't wish death on anyone to shut them up. Fair?

Frum on Breitbart

The punch line:

We live in a time of political and media demagoguery unparalleled since the 19th century. Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading.

People already said it better than I could. It sucks for his family, but I don't have an ounce of sympathy for him as a person and I'm glad he's dead. He was full of vitriol and hate. He spent every waking hour ruining the lives of anyone with any amount of power who did anything nice for the poor or the disadvantaged and was more than willing to lie to do it. And he made a lot of money at the same time.

Also, for the record, he had no problems speaking ill of the dead himself.

I think the real question that should have everyone in the national spotlight fearful is who is #3?

1. Davy Jones
2. Andrew Breitbart
3. ???

We live in a time of political and media demagoguery unparalleled since the 19th century. Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading.

I will say that he is fortunate to have died doing what he loved: Terrible things.

Matt Taibbi has something to say.

Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche

So Andrew Breitbart is dead. Here’s what I have to say to that, and I’m sure Breitbart himself would have respected this reaction: Good! f*ck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.
I think we'd have about the same reaction if he was a liberal... well, him. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and I certainly would.

Yeah, it's not being conservative that's directly the problem, it's the lying and the fraud.

You want to see hate and vitriol, do a reverse twitter search on his handle.
This piece of filth deserves every bit of it. As a conservative, he did more damage with his fraud and lies to hurt any chance of having a sane party then any one else.

natural causes so young, ha! i love that even in death this P.O.S. couldn't be honest. In the words of Anthony Cumia yesterday on the O&A show "I partied with him a few times, and he really liked to 'Stay Awake'."

I'm a little confused - it seems to me that Breitbart engaged in a lot of the same in-your-face meanness that Christopher Hitchens did. Yet Breitbart is demonized by most GWJers while Hitchens was remembered fondly. I'm just wondering if this is a clear case of bias.

BTW, I'm not saying there was anything I liked about this guy, although the whole pimp at Acorn videos were hillarious.

Hitchens was interested in truth. Breitbart made his living on lies.

No, because Hitchens didn't create phony 'evidence' videos, commit fraud, or try to break into a Senator's office to install a wiretap.

If anything, I'd say it's evidence of lack of bias. We don't despise him because he's conservative, we despise him because he was a liar and a cheat, and gave the GOP falsified evidence that let them kill off ACORN, thus keeping black people away from the polls.

Malor wrote:

No, because Hitchens didn't create phony 'evidence' videos, commit fraud, or try to break into a Senator's office to install a wiretap.

If anything, I'd say it's evidence of lack of bias. We don't despise him because he's conservative, we despise him because he was a liar and a cheat, and gave the GOP falsified evidence that let them kill off ACORN, thus keeping black people away from the polls.

To be fair, Breitbart didn't actually do those things; he just had a hired stooge that he *paid* to do those things.

I think this thread alone is evidence that, right or wrong, good or bad, Breitbart brings out the worst in people.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I think this thread alone is evidence that, right or wrong, good or bad, Breitbart brings out the worst in people.

YOU SHUT YOUR DIRTY PIE HOLE!

Spoiler:

xoxo

No one pointed out that since he was also a man, we're probably all a bunch of man-haters for not weeping and gnashing our teeth about his death.

Bloo Driver wrote:

No one pointed out that since he was also a man, we're probably all a bunch of man-haters for not weeping and gnashing our teeth about his death.

He also had a full hair of hair, showing a distinct forum bias for baldies.

And, worst of all, he was human, so by speaking ill of him now, we show the usual liberal hatred for America.

That's a fair point, but the first thing that occurred to me when I heard the news is, the left majority on P&C is going to go "good, F him." And sure enough, the first comment was "F'ing A-hole." I'm not defending Breitbart, only been to his websites a few times, but this knee-jerk revelry to bad stuff happening to conservatives is predictable. Did anyone seriously expect to see something different here?

And yes, I'm sure right-leaning forums do the same when the situation is reversed.

I just like to laugh at this because P&C is really cyclic. I remember it being mostly right leaning for 2 large time periods before Bush's 2nd term. Just a few "lefties" in here at the time with Robear leading the charge and JMJ leading the other.

karmajay wrote:

I just like to laugh at this because P&C is really cyclic. I remember it being mostly right leaning for 2 large time periods before Bush's 2nd term. Just a few "lefties" in here at the time with Robear leading the charge and JMJ leading the other. :)

I submit that here, like in many places in the country, what is "right" and "left" has shifted while many Americans have stood still in their beliefs. Some people are concerned with thinking about individual issues case by case, and others are more concerned about how their thinking falls on a political spectrum. The knee-jerk response that someone would dislike this man based on politics and not what his behavior said about him is a perfect example of that.

I don't think of this as a very left-wing forum. There is a big percentage of libertarians. Sometimes maybe it looks left-wing because of the reaction to social issues, athiesm/religion, and the like.

Oh, and apparently Obama ordered Breitbart to be killed.

I would say that this is a very intelligent, well-reasoned forum, and the right side of the political spectrum has been tragically hijacked by utterly insane people in recent years. It's become very hard to support "the right" in recent years because they've gone totally off the tracks.

I really think the GOP has become the party of Angry Old White People, evangelicals, and Angry Old White People who are evangelicals, and there aren't many of those folks here.

Without commenting on this guy's death:

The comment about the forum swaying illustrates a larger truth:

Most Americans don't feel completely one way or the other. Saying you're "Liberal" or "Conservative" or "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't fully cover the way most people feel. Isn't it something like 20-25% will vote Republican, 20-25% will vote Democrat (I mean, all the time, even if Hitler's clone was the candidate), and it's the other 50% that must be swayed? These people don't live in one camp.

Look at me. I'm:
Fiscally Conservative
Open to drug legalization (despite my occupation)
Baptist, but for gay rights
Against foreign wars that don't directly tie in to US national security
100% for strict term limits at each level of government
A car guy who wishes that the government would actually create incentives (ie tax cuts) for the development of the real electric car, and the infrastructure to support it

Etc, etc. Where the hell is my party? The truth is that most Americans have to find the person who sort of kind of mostly maybe fits their views in each election. Last time, I voted for Obama because I think that McCain's treatment of his first wife was shameful. Sorry, if you can't commit to a human being I'm not trusting you to run the country. After four years of Obama's policies, I disagree with him enough that he won't get my vote again, but I certainly won't vote Republican. So it'll probably be a 3rd party for me.

The point is that these things ebb and flow because the actual number of un-thinking liberals and un-thinking conservatives is smaller than the loudmouths would make you believe. The reality is that most people, depending on their own experiences, have a variety of political opinions that are rarely represented in what is actually available to vote on or discuss.

InspectorFowler wrote:

awesomeness

This. It's very very hard to be a Roosevelt Republican these days. (that's Roosevelt as in Teddy)

This is particularly showing up in the ridiculously low voting rates in the primaries. Someone was apparently listening to too much Judy Collins and sent in the clowns and many people just don't feel it's worth the bother.

momgamer wrote:
InspectorFowler wrote:

awesomeness

This. It's very very hard to be a Roosevelt Republican these days. (that's Roosevelt as in Teddy)

This is particularly showing up in the ridiculously low voting rates in the primaries. Someone was apparently listening to too much Judy Collins and sent in the clowns and many people just don't feel it's worth the bother.

Much better to listen to too much Suzanne Collins, and send in teenagers with bows.

I don't know that even The Mockingjay could help us.

I just like to laugh at this because P&C is really cyclic. I remember it being mostly right leaning for 2 large time periods before Bush's 2nd term. Just a few "lefties" in here at the time with Robear leading the charge and JMJ leading the other.

One thing worth noting is that JMJ and I became friends, and we respected each other enough that that could happen. The public debate has been skewed for the last 30 years or so, such that respect for an opponent is weakness. That's the political environment today, but hopefully not our environment here, at least.

InspectorFowler wrote:

Etc, etc. Where the hell is my party? The truth is that most Americans have to find the person who sort of kind of mostly maybe fits their views in each election. Last time, I voted for Obama because I think that McCain's treatment of his first wife was shameful. Sorry, if you can't commit to a human being I'm not trusting you to run the country. After four years of Obama's policies, I disagree with him enough that he won't get my vote again, but I certainly won't vote Republican. So it'll probably be a 3rd party for me.

Conservative here, but I'll never forgive McCain for bringing Sarah Palin into the national spotlight.

sheared wrote:

Conservative here, but I'll never forgive McCain for bringing Sarah Palin into the national spotlight.

I hate to say it, but if you're unhappy about McCain bringing Palin into the mix then most conservatives wouldn't call you a real conservative. You'd be classified as a RINO (or worse).

Ok, I take what I said earlier back. I thought Breitbart was more known for his combative tactics and for showing his enemies in as bad a light as possible, taking things out of context and ignoring any good they had done. But as I've read more about his team hacking into OWS websites and his gleeful wish for the next civil war where conservatives finally enact a "final solution" for those pesky liberals, I realize he's a true sociopath.