Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[A'isha]

Sure to be a surprise to his widow and four kids.

Hey, lots of married conservatives are gay! Pastor Ted Haggard, US Rep. Larry Craig, Florida State Rep. Bob Allen, Medford NJ Mayor Chris Myers, Southaven MS Mayor Greg Davis, Indiana State Rep. Philip Hinkle, Washington State Rep. Richard Curtis, California State Sen. Roy Ashburn, Spokane WA Mayor Jim West, US Rep. Ed Schrock...all of them had wives, were conservative Republicans, and despite being avowedly anti-gay, all secretly enjoyed the manlove.

 

[leftysergeant]

One thing I'm really laughing about is that he was gay, so if (or when) he was on the left, he was or would have been a hallowed saint.

Coow cookies. He would have been a punk for doing the crap he did to innocent parties.

But on the conservative side? Why, that doesn't fit into the narrative, so it has to be nicely omitted.

Vicious haters of the left, seen as they really truly are.

We throw slimeballs like Edwards under the bus without thinking of it. You lot keep electing people like Diapers Vitter.

In the media? Ed Schultz took time off and did a major mea culpa for calling that sorry twit Laura Ingraham a political slut, and the putrid gasbag on the EIB is still chortling over the distress he caused people calling a decent activist law student a whore. Get real.

 

[Roadtoad]

We throw slimeballs like Edwards under the bus without thinking of it. You lot keep electing people like Diapers Vitter.

This.

Yes, the Democrats divested themselves of Edwards, particularly given how he treated his wife as she was dying. (Classy lady, Elizabeth.) But look what it took to get that to happen.

Not too much difference, really. Craig is still considered welcome by the Republicans.

If he were at my door, I'd slam it in his face, not only for his hypocrisy, but because he's a liar.

 

[BenBurch]

This.

Yes, the Democrats divested themselves of Edwards, particularly given how he treated his wife as she was dying. (Classy lady, Elizabeth.) But look what it took to get that to happen.

Not too much difference, really. Craig is still considered welcome by the Republicans.

If he were at my door, I'd slam it in his face, not only for his hypocrisy, but because he's a liar.

Well, we didn't know he was a slimeball until that happened. We just took him for a too ambitious do-gooder with too little resume for the job before that.

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, we didn't know he was a slimeball until that happened. We just took him for a too ambitious do-gooder with too little resume for the job before that.

Okay. Point taken. I was wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, we didn't know he was a slimeball until that happened. We just took him for a too ambitious do-gooder with too little resume for the job before that.

Indeed, people like Charlie Rangel's long career are much better examples of the Democrat's tolerance of corruption. Edwards is just an example of how the Democrats aren't immune to empty charm.

 

[Roadtoad]

Indeed, people like Charlie Rangel's long career are much better examples of the Democrat's tolerance of corruption. Edwards is just an example of how the Democrats aren't immune to empty charm.

Prior to Rangel getting nailed for corruption, and even before he became corrupt, he served his district honorably, just as he had served the nation honorably during the Korean War.

Just a thought. It helps to read up on these folks.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Finally, the point of this thread, and what I've commented on, is the fundamental viciousness of the resident liberals, and the rather astonishing amount of hate they have. That's simply evident in the postings. It doesn't go away by double talk or rationalization, etc.

To put it bluntly, the posters here are showing exactly what kind of people they are.

Whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Ziggurat]

Prior to Rangel getting nailed for corruption, and even before he became corrupt, he served his district honorably, just as he had served the nation honorably during the Korean War.

Just a thought. It helps to read up on these folks.

That's nice. It's also ancient history. Rangel has been corrupt, and obviously so, for quite some time. He should have been driven out in shame years ago, but he wasn't.

 

[leftysergeant]

That's nice. It's also ancient history. Rangel has been corrupt, and obviously so, for quite some time. He should have been driven out in shame years ago, but he wasn't.

Why did it take so long to get rid of that pimp DeLay?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's nice. It's also ancient history.

Why do you hate veterans?

 

[leftysergeant]

Sure to be a surprise to his widow and four kids.

In order to prove that they are not gay, a lot of closet cases will get married and breed, thinbking that everyone will believe them when they point to their offspring and say: "How could I possibly have kids if I'm queer?"

I've met a lot of predominantly gay guys who will doink an occasionaly woman just for the hell of it.

 

[leftysergeant]

That's nice. It's also ancient history. Rangel has been corrupt, and obviously so, for quite some time. He should have been driven out in shame years ago, but he wasn't.

So, can you prove that he was on the take to vote in a particular way on specific issues?

We do know, for instance, that the bugman from Texas was inclined to vote the way that Abramoff wanted him to vote when a particular bill might make life difficult for the particularly barbaric pimps on Saipan.

Did Charlie Wrangel's votes really do anybody other than a few greedy investors particular harm that would negate any good that he did workinjg people?

Don't put Charlie in the same box with the bug man.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

At the Daily Beast

David Frum offers this assessment of Breitbart's work: "And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous."

 

[mhaze]

That's the first I've heard of him being gay. I know that he was very accepting of gays (which also didn't fit with the typical stereotype of conservatives), but are you sure you're not getting something confused here?

You are correct and I was wrong. I'm still correct though about the purposeful OMISSION of his being supportive of gays in the current slime and smear fest.

Indeed, people like Charlie Rangel's long career are much better examples of the Democrat's tolerance of corruption. Edwards is just an example of how the Democrats aren't immune to empty charm.

Not to mention William Jefferson of Louisiana.

Well, we didn't know he was a slimeball until that happened. We just took him for a too ambitious do-gooder with too little resume for the job before that.

Not really. Some of us knew about the issues for years and wondered when the mainslime media would pick up the story. So you sort of believed what you wanted to believe and the sources you listened to didn't tell you anything different.

 

[mhaze]

David Frum offers this assessment of Breitbart's work: "And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous."

This may be right but not in the way you are thinking of it.

Poisonous to some who think they as progressive elites can pass judgement on matters and have their edicts and comments listened to. Here's a direct reply to Frum's article by Kaus. It's worth reading because both the good and bad of a complex personality are discussed:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/02/andrew-breitbart-r-i-p-2/

David Frum could not have known Breitbart. At least that’s the most charitable reason I can think of for why he picked the occasion of Breitbart’s sudden death to promote the cheap, bogus meme that Andrew had a “giddy disdain for truth and fairness” as long as a story helped his side. ”Just as all is fair in a shooting war, so manipulation and deception are legitimate tools in a culture war,” writes Frum.

I’ve known right-wingers who were like that (‘See, we attack Kerry with this, and by the time he answers we’ve moved on to the next charge!’) Breitbart wasn’t one of them. Yes, he had a jaundiced view of the left, and a pugilistic–I might say, Frum-esque–view of the Middle East. But he said what he though was true, even when that hurt his side or put his own career at risk.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/02/andrew-breitbart-r-i-p-2/#ixzz1o5CsCoYU

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Just checking in: is Andrew Breitbart still dead?

 

[Roadtoad]

This may be right but not in the way you are thinking of it.

Poisonous to some who think they as progressive elites can pass judgement on matters and have their edicts and comments listened to. Here's a direct reply to Frum's article by Kaus. It's worth reading because both the good and bad of a complex personality are discussed:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/02/andrew-breitbart-r-i-p-2/

David Frum could not have known Breitbart. At least that’s the most charitable reason I can think of for why he picked the occasion of Breitbart’s sudden death to promote the cheap, bogus meme that Andrew had a “giddy disdain for truth and fairness” as long as a story helped his side. ”Just as all is fair in a shooting war, so manipulation and deception are legitimate tools in a culture war,” writes Frum.

I’ve known right-wingers who were like that (‘See, we attack Kerry with this, and by the time he answers we’ve moved on to the next charge!’) Breitbart wasn’t one of them. Yes, he had a jaundiced view of the left, and a pugilistic–I might say, Frum-esque–view of the Middle East. But he said what he though was true, even when that hurt his side or put his own career at risk.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/02/andrew-breitbart-r-i-p-2/#ixzz1o5CsCoYU

I don't know that Frum was being dishonest, that he was promoting something that wasn't so. The occasion of Breitbart's death provoked an analysis, as it usually does when anyone dies.

The article from the Daily Caller provided another interesting link in the chain. Obviously there was more to the man than many knew, but what is clear in my mind is that he did do damage to someone and refused to apologize for it, even as it became clear there was far more to the story than he let on.

And, frankly, that's sad. As Frum pointed out, perhaps over time, he might have recognized just how much more he was capable of doing. Perhaps his tactics might have become more focused, more appropriate to the goal. One could hope this would equally apply to the head of the DNC in the wake of the Tucson shootings, or the current flap with Limbaugh.

One can hope.

**** in one hand, wish in the other. See which one fills up quickest.

 

[leftysergeant]

Some of us knew about the issues for years and wondered when the mainslime media would pick up the story. So you sort of believed what you wanted to believe and the sources you listened to didn't tell you anything different.

When one segment of the media lies ofte enough, we liberals tend to wait until their is evidence from a reliable source. Most of the noise about Edwards was coming from the wrong wing radio idiots and GOP tool news outlets.

When acceptable evidence hit the main line, Edwards was toast.

When is the GOP going to admit that Tom the bugman was a pimp, and a particularly vile one at that?

 

[Roadtoad]

When one segment of the media lies ofte enough, we liberals tend to wait until their is evidence from a reliable source. Most of the noise about Edwards was coming from the wrong wing radio idiots and GOP tool news outlets.

When acceptable evidence hit the main line, Edwards was toast.

When is the GOP going to admit that Tom the bugman was a pimp, and a particularly vile one at that?

You will owe me for a new laptop. I just about spewed hot coffee over Ol' Reliable over that one.

Sorry, Lefty, but both sides of the aisle have long been pointing fingers and making false, hateful and disgusting accusations about one another. And they've been doing so without those pesky "facts" for ages.