I used to have Breitbart bookmarked as one of the places I'd look for right wing thinking (back when I also read WND); but finally couldn't stand either and deleted them only checking in when a big incident would arise. They were both good sources for far rightie thinking (for those who call it thinking).
Breitbart put out the ACORN YouTubes showing the stupidity with which some staffers addressed those coming into their offices, where discussing using underage prostitutes had the staffer acting as though it was an everyday occurrence to hear such (and suggest child credits be applied for). It gave right wingers an excuse to say-- see I told you so-- and left wingers to argue it was not representative and manipulated-- a trap. While tapes like that are definitely stings of a sort, the obviously poorly prepared and trained staffer had to say what was said even if it was edited to make it as bad as possible. ACORN learned (I hope) from it as they took their lumps.
Breitbart routinely used tapes that were cut and spliced to make things look how he wanted them to be. He didn't though usually do the splicing. He just put them out without research on the truth of the edited version-- so long as they played to his prejudices. He considered himself a conduit but one only for his agenda.
That was Breitbart, an associate and friend of Drudge, one who helped start Huffington Post. One who evidently was putting together a program where he would debate Anthony Weiner on CNN... Yes, the same Weiner whose press conference he tried to hijack and who he outed as a misuser of his own sexuality online. Can anybody say Weiner hadn't done what he did? We didn't like losing an important voice in our own causes, but Weiner brought that on himself.
I remember seeing Breitbart every now and again on Bill Maher, and he was actually pretty likeable there-- as are a few other righties even like Rep. Issa *boo hiss*. Something about the Maher format leads them to discuss things in a way that benefits any who are intelligent and don't stick to the phony laugh and smile at every salient point made by Maher-- as in ha... ha... ha! as they ignore the points and repeat Republican talking points. Breitbart wasn't one to repeat. He listened to what was said and came back with his own agenda, an agenda in which he believed and voiced pretty well.
Because he said something big was coming March 1st, something big enough to cause Obama to lose the November election, his death on that day has also led the nutcase fringe to do their usual thing.
In hushed tones of paranoia, they are suggesting it might've been assassination-- although that idea is just thrown out for the non-thinkers to latch onto-- just like the birthers throw out their accusations. Now the idea that any videos of Obama in college associating with left wing extremists will matter to anybody who isn't already a hater or bigot would only be taken seriously by those who are desperate to get Obama out of office. The people that Breitbart would have impressed are the same ones who will be eating up Sheriff Arpaio's recent press conference that shows the sheriff to be a birther (as if we had doubts).
I didn't cheer Breitbart's death for a lot of reasons even though he certainly isn't someone whose philosophy or way of operating I felt was admirable. Some of the reasons I didn't feel satisfaction is he was a human being, had a wife and four children. Unless toxicology shows something more, he wasn't doing anything so bad for his health that many haven't lived into their 80s doing the same. He was living what he believed was right (wrong or not, I really do think he believed in his positions); and I know a lot like that who aren't of my political persuasion. I don't wish bad on them nor do I feel happy when bad happens to them.
When I read the above article about his last hour, his passion for politics right up to the end, I saw that as a good thing. Too bad he wasn't more honorable but maybe to him he was. Maybe someday he would have seen the light about his right wing positions.
Admire Breitbart? Nope. Like his tactics?-- Nope. But relish anybody dying at 43, I'd rather the right wing stuck to that kind of nastiness. I consider it a tragedy, when someone that young and with a family, dies so suddenly. I didn't know until this that Orson Bean was his father-in-law. I used to like Orson Bean when he was on game shows. I didn't know anything about his politics and for that matter, still do not. I do know he loved his son-in-law as he spoke of it after the death.
You know in the end, it's never about the Breitbarts, nor the Limbaughs nor the Palins. It's always about those who cheer what they already want to hear. In a lot of ways these people in the center, the symbols, they are as much created by the mob as they created it. If you read history, that kind of mentality has always been with us. The symbol is just a symbol-- and if the mob changed its ways, the symbol would change!
If you are okay with some tough language, check out the following piece by Matt Taibbi. Especially the update of what he got from right wing haters after he wrote his own Breitbart obituary. He titled it something that I don't use for language in this blog-- so be warned. But his piece is excellent on the man and the kind of people who helped create his fame.