Farewell to a Friend: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)


Andrew Breitbart, Matt Welch, Steve Smith (yes, that one), and Nancy Rommelmann, at the after-party for Cathy Seipp's roast.

It was always funny to many of his friends that Andrew Breitbart, after he became famous, was probably most famous for being a 100 percent polarizing political lightning rod. The reason that was funny was two-fold: He didn't actually have strong philosophical/policy beliefs—at all – and he was always perfectly comfortable and perfectly welcome in ideologically and culturally diverse settings. Like my L.A. backyard (pictured), dozens of times.

That doesn't mean the guy stumbled accidentally into politcal conflict. He lived for it. He was genuinely, convincingly, overwhelmingly outraged at the workaday biases of liberal media, academia, and entertainment, and always positioned himself smack dab in the center of it. He'd be in the middle of some hilarious story about trying to do unspeakable things at some Irvine Meadows concert in the 1980s, and then if the conversation got steered toward the media, his eyes would narrow and redden, his face would go purplish, and Breitbart-Hulk would take over. Here's how I described one such face-reddening moment in a 2004 Reason column:

"Every day I wake up in the battle about media bias," he says. "The best analogy I can give to you is this: Have you ever gone to like the Santa Monica Pier, and seen one of those holograms on the wall, and you're supposed to stare at it for a while, and there's supposed to be, like, a magical castle in it? Well you look and you look and you can't see that castle and you can't see that castle, but eventually your eyes focus in such a way that the castle comes up. And then you can't not see the castle. That's how media bias comes to you from the conservative angle." […]

"Because you ignored us," Breitbart says, "because you ignored Rush and Drudge and God knows who else, we decided to go out and create our media. And I think that what we're doing is building up something that may be bigger and better."

AB in Reason DC HQ

Before talking about that "go out and create our media" part, which will be Breitbart's true legacy, I would like to stress here that Andrew's broader point about media bias, while always hyperbolic, was also based on something broadly true. Here, let's look at something I read this very morning in The New Yorker, by Hendrik Hertzberg. In a piece that listed first among the Republican base's "basest biases" its "fierce hatred of the mainstream media," Hertzberg, the lead political commentator in the country's most journalistically respected magazine, describes the GOP core like this:

an excitable, overlapping assortment of Fox News friends, Limbaugh dittoheads, Tea Party animals, war whoopers, nativists, Christianist fundamentalists, à la carte Catholics (anti-abortion, yes; anti-torture, no), anti-Rooseveltians (Franklin and Theodore), global-warming denialists, post-Confederate white Southrons, creationists, birthers, market idolaters, Europe demonizers, and gun fetishists

Bye, Andrew

I was a "media columnist" when I met Andrew, and I will probably always disagree with the conservative/Breitbartian conflation of "bias" with "agenda," but he certainly sensitized me more to the friction that non-liberals feel when swimming against the current of Acceptable Opinion. For which he deserves a posthumous thanks.

But as Nick Gillespie mentioned this morning, Breitbart's real accomplishment was his innovative, hyper-kinetic 21st-century media creation. Who else could say they helped make both The Drudge Report and The Huffington Post what they are today? Operating with budgets the fraction of daily newspapers you will never hear of, Breitbart consistently and gleefully produced about the highest impact-per-dollar political muckraking in the mediasphere.

The circus could make even his friends wince sometimes (especially following his insanely combative and hilarious Twitter feed), but it was almost always at least interesting and frequently funny. I understand that some of his antagonists are pouring acid on his grave today, or at least bitching about the lack of James O'Keefe forensics in various obituary notices, and all I can say is: 1) He (and I, for that matter) wouldn't have it any other way, and 2) The next Breitbart-hater to match his entrepreneurial esprit-de-corps will be the first. To get a sense of that, and the man himself, I recommend this 2010 Slate profile by Christopher Beam.

I don't want to end on that inevitably polarizing note, because that's not what I valued in Andrew Breitbart. He was a funny, warm, gregarious person who typically peaked at about 2 AM near a large outdoor fire. A totally doting husband and father of four, and typing those words is kind of devastating me right now. RIP, Andrew, and my heart goes out to Susie and the kids.

Some Reason links:

* The Breitbart Dilemma

* Breitbart Confidential: His First Concert, His Baseball Obsession, His Elvis-Like Moment, & More

* Liberal in Bed, Conservative in the Head: Sophie B. Hawkins, Breitbart, & Steele, @ Big Gay Party

* What We Saw at the 9/12 Tea Party Rally in DC

And here's me talking with Breitbart right after the November 2008 elections:

NEXT: The Long, Slow Death of Free Checking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What a fat-body.

    1. Which contrasts with your emaciated mind.

  2. Instapundit is linking to articles/tweets where the left shows its usual class.

    1. Like what they say about Jason Godesky? Is that classy?

      1. On both your houses.

        1. An appropriate curse from a city-Statist.

          1. “For two million years Man lived in the Garden of Eden. Then along came Agriculture – known to us as the Devil – which sullied Man’s Paradise. Now Man lives in the sin of Civilization.

            “Repent, for Civilization will inevitably end! Reclaim Paradise Lost!”

            ~ John Zerzan, Primitivist Evangelist

            1. “For two million years Man lived in the Garden of Eden. Then along came Government – known to us as the Devil – which sullied Man’s Paradise. Now Man lives in the sin of Government Regulation.

              “Repent, for Government will inevitably burn! And John Galt will lead us all to Heaven’s Gate!”

              ~ Fibertarian Evangelist

              So, now we’ve established that something is wrong, and needs corrected.

              However, you blank out the obvious:

              State-level politics (government) is a 100% correlated component of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) There has never been a civilization without government. There never will be a city-Statist society without State-level politics.

              1. …make no pretense as to a utopian society. YOU, and other primitards, do.

                1. 2 million years of it, baby. Proven. Evolutionarily stable.

                  Unlike your…ahem…”Unknown Ideal” “utopia of greed.”

                  Seems as if you’re psychologically projecting your utopianism onto me, Fibertard.

                  1. “2 million years of it, baby. Proven. Evolutionarily stable.”

                    Greaty. Another religiously-Left psychopath who has no idea what Evolution means or does.

                    1. skeptic dude = rightwing nut who thinks them scientamajific journal articles are Godless

                      Meanwhile, in reality:

                      Hines, WGS (1987). “Evolutionary stable strategies: a review of basic theory”. Theoretical Population Biology 31 (2): 195?272. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(87)90029-3. PMID 3296292.

                      Parker, G.A. (1984) Evolutionary stable strategies. In Behavioural Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach (2nd ed) Krebs, J.R. & Davies N.B., eds. pp 30?61. Blackwell, Oxford.

                      Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS)

              2. Don’t conflate libertarianism with objectivism. It makes you look as uninformed as you are. So does extreme hyperbolic strawmen.

                1. Fibertardism/Objectitardism: Basically the same thing. Market Fundamentalists.

                  Market Fundamentalists who ignore that civilization = city-Statism, and thus hold the contradiction that the city-State is good, but the city-State is bad.

                  Those Ayn Rand evasion blank-outs come in handy for Market Fundies, don’t they? LULZ Praiz Gult!

                  And yeah, I understand the minor differences, and the typical Market Fundamentalist infighting that parallels the rabid squabbling in all Fundamentalist faiths.

                  1. Get the fuck away from my cherry-chocolate cheesecake, fibertarians, or I’ll cut and paste again!

                    No Mountain Dew, no peace!

          2. Do you have anything better to do with your life?

      2. Rather,

        No one wishes Godesky harm. In fact we wish he could gambol to his heart’s content. We just think he won’t live long once deprived of a constant supply of cheese burgers. Being morbidly obese and on your way to Type II diabetes is not conducive to successful gamboling.

        1. The consequences of city-Statism (civilization) are indeed tragic.

          Bj?rntorp P. Visceral obesity: a “civilization syndrome”. Obes Res. 1993 May;1(3):206-22.

          Also, in memory of a guy dying young, remember:

          WORK KILLS.

          “Working over 48 hours per week doubles the risk of cardio-vascular disease.”

          Anxiety Culture is a webzine with a wealth of ideas & gimmicks for navigating the crazy, paranoid, work-obsessed, media-crapulent times we live in.

          Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery

          1. Rather,

            Since your degree is probably going to be in psychology or some other useless subject, I think you are safe from dying from over work.

            1. You think double shifts at Taco Hell are easy on a gamboler?

          2. Primitard told me so.

          3. Why take Primitard seriously?

            1. why take Libertard seriously?

              Bonus: It’s for the children.

              “Here’s the situation. My child is gravely ill…”

              Voluntary Slave Contracts
              by Walter Block [Economic “scholar” at Mises Institute]

              1. Good Freedom, Bad Freedom.

                Primitard told me so.

                1. Or are you just being Fibertarian again?

                  1. …can mean freedom to go into slavery.

                    But Primitard can’t understand that.

                    Good Freedom, Bad Freedom.

                    Primitard told me so.

                    1. Fibertard told me that one.

                      I thought it was a joke.

                      He didn’t.

                    2. I disavow marriage contracts, newsletters, or anything else I sign. “Things happen.”

          4. “Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery”

            Wage Slavery = Oxymoronic Red Herring used by collectivist-totalitarians in an attempt to throw the unenlightened off of the fact that the system they crave is a de facto slave society.

            1. Free Market = Oxymoronic Red Herring used by Fibertarian collectivist-totalitarians who support agricultural city-Statism (civilization) in an attempt to throw the unenlightened off of the fact that the system they crave is a de facto slave society.

    2. Instapundit has this link. One of the tweeties says “he destroyed lives based on lies.” Can anybody name one? I have asked this about the McCarthy hearings too and nobody can seem to name a name of a person who was “destroyed” by lies there either.

      1. Feck off. What about the woman from the Ag Dept he “crafted” a video piece about that made her out to look like a racist? Drink! Arse! Girls! Thank God this gobshite bastid is gone!


    3. Well, he died as he lived: exposing the vicious, arrogant hatefulness of progressives.

  3. Breitbart died? Wow, RIP dude.

  4. You know, not to take away from Andrew Breitbart’s death, but how come Reason has apparently completely missed that Congress passed H.R. 347 yesterday, which effectively made it a felony to protest any presidential candidate who has Secret Service protection if they even *suspect* you might cause a disruption?

    I think that continuing to point out the excesses of government might be a better way to honor Mr. Breitbart.

    1. Actually, they didn’t:…..r-secret-s

  5. Yay, a day of TEAM RED hagiography and TEAM BLUE hate-ography. What fun.

    1. Circle gets the square!

      1. Wait, are you saying I’m Whoopi, or Bruce Villanch?!?

        1. The hideous love-child of both.

        2. Homer Simpson.

          Brockman: Oh, we’ve got to stop putting these flavors of the month on.
          Homer: Flavor of the month? Me?
          Ron Howard: Yeah, Homer, you can’t just ride one accomplishment forever. Why do you think I stopped acting and became a director?
          Homer: I don’t know, because you weren’t cute anymore?
          Stu: Hmmm, I’ll agree.
          Brockman: Circle gets the square. Goodnight, everyone!

        3. Charles Nelson-Riley

  6. Holy Cow. I hate to put on my tinfoil hat but was it common for him to be out walking after midnight? And then to suddenly have a heart attack, seems fishy. Just saying.

    Paranoia, it’s what’s for dinner.

    1. 4 kids? yes. taking a walk at midnight sounds like a great idea some nights.

    2. HArd to score rock at home with the kids.

  7. What a bummer. Breitbart was a voice in the wilderness that was adamant about pushing back against the onslaught of mass media and their mob mentality.

    There are not enough Breibart’s in the world, and losing him is a huge set back in the fight against big government and their supporters in the media.

    1. Feck off. Brietbart was just another establishment conservative whore. Drink! Arse! Girls!

      1. How insightful.

  8. Nice tribute to your friend, Mr Welch. Condolences to you.

  9. I think the bias-versus-agenda distinction is apt. For most of the media, the issue is deeply biased reporters and editors. While I do suspect that some of them (and even some whole media outlets) are intentionally pushing a political agenda, most are just blinded by their very deep political beliefs. And, unfortunately, baked into leftist thought is the concept that the ends justify the means, so journalistic ethics don’t even slow many of them down.

    1. Not to say that the right-wing media, which, of course, exists, too, doesn’t play by some of the same tactics. I don’t watch TV news much at all, so I can’t really judge outlets like Fox News.

      1. If forced to choose, I’d choose Fox’s Republican bias, but it still sucks.

        1. From what I’ve seen, they seem to have a little less of the pure doctrinaire bias, but yes, biased.

          1. The neoconservatism and Reagan-worship is a huge turnoff for me.

            1. progressivism, socialism, and communism are huge turn offs to me.

          2. FN definitely has its bias, but just compare the discussion of issues on FN to other networks. FN, with very few exceptions, invites a rep from each of Team Red and Team Blue or from each of Team Lib and Team Con to argue their respective viewpoints. I can’t say that I watch the other cable channels much anymore (S/N just too low to make it worthwhile), but when I did, I frequently saw the presentation of one and only one side of an issues and that side was always lib.

            1. I’m not sure that presenting two sides of an issue is usually significantly better than presenting only one. It’s easier to hide your bias when pretending to be even handed. This is why people ignore the fact that there are options that neither of the two parties will tell you about.

              1. I’m not sure that presenting two sides of an issue is usually significantly better than presenting only one.

                Even while acknowledging the problem of false dichotomies, I am completely sure that presenting two sides of an issue is always better than pretending that there is only one side or that there is only one side that any non-evil person would ever consider supporting.

        2. I’ll take Fox Business Network’s libertarian bias any day of the week.

    2. Hence “Bless the internet”. A great way to air biases and field test how truly objective a piece is. We live in awesome times.

      1. Sure beats having a few lords on high dispensing whatever information they thought we could handle.

        1. Exactly. I’ve often wondered if the recent campaign against the horrors of “too many choices” is really just the anxiety of not being able to keep people on the ideological straight and narrow through information selection.

          1. It’s heathens like you who need to be told what to think.

            1. And right now I think it’s time for lunch.

          2. Speaking of horrors, did you notice who’s in the background of that first picture?

            1. Yes. [shudder]

              1. Who is that?

                1. STEVE SMITH!

                  1. No way. Was that on the Reason Cruise?

                    1. Matt’s backyard. He’s moving into populated areas because of man’s encroachment on his natural habitat. Like raccoons and city-elk.

                    2. Dude,

                      Look at the horrified look on the woman to the right of Smith’s face. I don’t even want to contemplate what must have happened next.

                  2. Now, I understand that STEVE needs to shave his comprehensive hirsuteness to pass in suburban environments, but would somebody tell him that doesn’t mean he has to shave everything?

              2. I’m sending that picture to the BFRO. No one can deny his existence any longer.

                I BELIEVE IN STEVE SMITH

            2. Hmm, Midnight walks, Steve Smith and dying of “natural causes”? I think I know how Andrew Breitbart died. Too soon?

              1. The association of Steve Smith with the word “natural” in any context seems unnatural.

                1. Hence the use of scare quotes.

          3. Bingo bulls-eye on that point, SF.

    3. To paraphrase something I once read – ‘they [traditional media] don’t notice the bias the same way fish don’t notice the water.’ Breitbart’s biggest accomplishment was making them well aware of what they were swimming in, and many didn’t care for him as a result.

      1. That is a great quote.

    4. Or maybe you’re wrong, and the people trained to report facts and distill truths aren’t in a giant conspiracy against you.

      1. Well, not against me personally.

  10. And yes, my condolences Matt.

  11. I was a “media columnist” when I met Andrew, and I will probably always disagree with the conservative/Breitbartian conflation of “bias” with “agenda”.

    Frankly Matt, I don’t know how any person without a dog in the fight could read stuff like that Hertzberg snippet you quoted and continue to deny that there’s an agenda behind the pervasive liberal media bias.

    It would be one thing if what he was saying was true, but it’s mostly nonsensical. The republican party is about to nominate friggin’ Mitt Romney, probably the most temperamentally and politically moderate republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower.

    1. That has a lot to do with who ran against Romney, doesn’t it? I can think of a few GOPers who could’ve won if they’d run. Christie probably at the top of that list.

      1. Christie, while ‘conservative’ by NJ standards, would be a moderate by national standards.

        1. Not Romney “moderate”, and I’m not sure what he’d be like on a national level. I’m sure he’s making some compromises just to stay in power in New Jersey.

          To be fair, some of that applies to Romney, too. To be a Republican in Massachusetts can’t be easy.

        2. I’m also tired of hearing about Warren Buffet…WRITE THE DAMN CHECK ALREADY.

          – Chris Christie

      2. There is undeniably an element there of what he’s talking about, but if what Hertzberg was saying was true, Rick Santorum would be winning the nomination.

        1. He almost did. You can’t dismiss the millions who did vote for him just because he was barely edged out by a moderately-advanced punch-card robot in Michigan.

          1. No he didn’t. Winning two states isn’t almost winning anything.

          2. Romneybot and StickyRicky split the MI delegates at 15 each. Saying Romney won MI is just spin.

            1. Considering that we go by beauty contest percentage points and not delegates acquired…yes you can say Romney won Michigan.

              However, on a meta level he lost, because it should never have been in doubt.

  12. Condolences to the loss of a friend Matt.

  13. Man I really cant believe the dude is gone. He was so uyoung!

  14. He can suck my nuts. Who cares about some faggot conservative media propagandist. Just cause left wing media is bullshit doesnt make right wing media any less bullshit.

    1. Breibart was obsessive about PENISES, especially mine.

      1. I think you are thinking of Joan Walsh.

    2. faggot? Really?

      But thanks for reinforcing that we’re the left’s (current) abused spouse.

      1. I call these guys “SouthPark liberals”.

        Young, liberal males who haven’t figured out that SouthPark is making fun of them.

        1. Tough guy liberals always make me laugh. They love throwing out homophobic slurs.

          1. That is what a fag would say, John!

            1. That is right.

      2. If you are straight and leftovers are agin ya they call you gay. If you are gay they call you a pedophile. If you are a pedophile they make you a political appointee in the Education Department.

    3. Internet tough guy calls someone a gay slur on the internet. WOOO. How long before you clowns realize this is a libertarian website. No one cares what your sexual predilections are. Therefore terms like “faggot” just make you look like a clown.

      1. Breibart cared about sexual predilections. Especially mine.

        ~Anthony Weiner

        1. So it is okay then to toss around homophobic slurs. Got it tough guy.

          1. You’re part of the problem, John.

            1. But you love me anyway Rather.

  15. Thank you, Matt. Very well put. My sympathies.

  16. You off your meds again, Monk?

    Look! Some germs!

  17. Ladies and gentlemen, comment anarchy.
    Isn’t it lovely?
    The civilization is moving forward by leaps and bounds.

    1. Please contact Mr. Obvious.

      The only non-contradictory anarchy is anarcho-primitivism.

      The only proven anarchy is millions of years of anarcho-primitivism.

      1. …is a political philosophy, not reality.

        Grow up.

        1. …is a contradictory political philosophy, not reality.

          Grow up.

          1. …fibs about prehistoric man. It’s a false philosophy.

            1. I guess evolution is false too. LULZ

              Market Fundamentalist, Creationist Fundamentalist: what’s the difference?

              1. How do I love Dairy Queen Blizzards? Let me count the ways…

              2. Markets exist; gods don’t.
                Incidentally, Godesky — working in the computer industry and posting on blogs is a massive Primitivism failure on your part.

                1. Isn’t it hypocritical of primitivists to use modern technology? If they want to live primitively so badly, why don’t they just run off into the woods already and do it?

                  Civilization has precluded “running off into the woods” as an option fairly well. Hunting regulations pose serious encumberments, to say nothing of the fact that some meager income must be maintained to pay for hunting and fishing licenses, as well as taxes on land…There is the essential problem; if civilization were willing to coexist with us, we would be happy to return the favor. But ultimately, civilization is incapable of letting anything but itself exist.

                  5 Objections to Primitivism and Why They’re Wrong

    2. STFU Rather.

      1. That trick never works.

  18. Monk sucks liberal “junk”.

  19. A sad loss of a talented man. Condolences to all who knew him.

  20. Matt, you don’t write nearly as many articles as I’d like. I understand you are a busy man, but I sure wish I could see more of your writing on here. Putting your feelings into words is seldom an easy task, and to do so under such a heavy emotional weight must seem almost unbearable. Thank you for so eloquently sharing your grief with us.

    Condolences for the loss of your friend.

    1. No man card for you!

  21. Will the crazies from Kansas show up at Breitbart’s funeral and blame his demise on God’s hating fags? That’d be a hard one, as she once said.

    1. Ask Monk. He seems to be one of those said crazies.

  22. And he’s crazy.

    1. You know you love me rather. Just admit it and work through your issues.

      1. I need some time alone to deal with issues
        Smile Empty Soul – Bottom Of A Bottle

        1. It is okay rather. We have all had unrequited love.

  23. Sqwerls actin’ up again. It shows several posts after this one but I can’t get to them. Cleared cache, cookies, copied url etc

    1. * Medicare’s $77 Million Anti-Fraud System Catches $7,591 in Fraud, 3.01.12 12:38pm
      * In Memory of the Late Davy Jones…, 3.01.12 12:30pm
      * Federal Judge Says the Government Can’t Use Cig

      1. Are y’all happily commenting away on the latest posts?

        1. H&R is seriously fucked for me

  24. The real Breitbart?

    1. He called a guy who was a known philanderer and misogynist and who left a young campaign worker to die in a sinking car a bad guy? That reflects poorly on Breitbart how?

      1. When you’re going to call someone who just died a POS, don’t be surprised if people do the same to you.

        1. Generally that is true. But when you call someone who just died a POS and that someone is obviously a POS guilty of really bad things, like leaving someone to drown, it is not so true anymore.

          In short, Ted Kennedy did a lot of things to deserve such harsh scorn. Breitbart did not.

          1. Sherrod Brown video? He was a race baiter.

            1. Shirley Sherrod

            2. First, even if he was, that doesn’t make him as bad as Kennedy. Second, the video speaks for itself. The crowd cheered when Sherrod said she stuck it to white people. That was the whole point of the video. It was the left who threw Sherrod over the side to cover up for their embarrassment.

              1. …isn’t as bad as drunken partying.

                Try again, John. Use some ethics and morals this time.

                1. You know you love me Rather. And yes, leaving a woman to drown and die is worse than showing a video that embarrasses black leftists.

                2. Nothing is worse than triple posting.

                  No blog comment for you!

                3. I’m an accomplished drunken partier, but alas I’ve never left a body count. No soup for me.

                4. …usually does not have a body count.

                  Unless you’re a Kennedy.

                5. …usually does not have a body count.

                  Unless you’re a Kennedy.

        2. But Ted Kennedy was a piece of shit.

          1. I can vouch for that.

            1. Well I would if I hadn’t been left to die.

              1. if he hadn’t left you to die you’d still be calling him a piece of shit?

        3. The key difference is that Kennedy was in fact a piece of shit, and it’s on the public record.


        4. Calling someone who is a pos a pos is different from what you are doing, you pos.

  25. Condolences, Matt.


  27. Conservatives know that liberals have an agenda because they too have an agenda. The only other alternative is that conservatives have an agenda but liberals just have innocent opinions but don’t intend to impose them on anyone….which is what they would like you to believe but is in stark contrast to what they do.

  28. Liberal media bias? Puh-leeze. Now, who can sell me a 1960s era typewriter?

  29. So now who’s to tell me when Obama gives a slightly firmer handshake to an Arab leader than Netanyahu?

  30. an excitable, overlapping assortment of Fox News friends, Limbaugh dittoheads, Tea Party animals, war whoopers, nativists, Christianist fundamentalists, ? la carte Catholics (anti-abortion, yes; anti-torture, no), anti-Rooseveltians (Franklin and Theodore), global-warming denialists, post-Confederate white Southrons, creationists, birthers, market idolaters, Europe demonizers, and gun fetishists


    Full Pinko mode seems to be the new standard among NYT reporters. When the only thing those guys are good for is gurgling shit, why would anybody take anything they say seriously?

    1. ^NYT^New Yorker

    2. Their single function is to tell their dwindling number of readers what they want to hear. They don’t report much less think.

    3. No shit. I mean, who the heck would the republicans have to nominate as their presidential candidate for the media to give it a rest with this bullcrap, Bobby Seale?

    4. Why would anybody take anything they say seriously? Ah…nobody does.

      Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics.

      Marxism of the Right
      By Robert Locke…../14/00017/

  31. Ima go off on a tangent here, and say that the genius of Andrew Breitbart was simply one of sticking to design/formula.

    The format of Drudge Report was dated in 1999, yet because it was consistent, it became familiar. Similarly with HuffPost… “Why don’t we take your titanium Rolodex and get all your friends to write for free?” Wasn’t that the charm that basically launched the likes of Greg Gutfeld, etc.?

    That’s enough genius for one short life, and that he was thoughtful and fun and publicly entertaining lately, such a bonus for all of us. Thoughts and prayers first and foremost to his wife and kids, to his friends, and to all of us who have enjoyed his creations.

    1. The format of Drudge Report was dated in 1999, yet because it was consistent, it became familiar

      I have to disagree. Both Drudge and Google got huge initial boosts because they recognized that when people accessed a search engine or a news aggregator, they didn’t want to wait for a bunch of useless eyecandy to load first. This was especially true when many users were still using dial-up. I remember how annoying loading Yahoo with all its fricking graphics and flashing text was. All I wanted was a text box to type a search into and Google gave it to me.

      Of course, in the long run, there still had to be desirable content and functionality behind the minimalist design. Drudge and Google continue to deliver.

      1. I have to agree. Simplicity and consistency. There’s your formula.

  32. At CPAC Breitbart said he had video of Barack Obama in the 1980s that he would release during the election.

    Last night he tweeted this to someone who unfollowed him:

    “You’ll be missing out on quite the upcoming fireworks show. There’s tons of unreal, high-level action & intrigue ahead”.

    A few hours later he drops dead taking a walk near his house.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. I think it would probably be smart to wait until there is, you know, any evidence at all of foul play before wildly speculating. Or not. Up to you, I guess.

      1. Bo-ring!

        NOW is the time for wild conjecture and baseless theorizing!

  33. One of the vicitms of Breitbarrt’s lies just showed far more class than Mr. Breitbart.

    Shirley Sherrod Offers Condolences
    Shirley Sherrod famously lost her job at the Department of Agriculture after Andrew Breitbart posted video of her that made it appear she had made racist remarks about white farmers. After the full video was released and her remarks appeared in context, Sherrod received apologies from the NAACP and President Obama, but the damage had been done. Sherrod, who filed an ongoing defamation suit against Breitbart, released a brief statement Thursday on Breitbart’s passing. “The news of Mr. Breitbart’s death came as a surprise to me when I was informed of it this morning,” Sherrod said. “My prayers go out to Mr. Breitbart’s family as they cope during this very difficult time. I do not intend to make any further comments.”

    1. She probably feels guilty the number of lies she told about Breitbart. She probably should.

    2. One of the vicitms of Breitbarrt’s lies just showed far more class than Mr. Breitbart.

      Class? Maybe. Or maybe she’s just frontin’ to enhance her chances of winning her still ongoing lawsuit against Breitbart’s estate.

      While the original edits of Sherrod’s speech did misrepresent her remarks, the full 43 minutes quite definitely shows that she is at least an unrepepentent racialist if not a racist. She accuses those opposing Obamacare of being motivated by racism. A number of times she laments that the Ag department hasn’t been filled up with enough blacks. She did say some praiseworthy things encouraging blacks to better themselves, but most of her talk was us vs them bs. She ain’t no saint. Good riddance.

    3. Breitbart didn’t misrepresent her remarks. Not one bit.

  34. When the majority of sources in journalism, academia, and entertainment are against you, obviously that means they’re all biased.

    1. They’re Godless!

    2. Because the country is 9-1 Democrat the newsroom should match that proportion.

      1. You have a better chance of bumping into a Republican in San Francisco (15%) than in a newsroom.

  35. Andrew taught us how to hit back against smears with proportional violence. He recognized that the leftist politicians and media have been relying on smears over arguments since the late 60’s and he was fucking sick of it.

    So he devised a brilliant formula:

    1. ALWAYS hit back against smears as if your mother was just called a whore.

    2. Expose the inherent corruption in statist/fascist political machines by any means necessary. This is war, so there is no arbiter of fair play except the truth.

    3. Expose media bias and incompetent hackdom by dribbling out the truth in bits to show the inner workings of their spin machine, and rhetorically attack with great violence: vulgar and profane but wickedly truthful excoriations.

    RIP Breitbart. One of a kind.

  36. Andrew cared about facts!

    Please visit the new fact checking website:

    Save A Nation ~ Vote With Facts!!

    1. but ok

    2. How typical of bible-nazi’s. Old andy could have gone over to wall street and tapped into the real, not hallucinated, scandal of expensive hookers and tons of cocaine, a night, flowing into “our betters”, but he preferred to be so partisan, his name will be remembered as a moniker for someone so dishonest, corrupt, and partisan, that he couldn’t report on a single thing from the right if it bit him on the ass. I truly feel sorry for you and your ilk that you have only a steaming pile of excrement like this genetic mistake to adulate.


      2. Libertarians are so nice, letting retarded children dance and paint in public.

  37. In Breibart’s own words on the death of Senator Kennedy, but which really serve as a well deserved self-eulogy, he was a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick; a special pile of human excrement;” “Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death?”

    1. C’mon. Ok, nobody would wish brain cancer on his worst enemy. But if you HAD to wish brain cancer on someone, it would surely be Teddy.

      1. Although “Doug” the face of mesothelioma comes a close second. I can’t wait to see this fuckers obit.

  38. By far the saddest news of the day. And possibly, for American politics, of the year. In his wake, the real question is not who can replace him, but how can each of us replace him?

  39. Sorry. The world, our country in particular is better off without this partisan hack. Although I’ll give him credit for his “wiener” escapade, at least he finally got somebody who wasn’t black. For those of us in reality, folks like breitbart are part and parcel of what’s wrong with us. You can be sure he’s writhing in hell right alongside tony snow. Good riddance.

    1. Projection time!

    2. Steve you are a particularly odious little turd aren’t you?

      Which federal tit do you suck piglet? One near the nether end or the snout end?

      1. Bruce are you still alive? I guess only the good die young huh?

  40. One of the biggest hard-to-swallow hyperboles in media is when someone or something is described as “respected”. Respected by whom? ‘Respected’ is subjective, because your “respected” is someone else’s “pfft”. It’s rubbish media flam along with ‘fearless’, ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’.

  41. “and I will probably always disagree with the conservative/Breitbartian conflation of “bias” with “agenda,”

    Unbelievable. Goodbye.

  42. I thought Jonah’s comments about Andrew Breitbart were especially well made.

    I am feeling depressed today. But I found this helped.

    The Kossacks are trying to encourage the Westboro Baptist Church to protest Breitbart’s funeral, although ironically I think Andrew would consider that a badge of honor.

    And as for David Frum…I will not speak badly of him. Frum is dead to me.

  43. Frum is so boring that many people are dead when they read him.

  44. Burn Baby Burn. Ding Dong the bitch is dead! One less fascist asshole on the planet, Yippee! I bet the wife and kids are dancing for joy? I know I am! It couldn’t happen to a nicer scum bag!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.