Andrew Breitbart: The Tupac of Shrill Conspiracy Theories
I don't 'hate' Andrew Breitbart, he held his own on Bill Marher's show and was able to make his case without popping a blood vessel. However, Breitbart, more specifically, the spirit of Breitbart currently being channeled through his website, seems to be the fringe-appeal side of the pundit--his angry, red faced side.
To those running Andrew's site: Is this really how he wants to be remembered--as the purveyor of false misleading videos and conspiracy theories?
Tupac continued to release top 10 albums for almost a decade after his death. Now, Andrew Breitbart, who passed away last week, has just released the first in what is billed as a series of pieces exposing President Obama. It is much much less entertaining than Loyal To The Game.
Breitbart digs up the poster for a late 90s play honoring Newt Gingrichs favorite obscure historical figure, Saul Alinsky. The play lionizes Alinskys work as a community organizer, helping Chicagoans secure fair treatment from slumlords. President Obama, then a State Senator, took part in a panel discussion, likely discussing how his own work as a community organizer drew upon the experiences of Alinsky.
This does not seem particularly troubling, probably because its not. Therefore Breitbart chooses 5 of the 19 names on the poster and explains how each has contacts with the Communist party, usually more than 30 years prior. You may remember the Communist party as the entity that everyone was hysterically afraid of for no real reason seriously, compare union organizing to thousands of Russian nuclear warheads and think about which was the real threat to the safety and security of the American people. And apparently Obama is guilty by association because he attended a play about the most famous figure in 20th Century Chicago politics not named Daley. Yawn.
I don't 'hate' Andrew Breitbart, he held his own on Bill Marher's show and was able to make his case without popping a blood vessel. However, Breitbart, more specifically, the spirit of Breitbart currently being channeled through his website, seems to be the fringe-appeal side of the pundit--his angry, red faced side.
To those running Andrew's site: Is this really how he wants to be remembered--as the purveyor of false misleading videos and conspiracy theories?