Patriot Depot, your one-stop online shop for crappy conservative “art” and tee-shirts that “humorously” explain to boys wanting to date your teenage daughter that you own a gun have a new item they seem quite proud of, “Fight” this ghastly portrait of ghostly conservo-martyr Andrew Breibart rendered as a glowing with ruddy health, heroic Nordic warrior god with too short arms…
In a previous life, your Editrix spent 12 years as an actual art critic, the kind who never didn’t have a shiv in her pencase and a sneer upon her face. But she always had room in her heart for art atrocities of the naif tradition — Slate pitches taking the form of art reviews, if you will — and this work by David Bugnon is the kind of masterpiece of Outsider art, a veritable holocaust-tsunami of bad taste, for which she would have #warred all those other stupid art critics who were too busy fawning over Richard Diebenkorn or some other AbEx total crap (and 50 years too late) to understand the beauty of a work like Fight. Look at the loving attention paid to the contours of Ghost Andrew Breitbart’s fat face! Look at the fanboy comic-geek detail on that super-bitchen sword and armor! Look at the improperly foreshortened arm, which would have left Ghost Andrew Breitbart with little 18-inch-long stub arms that couldn’t have even reached his pockets! Look at those steely dreamy sexboat eyes, undressing you out of your altarboy cassock! The only problem with Fight that we can possibly see is that David Bugnon got Hell’s lighting wrong.
A “limited edition” of this sucker sells for just $3995.00…
It had to happen: After the dumbest member of Congress, Louie Gohmert (R, TX) hinted at it yesterday on the House floor, this morning, in his nationally syndicated radio show for idiots, Michael Savage mused aloud that the cause of Andrew Breitbart’s unexpected death raised questions if the conservative firebrand—who claimed he had videotapes of Obama in college that could politically damage him—was in fact, murdered at the Presidnet’s behest. From WND:
“Maybe my overly active imagination kicked into overdrive,” Savage told his listeners of his decision to raise the question. “But you heard what Breitbart said – he has videos … we’re going to vet the president.”
Breitbart reportedly was walking near his home in Brentwood, Calif., just after midnight this morning when he collapsed. A neighbor saw him fall and called 911. Emergency crews tried to revive him and rushed him to the emergency room at the UCLA Medical Center.
It’s entirely plausible, Savage acknowledged, that Breitbart simply collapsed of a heart attack because of overwork and a reported history of health problems.
“I’m asking a crazy question,” Savage said, “but so what? We the people want an answer. This was not an ordinary man. If I don’t ask this question, I would be remiss.”
You’d also be remiss not to mention that Breitbart was a barely-holding it together rageaholic shambles of a human being who was in terrible shape physically and in the months prior to his death appeared more and more unhinged and crazed in every single public outing the guy made! His own friends and colleagues know what killed him, and so does Michael Savage, but STILL he wants to try to turn Breitbart into a martyr in death. It’s fucking hilarious.
Savage must have a truly cynical contempt for his radio listeners. Certainly this is not one of Savage’s more offensive “conspiracy theories”—it’s not even close—but it does rank as one of the stupider ones. (If Paula Deen keeled over tomorrow, what would Savage attribute her death to? Anthony Bourdain, in the drawing room with the candlestick? Who had the motive? Bourdain!)
“I’ve got videos – this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart said at CPAC, promising they would show how “racial division and class warfare are central” to the “hope and change” that Obama”sold in 2008. He threatened the president at CPAC with video that could derail the president’s campaign,” Savage said. “I pray it was natural causes, but we’ll never know the truth.”
Here’s an educated guess, Michael: A diet consisting mainly of the pastrami sandwich at Jerry’s Deli and being an overweight, very, very angry, mean and tightly-wound man. Sound in any way plausible to you?
“I told him two years ago to get a body guard. Never be alone in the street,” Savage said.
Savage, the author of the bestselling [???] novel “Abuse of Power,” put on his novelist hat and speculated about ways a murderer could remain undetected by inducing a heart attack that didn’t leave any traces.
Don’t forget that one of the big conspiracy theories the rightwing used to propagate during the whole “Vince Foster was murdered” business about why they never found the “Ron Brown murder weapon” was because he was stabbed with an icicle! Who needs medical autopsies when you’ve got conspiracy theories?
A caller from Savage’s native New York City said there’s a simple way to find out what happened.
“If the tapes come out, he died of a heart attack,” the caller said. “If the tapes don’t come out, they whacked him.”
Can’t argue with that, now, can we? Aristotle wouldn’t know what to say!
Wondering where Alex Jones will take this today… SOMEONE on Fox News is going to blurt this out, too, unless Roger AIles wisely sent out a memo instructing “Ixnay on the Breitbart conspiracy theories.”
Death at such a young age (although he looked so much older) is normally a tragedy….but in my opinion, the Grim Reaper couldn’t have visited a more deserving recipient. Hooray! It’s a gift!
You can just bet that the fact checkers did a triple check on this death notice. Via Huffington Post:
Andrew Breitbart, the conservative blogger and journalist, died suddenly on Thursday morning, according to his website Big Journalism. He was 43.
The site said that Breitbart died of “natural causes” shortly after midnight on Thursday. ABC News confirmed that Breitbart had passed away. Breitbart’s attorney also confirmed the news to CNN.
“We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior,” the post said. “Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.”
Breitbart came to be well-known for his work with the Drudge Report (he also played an early role with The Huffington Post), and would go on to found the Big Journalism, Big Hollywood and Breitbart.com websites. He was also an author, columnist and ubiquitous commentator in the media.
They say you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, so I deleted all the stuff I wrote about pissing on his grave, doing a happy dance of joy over the good news and feeling elated to know that one of the single nastiest, most sociopathic human beings ever to stain American civic life has shuffled off this mortal coil.
Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it? Fuck Andrew Brietbart. All he accomplished with his life was to make his world a meaner, shittier place to live in. I’m glad he’s dead.
“So what you’re doing is you’re smearing the entire movement with what some people — who oftentimes, in almost all these instances came into abuse the people that were in that movement — can I then paint with the same broad stroke that you are part of a group, Republicans and conservatives, who like to have gay sex in bathrooms and then gay sex with prostitutes and then smoke crack off their ass? And then I come up to you and your group of friends and started saying ‘Hey! Stop having gay sex in bathrooms! Stop having gay sex in bathrooms! Behave yourselves!’ Would that be fair?”
Brietbart claims his behavior was a “stunt” to get the mainstream media to report more accurately on the Occupy movement, but comes off more like a disheveled loser trying—unsuccessfully to say the least—to make the best of having to go on TV to discuss a viral video of himself looking like a flaming fucking asshole making the rounds. Looking worse than Balloon Boy’s father is a position most people with a shred of dignity would not put themselves in, but what do I know of Breitbart’s “stunts.” MAYBE HE’S GOT THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA RIGHT WHERE HE WANTS THEM!!!!!
Andrew Breitbart is clearly not a well man. You can see it in his crazy fucking rage-filled eyes. He looks like he’s barely holding it together these days. If it’s revealed that he’s taken to shitting in diapers, that wouldn’t surprise me one bit…
Still, I invite you to have a laugh at the expense of a man destined for an aneurysm or a rubber room as Uygur expertly lowers the boom on this foaming at the mouth nutcase:
After you watch Andrew Breitbart absolutely lose his goddamn shit, screaming his head off at Occupy protesters raising some hell at CPAC (telling them to “behave” and “stop raping people”) you will no longer wonder if he’s sane or not, because the answer is in his eyes. His crazy fucking eyes.
Can you imagine how he acts at home, in private?!?!? Yikes!
Some controversial remarks made by Andrew Breibart at a Boston Tea party meeting recently are getting a lot of attention, on blogs both right and left. In the clips below, Breitbart (inadvertently?) lays bare his psyche, specifically his liberal killing daydreams, when asked about the “Days of Rage” protests on Wall Street:
“I must say, in my non-strategic… ‘cuz I’m under attack all the time, if you see it on Twitter. The (unclear) call me gay, it’s just, they’re vicious, there are death threats, and everything. And so, there are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’
Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. (laughter) I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.
And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’
They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know. They know who’s on their side, they’ve got Janeane Garofalo. We are freaked out by that. When push comes to shove, they know who’s on our side. They are the bullies on the playground, and they’re starting to realize, what if we were to fight back, what if we were to slap back?
Well…. to look at Breitbart, even if he DID have a gun in his hand, a rich well-fed Republican lardass like him could probably do very little harm. At the rate his waistline seems to be expanding, he’ll have to be fork-lifted out of his La-Z-Boy chair when the Liberals vs Tea party war breaks out, like most of the other “patriots” who um, “have his back” but can’t tie their own shoes or see their dick when they piss…
As for the military supporting the Tea party in the event of a civil war, whereas I do believe that most soldiers probably skew to the right of the ideological spectrum, the notion of Navy SEALS and special forces divisions coming to the aid of the likes of Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Scott Walker, Michele Bachmann and a bunch of cranky, confused senior citizens seems rather far-fetched to me…
Breitbart doesn’t seem concerned in the least here that he himself lives in the liberal stronghold of Westwood in Los Angeles, a place where there is probably one Republican to every five thousand Democrats. In the event of a new American civil war, it could be reasonably predicted that his fat, arrogant, shit-filled head would be one of the very first to end up on a pole.
Breitbart continues telling the Tea party activists about his “dreams” after the jump…
Like probably many of you reading this, I absolutely loathe Andrew Breitbart. Seeing him on TV turns my stomach sour the same way seeing Pamela Geller or that Koran-burning idiot with the Yosemite Sam mustache being given airtime does. Foul, hateful people. WHY do the major news outlets (non-Fox News, I mean) offer these distasteful, tacky creeps a platform to spout the lousy nonsense they KNOW IN ADVANCE they’re going to come on to these programs and puke at their viewers?
Breitbart is a KNOWN fabulist. A KNOWN practitioner of “creative editing” and outright DECEPTION. What is a guy like him doing on any supposed news channel? He’s not a serious person who has opinions worthy of respect, so why pretend that he is? He’s just a punk, like his dweeby, pimple-faced side-kick James O’Keefe.
Another person who causes me to wince when I accidentally see him on TV is anti-gay rights activist Tony Perkins, he of the respectable sounding hate group, Family Research Council. Giving an asshat like Perkins a national stage is like providing the same service for one of the most rabid witch burners in Salem, Massachusetts if there were cable news channels back in 1692. This is how history will remember a man like Perkins—if history marks him at all, which is doubtful—as an ignorant, hateful, intolerant religious extremist.
So why allow a malignant goofball like Tony Perkins the airtime and the credibility it confers upon him?
Was Noam Chomsky already booked???
CNN seems to me to be the most pathetic of all the cable newsers—grasping at straws as their ratings slide. Watching CNN recently, it would seem that a misguided management decision was made to do like a “reverse Fox News” using a lot of the same guests. Does the upper management at CNN really think that their audience (or potential audience members) want to see the same exact idiots they see on Fox News, albeit in an environment less welcoming than the joint owned by Rupert Murdoch?
Poaching some guest bookers from Fox News was hardly the innovation CNN needed to reinvent itself. Why not just have some random haters from the Free Republic boards on with Wolf Blitzer if that’s the sort of “sizzle” they seek…
And again, I ask CNN’s upper management, is the reason we don’t see America’s greatest living intellectual on your channel—but we do see an un-credentialed, perhaps deranged, rightwing racist gasbag like Pamela Geller—because Noam Chomsky is not taking your phone calls???
MSNBC is a lot better when it comes to the way they contextualize their guests, but you still have the likes of Orly Taitz appearing on the network. WHY?
Even if Chomsky is BOOKED SOLID, there are still options to Orly fucking Taitz!
But Andrew Breitbart always gets a pass on MSNBC—as does Pat Buchanan—and that always pisses me off. Just imagine how much BETTER the news would be—how much BETTER OFF AMERICA WOULD BE—if each and every time these two appeared on TV the “lower third” under their names read “Lying Fuck” or “Increasingly Senile Racist & Author.”
Some basic “truth in advertising.” Is that too much to ask of our cable news outlets? I can dream, can’t I?
Recently James Rucker, the co-founder of Color of Change waged a bit of a campaign to make sure Dylan Ratigan understood how offended he and others (raises hand) feel about seeing Andrew Brietbart on TV sans context other than his name and his URL. Not everyone knows who he is or what his greatest (s)hits as a Republican media assassin are. If they were told about just a lil’ bit of that history upfront, they’d be greatly assisted in their understanding of what they were watching and be much better equipped to properly evaluate the bullshit coming out of Brietbart’s lying pie-hole.
It’s almost like those cigarette labels with the pics of cancerous lungs. Why can’t America’s responsible journalists ALWAYS perform the same sort of service regards Mr. Brietbart and his fellow travelers?
As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart’s credibility and image weren’t sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan’s show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as “smart” and a “sharp shooter who gets results,” we were deeply concerned.
When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility—without question. And he frankly hadn’t thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show—without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is—would have.
Ratigan’s core issue is exposing the corruptive nature of corporate dollars in politics (which I, and many ColorOfChange members would agree is a critical and important endeavor). Ratigan’s goal in interviewing Breitbart was to ask him why he chose targets like Sherrod or the NAACP, while Breitbart and the Tea Party activists he defends seems to agree that banks and corporations with undue influence over government are actually the ones destroying our country. It’s an important criticism of Breitbart. Ratigan’s goal was to keep the conversation there, and he believed that if he focused on Breitbart’s penchant for race-baiting and deception, it would simply trigger Breitbart, and he’d end up in the same conversation others have where Breitbart goes on a rampage and the conversation goes nowhere.
Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there’s a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he’s committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility.
Breitbart, not surprisingly, is completely unapologetic. Can’t expect a racist to give up that white robe so quickly. However, I give Ratigan and his producers credit for being receptive to this at all… too often, these kinds of issues are raised by liberals and dismissed out of hand. I’d rather that MSNBC acknowledge that people like Breitbart (and network regular Pat Buchanan, come to that) really have no right to expect a national platform for their racism and hate. I doubt very much that Ratigan or the suits at MSNBC have any idea the message it sends to people of color. But I’ll take this incremental step gladly and keep pushing for more.
Nice work James Rucker and Color of Change! The repercussions of this victory are still to be felt for some time.
At the FreedomWorks 9/12 rally at the National Mall, conservative blowhard Andrew Breitbart asked this question of the mainstream media, “How dare you call these God-loving Americans, racists?” He accused Theresa Brewer of using Photoshop to doctor photographs to make Tea party, uh, “patriots” look like racists and homophobes.
But why bother, as you can tell from the above photograph of Mr. Breitbart, left, speaking with one of his admirers.
Nicely done whoever got that stellar snapshot!
I have never been able to get my head around Andrew Breitbart. Clearly he’s not an idiot, and yet he seems so freakishly resistant to the stark reality that he was speaking to an audience comprised entirely of idiots. How the fuck does that work???
Brilliant! Lays out the contents of Andrew Breitbart’s mind with surgical precision. This really will come in handy for people unfortunate enough to find themselves on the same TV show as Breitbart. I’m sure he’s seen this, can you imagine how infuriated he got? His looney debate technique must’ve taken years to develop and this fucks it all up!
Dangerous Minds is a compendium of oddities, pop culture treasures, high weirdness, punk rock and politics drawn from the outer reaches of pop culture. Our editorial policy, such that it is, reflects the interests, whimsies and peculiarities of the individual writers. And sometimes it doesn't. Very often the idea is just "Here's what so and so said, take a look and see what you think."
I'll repeat that: We're not necessarily endorsing everything you'll find here, we're merely saying "Here it is." We think human beings are very strange and often totally hilarious. We enjoy weird and inexplicable things very much. We believe things have to change and change swiftly. It's got to be about the common good or it's no good at all. We like to get suggestions of fun/serious things from our good-looking, high IQ readers. We are your favorite distraction.