Bob Calhoun

Bob Calhoun
Pacifica, California, USA
June 18
Bob Calhoun is a regular contributor to Film Salon and observer of offbeat media. His 2008 punk-wrestling memoir "Beer, Blood and Cornmeal: Seven Years of Incredibly Strange Wrestling" (ECW Press) has spent one entire week on the San Francisco Chronicle's Bay Area bestseller list.

Editor’s Pick
MARCH 1, 2012 1:27PM

I just saw Andrew Breitbart on Saturday

Rate: 15 Flag

Andrew Breitbart standing against the Tea Party Express Bus at the 2010 California Republican Convention in Santa Clara. He actually posed while I snapped this shot.

The last time I saw Andrew Breitbart was Saturday morning. I'd just pulled into the parking garage of the Burlingame Hyatt for the California Republican Convention to see him spinning away in a small sports car, his large frame filling the small, sleek car's cab.  I cracked a smile as I headed to the pressroom, glad to see that Breitbart was in attendance. I hoped that he was going out for lunch or something and wasn't heading back to Southern California.

See, I looked forward to sparring with him again like we did at the 2010 Calif. GOP Con in Santa Clara. He pretty much had me that time too. He was a master provocateur who could manipulate Democrats in high office into cutting funding for ACORN or firing Shirley Sherrod. I was just some former pro-wrestler/movie reviewer. I was in over my head, plain and simple, but Breitbart still kept coming after me, eventually calling me out during a Tea Party Express Rally. At least I had the sense not to get on the stage with him. I got some satisfication out of watching Breitbart as he worked so hard to get me up there. In the end, Breitbart only had the power that we gave to him.

Last Saturday, I hung around the hotel for most of the afternoon, but didn't run into Breitbart again. When I left to go home and work on my story about Newt Gingrich and algae, I figured that there would be future GOP shindigs. I'd get my rematch with Breitbart eventually, I thought. Now that doesn’t look like it's going to be the case. Andrew Brietbart is gone, dead at age 43 of natural causes.

It's a huge blow to the conservative/Tea Party movement to be sure, but it's still a bit sad to those of us on the other side who got so much out of squaring off against him at various conservative events or on Twitter. Breitbart was always out there in the Twitterverse. He could turn up at anytime in an attempt to poke holes in your argument or at least vex the hell out of you. I have to admit that I couldn't help but have the feeling that I'd arrived as a liberal media critic the day that Breitbart started hounding me in 140 characters or less. He actually called me the "master of deceit " or something along those lines (actual Twitter search apps are failing me right now). Coming from him, I couldn't help but take that as a compliment.

And so America loses cyber space's Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper or J. J. Hunsecker (the fictional version of these types played by Burt Lancaster in "Sweet Smell of Success"). We bemoan the outsized influence of such yellow journalists while they're alive, but still miss them when they're gone despite ourselves.

There's a German phrase that puts it best: "Better to have an honest enemy than a false friend." If there's one thing Andrew Breitbart was honest about (and this may be only one thing), it was being your enemy. 


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
a eulogy that is 100% class
I never met the man myself, but based on media exposure to him in various forms and forums, I had some superficial notion of who he was. Certainly he was a damaging political rival in my view. But the man had an enormous personality, and a very large self-image. He certainly knew what kind of over-sized megaphone he felt entitled to. When I saw him appear on Bill Maher, I think he might have said one thing, among his many comments, that did not have me howling with rage at my poor innocent television set.

I think, absent any personal knowledge of the man, these are among the nicest things I can say about him. Certainly this very visible political presence will no longer be visible. And I can't help myself from wondering, or perhaps vainly hoping, whether this might not be the beginning of a great implosion, or perhaps a gradual crumbling and falling away of the present extreme incarnation of the conservative movement. In this sense, his passing leaves me with a feeling of hope, no matter how petty and foolish it may be.

I'm sure there are many that will miss him terribly. Terrible is certainly among the words that come to mind when I hear the name "Andrew Breitbart". But now the intensity of that feeling will slowly fade away, along with the gradual diminution of his blaringly formidable media presence.
@Jeff J: Spending good chunks of a day with Breitbart two years ago did give me both the worst headache I ever had and a raging case of paranoia, however when I wrote this, I couldn't help but see him as a person. If only Breitbart himself could've seen some his political targets as people, but empathy is not only in short supply among his reactionary brethren (and I'm getting tired of calling them conservatives), it's forbidden.
Great piece.

I still say good riddance.
This is one of those instances when I'm torn. On one hand, this man was a right-wing bully and inveterate liar who was in great part responsible for the demise of ACORN and all its good works. He was certainly part of the problem we have with Tea Party craziness infecting the political process. So based on that, I want to say good riddance, enjoy your time in Hell.

On the other hand, to some people AB was daddy, friend and husband. Also, I don't want to sink to the level of the people who daily call for President Obama to be lynched and exult in the death of a fellow human being. So on that front, I feel it's proper to express sympathy.

Bottom line, I think it's impossible to reconcile the two: the death of an enemy and the early death of a fellow traveler. I think the best I can do is to say that I feel sadness for his family and that I wish he had chosen a different, more enlightened path.
The blogger wrote: "If only Breitbart himself could've seen some his political targets as people, but empathy is not only in short supply among his reactionary brethren (and I'm getting tired of calling them conservatives), it's forbidden."

Followed by classy Myriad's "Good riddance".

Rich, rich.

And I thought you all didn't do "irony".

Myriad, don't even try to figure it out. Du bist idiot.

gives the full Sherrod story. Not that any of you haters give a F**k.
For BJ - "Kennedy was a special kind of human excrement"
-Andrew Breitbart on Twitter, hours after Ted Kennedy's death.

Good riddance.
Barbara, I went to the link you posted and read the article. Motivated by this post by Bob, I earlier went to "Big Salon" to read Alex Pareene's article on Breitbart and the first two pages of over 500 comments. I was hoping that by returning to Open Salon I would be relieved of the stunning (though by me by now unfortunately not unexpected) degree and quantity of interpersonal attack among the comment-ers. I do want you to know that I, "for one" checked out the article you refer to as soon as I found your comment. I found it interesting in its own right, if perhaps at the moment a little ancillary to Bob's depiction of Breitbart himself. Which, Bob, I much enjoyed. ;-)
Thanks podunkmarte. As usual, Mat Taibbi said it all best (you'll have to copy and paste the link):
"Myriad, don't even try to figure it out. Du bist idiot."

" Not that any of you haters give a F**k."

And these are not the words of a woman, I've previously labelled a "shrew," no offense to shrews?
Thanks, Bob, I'll check it out! ;-)
He's not a friend, an acquaintance, a verbal jousting partner or an inspiration to me of any kind.
Calls from any commenters to feel sympathetic are nonsense.
What are there, maybe six billion people crowding this planet? Why the pretend connection?
He's gone. None of us are the worse for it. Tomorrow will be another busy day trying to work it through for our actual families and real connections in our regular pursuits. The histrionic defenses and lamentations are laughable.
Well, Bob, I don't know what Rolling Stone has against me .... sheesh I always thought we were good pals. But on three tries I can only get about four--fifths of Tabbai's article to show on my screen. Still I a lot liked those four-fifths, so thanks for the lead!
Read the Taibbi article and I think this commenter sums up the reactions -

I love the hate mail. The irony of so many commenters using hateful language to defend someone so incredibly hateful, and who danced on so many graves before they died, is positively delicious.

Every call you guys make for Taibbi's head proves his point. Breitbart sent his entire life peeing long, dark bile into the well of American discourse. He'd have gleefully done the same if the places were reversed.
Yep, on this I'm willing to be a "shrew" Mark. Not that that sexist term bothers me much.

I think Myriad is exhibiting really nasty hatred here. I do think she sounds like a pig here. I have no problem saying that.

She is a moron.
And Mark, I know it is hard for you, but I was - when I said "Not that any of you haters gives a F**k" referencing an article that clears up the Sherrod story. I was not referencing our resident pagan.
Myriad - he was speaking of TED Kennedy and in reference to the death of a woman in his car. I don't think he was excrement, (Kennedy), but he was no friend to women and, sorry, I don't have much to say that is all that nice about a man who leaves a woman to die in his car because he wants to save his political tail.

I do pity the late senator however and am sorry his life went the way it went. My heart goes out more, however, for the woman who died.
Jeez, I do have to agree with BJ here about Ted Kennedy.

Presumably Breitbart never did anything quite like that.

But, BJ, hatin' on people who hate a hater is...ridiculous.
I take issue with his ability to poke a hole in any legitimate discussion. "The 99ers are all rape artists!" Wow, strong debate skills!!! So convincing and factual!

He's gone but his rant at working (or wanting to) folks and college students in debt or not willing to fight wars, will live on forever.

He wanted to be a D-Lister like Orson, but simply didn't have the chops ... so, he took the no-talent necessary road to the fame he so desired. He got it, so don't anyone feel sorry for him now.
BJ- so you are a lifeguard now too? I would love to see how you handle a water emergency ... yeah, you would be so calm and cool, wouldn't you?
Podunkmarte- thanks. And when are you gonna get a picture next to your name?
No, Surfer, not a lifeguard, but do think a decent person would have run to the well-lit house nearby and gotten some help for the lady. Kennedy did not.

Myriad, you are so funny... You don't get it that I would not celebrate the death of say Michael Moore. I would seem him as politically in error, but not evil. Breitbart was not someone you like, I do get it. That did not make him a hater - although he might have hated Mr Kennedy.At least in that case, the man was someone who horribly indecent in a life and death situation. Mr Breitbart, however, was simply not on your political side. Celebrating his death is pretty low, but no surprise. (BTW, I felt immense pity for Kennedy, but do judge his actions in the above-mentioned situation.)
My favorite line from today's parade of eulogies was "If Andrew Breitbart did not exist, it would have been necessary for Grover Norquist to create him." (Edward Champion:
There are many who rightly wish to observe the traditional respect and tribute paid to the deceased. And certainly it is a matter of much grief for Mr. Breitbart's family, friends, and political allies. On this level I have the usual sympathy and compassion for those grieving survivors.

But I feel that it is entirely appropriate to separate the man as human being, as father, husband, and friend, from the man who was a public figure. Even if he was a genuine mensch to those close to him, he was a genuine monster as a public figure.

So as one who knew him only as a public figure, I figure that he deserves to receive everything he dished out and more. Of course there is something brutish about this, since he can no longer defend himself, and it's sort of like kicking someone when they are down; on the other hand, Mr. Breitbart did not see fit to spare others, such as
Ted Kennedy, when their lives tragically came to an end. So exercising restraint out of mere politeness or ceremony, or anything other than genuine heartfelt sympathy and emotion for the man himself seems somewhat hypocritical and cowardly. I find no fault with those who wish to see that Breitbart reaps what he has sown, and that in death he receives the same levels of courtesy and decency that exemplified in life.
He's got that look of fear in his eyes that I've seen in most bullies. I feel bad for his children, but he was a douchebag, and lived that way.
@BobC: I completely see how knowing the man personally gives him depth and complexity that is impossible for those who only know the public figure, the abstract entity behind the offensive output of his professional efforts.

For me he is a two dimensional cartoon character, a near fictional character who worked to advance a particular position publicly which I regard as poisonous to civic virtue and decent political discourse. When somebody places every emphasis on the ends and will accept no limits on the means, it has a tendency to erode any feelings of delicacy or decency for the man.

I'm sure if I knew the man my heart would soften, I would understand more, I would be able to know more of his motives and his dreams, and how he justified his actions.

I totally agree with you that they have lost touch with the meaning of the word conservative. They conserve nothing; they seek only to destroy hoping to roll back the clock to an imaginary past: the white freemarket Jesus-topia of uncomplicated order and piety; that perfect world that came after the nightmare of FDR and Truman and before satan invented rock-n-roll; the magical place that everyone seems to remember but nobody can quite locate.
Breitbart's last thought:

"Obama is going to get re-elected to four more years! Aaaaaack! Erp."

Breitbart waived any right to respect by treating others with such vicious disrespect.

He dropped dead from the bile of hatred.
That was very nicely done. Very nicely done indeed.

“When somebody places every emphasis on the ends and will accept no limits on the means, it has a tendency to erode any feelings of delicacy or decency for the man.”

That’s how many conservatives view Obama and many prominent Democrats. Politics is a dirty racquet, ask any elected official. Spare me the crap about lies, Breitbart simply believed in the conservative cause and used the internet to spread the word. He didn’t do anything different than what we see on liberal and conservative websites on a daily basis. But in addition to whatever lies you deemed him to have told, Breitbart also exposed plenty of truths, or did you forget about the Weiner story?
Good, very good riddance. Myriad is right.
Breitbart was a despicable human being. Perhaps there is a Gawd? If so, can you get to Limpballs and Hannity etc.

BJ, were you in the car with Ted when he made that decision? No. Then don't judge him.
The difference between Breitbart and Ted Kennedy in that situation is that Breatbart INTENTIONALLY wanted to hurt millions of poor and middle class people. Kennedy's actions might've hurt one woman, which wasn't intentional, but accidental.
that's the difference between left and right:
The left tries to help the poor and the middle class, Rightwingers set out help the rich (and scam, hurt and diss the poor in the process on account of the poor being worthless people), and reichwingers call that equal.
It isn't.
A nice tribute, in that you select his "tributable" aspects and leave the rest to speak for itself. I never speak ill of the dead before they're in the grave and for a good deal of time after.

He was, beyond reasonable doubt, one of those ends-justify-means kind of propagandists. Deception and demonizing is okay if it furthers what Fever calls the "conservative cause," which wiser minds know is whatever stuck a buck in Andrew's pocket. His politics were Rwing reactionary, not conservative, as somebody points out above.
Breitbart had an easy job because those ersatz conservatives, like Fever, defend him by false equivocation, soft-peddle the lies as presumed or subjective, and point at the random truths as justification for the whole.
You want to miss an asshole that's your prerogative. You want to call him honest, that's up to you. But he was not an honest man, he was a proven liar and he went out of his way to destroy the lives of people he didn't know but disagreed with. All in an attempt to prove his point because he couldn't do it through any truthful means. You find yourself missing him? What the hell is the matter with you? He's Rush Limbaugh without the radio show. The man hated people and you can't dress it up as his schtick, it had real life consequences for real life, everyday, ordinary people. He lined his pockets by hatefully dividing people in this country. He was an oppressor who had a platform that the people he fucked over didn't. He was garbage who wasted his opportunity to do something positive with his life. Instead of trying to lift people up, he kicked them to the curb.
Steel General & Arabica:

You act like Muslim student, taught by someone like Ahmadinejad, about Jewish culture. Just like Jews don’t have horns; Conservatives don’t desire to destroy lives and/or hurt millions of people. I understand liberal thinking and why you think your policies will help millions of people. It’s unfortunate that the two of you are so brainwashed you can’t even comprehend why the other side thinks their policies are good. I would love to educate you but I’m quite confident my lessons will be interrupted by a Jihadist like Paul.
The only Democrat I've ever voted for for president was Clinton, and even that was only for his second term. Yet when I met Breitbart several times at a Starbucks in Brentwood (near his home) you would have thought I was a liberal not to be trusted. We met and talked only two or three times but he was a likable person and I have always hoped to run into him again but never did. I feel I can say despite his obvious talents that he is not really representative of most conservatives I know who would be much less ideological, at least striving for more balance, but he had lots of self confidence.

I felt even then when I met him (before he became well known, when he was only working with Drudge on the Drudge Report) that he was looking to fill some hole of some kind, and this incompleteness was driving him to work non-stop: it appears now, to the detriment of his health.

He did share a few things with me. A major motivating force in his life was that he felt he had been lied to (or at least severely mislead) by the West Los Angeles liberals he grew up with. Since I'm from Texas and he went to college in nearby Tulane, he shared with me how people would tell him how dumb people from the South were, and when he went to school there he found out that wasn't true and that they were smarter, nicer, more open, and totally different than the "fly over" country he'd been told to expect. Of course, I have to concur with on this, admitting my bias.

I can see very much how Andrew, being the bright and driven guy he was, would have turned against the political philosophy he had been raised with. I also think being an orphan adopted int a Jewish family had something to do with his drive. He shared with me how his parents very abruptly cut him off financially just as he graduated college, and this must have energized him to such an extent that he didn't feel there was time to pause at all to mull things over and consider subtleties of his world view. He had to keep moving.

I can remember talking to him on a street corner after we had talked a bit in Starbucks, and I said something I thought was pretty innocuous: some comment about how "sharing things" is kind of a human problem; that it's hard to know how much to share, what the right amount is, or something like that. But I remember seeing the look on his face as if I had revealed to him I was a liberal in disguise, or someone not to be trusted. It's an impression that has bothered me ever since but that I never had the chance to correct.

It's probably wrong to try and draw a conclusion about someone after only meeting them a few times, but I very much felt he had a quality to him like a boy trying to find the right place where he fit in -- or maybe prove to himself that he did fit in.

The one thing you can say for Breitbart is that he was accessable. I couldn't have gotten anywhere near Limbaugh even if I was with the New York Times, HBO or NBC Sports. The man has staff in house, but Breitbart was willing to give me my shot at him if nothing else. When I talked to him two years ago, he also kept offering me media advice. Considerring the source, I declined politely, but he's the one with the Porsche and I'm the one still driving a Tercel with over 100,000 miles on it. Still, I wouldn't trade places with him now.

@arabica et al: It may not speak well of me that a part of me is going to miss this larger-than-life scoundrel, but I bet I'm not alone in this.
Nice piece.

As Shirley Sherrod said:

"The news of Mr. Breitbart's death came as a surprise to me when I was informed of it this morning. 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."
Love him or hate him, 43 is too young to die. May he rest in peace.
the guy figured out how to make a living exploiting the ideological split. it's a new kind of con game. looks like he even scared himself to death.
@Nick Carraway If Mrs. Sherrod could be that classy, then I could at least take a stab at it.

@Nick Leshi, Breitbart and I have a few similarities. We're both media obsessed blowhards, half Irish and both of us are adopted. That means if the Calhouns picked him and the Breitbarts took me home, I could be him and he could be me.
@Barbara Joanne:

Here is an interview with the family that Breitbart claimed Shirley Sherrod was discriminating against:

Here is a story describing how Breitbart, once his mistake was discovered, tried to double down and deny that he was wrong in any way:

If Breitbart were honest and decent, he would have tried to correct his error and would have apologized. He took a different approach. In the end, Breitbart's behavior left me doubting whether his initial "breaking" of the false story wasn't deliberate.

This is from Ta-Nahesi Coates, an alternative viewpoint to your larry elder partisan version:
Here is the link to that slate store again:
Your remark regarding if you and Andrew had been switched by your adopted parents that your philosophies might have switched as well I find be quite wise. Even if not true we should maybe act as though it could be true.
"Conservatives don’t desire to destroy lives and/or hurt millions of people."
Dude, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. The guy dressed up as a 70s pimp, just to "prove" that goverment workers will give benefits to any one that looks shifty. Do you get that?

Again, he wanted to show that government employees are non-discriminatory ... and he thought that was a bad thing. Moreover, he thought it would be self-evident that being non-judgmental in that way .... is an immoral thing!

This was a very bad, evil person, and I am really glad he's dead. I get why KKKonservatives do what they do, and believe what they believe. They believe that they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie, because they are white, Christian, or whatever. And they'll gladly accept fools like Cain and Thomas, Keys, to keep the pretense of inclusiveness. They hate the poor, because in their minds the poor don't contribute, and they have the gall to consider themselves Christian! I mean Jesus main message was to to help the outcasts, the poor, the have nots!!

It's literally to be a Christian and a conservative at the same time, the two are mutually exclusive.

I would have celebrated Britbarts death, only I know that tonight, Hell and Satan are one being stronger, and that's sad.

I'll let Breitbart defend himself.

Make no mistake: America is in a media war. It is an extension of the Cold War that never ended but shifted to an electronic front. The war between freedom and statism ended geographically when the Berlin Wall fell. But the existential battle never ceased.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education, and the international left had successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.

Schools. Newspapers. Network news. Art. Music. Film. Television. . . .

If the political left weren't so joyless, humorless, intrusive, taxing, overtaxing, anarchistic, controlling, rudderless, chaos-prone, pedantic, unrealistic, hypocritical, clueless, politically correct, angry, cruel, sanctimonious, retributive, redistributive, intolerant—and if the political left weren't hell-bent on expansion of said unpleasantness into all aspects of my family's life—the truth is, I would not be in your life.

If the Democratic Party were run by Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, if it had the slightest vestige of JFK and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, I wouldn't be on the political map.

If the American media were run by biased but not evil Tim Russerts and David Brinkleys, I wouldn't have joined the fight. . . .

If America's pop-cultural ambassadors like Alec Baldwin and Janeane Garofalo didn't come back from their foreign trips to tell us how much they hate us, if my pay cable didn't highlight a comedy show every week that called me a racist for embracing constitutional principles and limited government, I wouldn't be at Tea Parties screaming my love for this great, charitable, and benevolent country.

I am a reluctant cultural warrior.
My bad, that was for Steel General.
In other words, Fever, you're stuck in a delusional/gullible cycle. You didn't arrive at that delusional view of history by your own research, you merely accept what you've been told. That's where the gullible part kicks in.
The funny thing is you don't see you're nothing more than a reconstructed Bolshevik...or Brownshirt...or Moonie.

You couldn't defend your paranoid version of history against reality, except among the similarly afflicted.

To be clear, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well-written piece, but the the subject was not worthy of the writing.
Johnny Dull-Knife shows up at another gunfight
Jeff J - I have already given a link that documents Mr. Breithbart's mistake in the Sherrod case. (The mistake was one, by the way, that he DUPLICATED, but did not initiate. He may have been sloppy or naive in that case, but did not MAKE or START the mistake.) So frankly, Jeff, I have no idea what your beef is.

No, to the silly person who thinks I had to have been in the car to judge Kennedy. Since Kennedy HIMSELF - want a page number (?) - found his actions inexcusable, I have no problem doing so either.
If he didn't make clear he made a mistake - in the Sherrod case - he should have. But an evil man this does not make him.

You all are sickening and you do prove, once again, that, to quote Dennis Prager, there is NO HATE like leftist hate.

And, by the way, if you can't judge a man who leaves a woman to die in order to save his tail, but you CAN judge a man who posts an edited (and not by him) video that results in no death (she even got her job offered back, thank God), what are your priorities?
Andrew Breitbart was a lying, hate-filled son of a bitch and his death is a blessing to anyone who values honesty in our public discourse.
Well Drew, enjoy. Nothing like death to cheer some of you up. I hope you got the most out of it. Maybe some more will die this week. Maybe half of America - the Republican half - should die. That would be great for you all. ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just spare the rest of us your self-righteous crap about humanity. It is no longer believable.

You, more than anyone commenting on this post, need to read the quote I submitted from Breitbart. It’s a war; the left recognizes his death was equivalent to an enemy general being killed. If you want kindheartedness, let me recommend frequenting a blog about autism or cooking. But if you want hypocrisy and mean-spiritness, this is the place for you.


So according to your book of blogging rules and regulations, links and quotes are illegal? I have some unfortunate news for you, although you’re a good writer you’re no Breitbart, Krugman, Sowell, Laffer or Krauthamer. So I’ll unapologetically continue to provide quotes and links from far better writers, and unless my comments are deleted (Wolfman, O’Rourke, Toritto, Odette, Crook), there is nothing you can do to stop me.

Oh by the way, every time I’m deleted from a blog I treat the event as a badge of honor. It would be one thing if these deletions were the result of foul language; no, the left hates compelling arguments that belittle their point of view.


If it wasn’t for me this would be just another group hug. You should thank me for keeping it interesting.
Yep, apisa's legacy of idiocy will live on in the form of fever.
Johnny Fever, when I spent a hunk of a day with Breitbart two years ago he liked to flatter himself with martial metaphors. He was a "general putting (himself) in harm's way" or Ali using the "rope-a-dope against George Frazier (sic)." As far as he was concerned, I was the enemy in a battle for the soul of America. Even though I wanted my shot at jousting with Breitbart again, this was a pretty immature way to see disputes over policy that had real-life consequences. And it was also kind of sick considering there are real battles being wages by Americans right now with COs leading enlistees into harm's way. Breitbart was just a laptop jockey not much different than most of us posting here.

In the end, I think most people on the left want an opposition that they can compromise with to get things done. It's men like Darrell Issa, a political figure who benefited from Breitbart's mastery of propaganda more than anyone in government, who revels in politics reduced to bickering and saw this current state of things as a way of clinging to power. As I reported from the Calif. GOP Con back in 2010...

"We are not in the legislating business, we are in the communications business," Issa said, recounting some advice once given to him by John Boehner, a man Issa referred as the "not necessarily awe inspiring minority leader." Issa went on to say that when he took over the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, he fired half of it but increased the communications staff by five times. In other words, Issa replaced overseers and reformers with a team of P.R. hacks. (Issa is currently the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.)

"Some would call it spin," Issa continued, "I'd call it knowledge enhancement."

You can read more of this here:

As long as Issa aided by Breitbart could maintain the fighting as opposed to governing, both men could keep their high position and all of the right wing think tank cash that goes along with it.
I said nothing about rules. "Rules" sounds like I'm enforcing a code instead of dismissing an extremely inane political wannabe-but-can't.
I was simply ridiculing your laughably delusional and grandiose interpretation of history. Commie Plot Becomes Liberal Conspiracy!

Usually, you limit yourself to more specific topics when you deliver the dumb. Here, you treat us to a grand scope of your delusions. Some, I'd bet, are your own ideas, drawn from the crackpot scribblings of another right wing reactionary nutbucket. The rest are your usual "his opinion is mine" plug-n-play regurgitation. Nobody in their proper mind would take you seriously for a moment.

I could go on, but the point is you aren't a very intelligent person and the consequence of not being self-realized on that critical aspect of The Fever leads to much merriment.

As you know, Breitbart is dead so we only have one side of the story as it relates to your encounters with him. From my vantage point, I see a person who is exploiting a brief meeting to increase readership of your blog. Furthermore, I don’t blame him for treating you as the enemy as evidenced by a few select statements below:

“Breitbart was just a laptop jockey not much different than most of us posting here.”

As evidenced by Shirley Sherrod, Acorn, Anthony Weiner and the statement “It's a huge blow to the conservative/Tea Party movement”, it’s safe to say he was much bigger than your opinion of him.

“I think most people on the left want an opposition that they can compromise with to get things done.”

The Democrats insisted on doing what they did with little to no Republican support, the same cannot be said of Republicans. Don't believe me? Check the Obamacare voting results.

PS – I could care less about Darryl Issa.
Paul - I understand you see it as a war. I salute your honesty.

It is not (yet?) a shooting war and I still see it as a war of ideas.

Therefore, no, I would not see Michael Moore's passing, or Gloria Steinem's, or Noam Chomsky's as a reason to cheer or like the death of an opposing general in a hot war.

I hope many on the left do not think like you do on this.

Do you want me to die soon? Should I kill myself? If you do feel this way about people on the right and classical liberals and libertarians, then please drop the absolute baloney about the left being compassionate and about them caring about other people's health. And stop the bs about how all of these people don't have medical insurance. You should be hoping that at least most of those who are on the right who don't have it, never get it and die.
I'm sure you meant to address Bob, but I will respond to one point. There is no real difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism, neither of which represent the philosophy America was founded upon. They should be free to argue their alternate idea of liberty, but should be honest about it not being even remotely close to what our liberal Constitution represents.

Most Americans still prefer our original American idea of liberty.
Apparently neither Johnny Dull-Knife or BJ can comprehend that refusing to mourn someone's passing is not the same thing as wishing that person dead. I did not wish Breitbart dead, I simply wished he would shut up and go away. But that wasn't possible as long as he was alive and in a position to enrich and aggrandize himself through character assassination.

Same goes for Rush and Billo and Hannity and most of the rest of the liars and propagandists on Fux News. They are not contributing to the dialogue; they're merely using lies and shock-jock blather to feather their nests at the expense of the Republic. You may argue they're entitled to do so under our system, but that only makes the argument that there's something very wrong with a system that rewards subhuman tripe so handsomely.
Someone told me to never say anything bad about someone's death.

So I won't: Breitbart's dead. Good.
A friend of mine - a professional wrestler and internet DJ who does weekly commentaries - came up with the best solution yet about people like Breitbart. Put him in his coffin, bury him, and then forget him. If you hate him, he's still hurting you. Let him disappear. It's very much like the Middle Eastern executions; people are killed in the presence of troops who turn their backs on the killed people. They are not allowed to have their deaths witnessed and they are buried in unmarked graves.
R. Please see my OS article on how Breitbart "perfected" Lee Atwater's strategy of manipulating race baiting and stoking White racial resentment against African Americans, even though Atwater apologized, disavowed, and warned others NOT to use it.
Breitbart was, no doubt, a malicious liar and race baiter. He probably died because he could NOT find anything negative on President Obama, as he has promised for years. It is difficult to mourn the death of someone who was so unscrupulous, divisive, deceitful, and for the most part, diabolical.