Gay Patriot Header Image

Will Democrats differentiate themselves from gale of hatred against Andrew Breitbart?

Just shy of two years ago, the then-Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, insisted that his Republican colleagues needed “to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.

Nearly a year later, even after learning that the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had ties neither to the Tea Party nor the GOP, the editors of the New York Times told us that it was

. . . legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

When some on the left learned of the death of Andrew Breitbart, they reacted in the manner the Old Gray Lady attributed to virulent Republican supporters with a gale of anger and expressions of hatred, demonizing a man who dared challenge their most cherished shibboleths.

Michelle Malkin reported that one leftie had tweeted, “It is very hard to have sympathy for an evil person like Andrew Breitbart!”  The Tatler collected more Tweets, including this particularly telling one, “Andrew Breitbart died? Is it wrong that I’m happier about that than when they got bin Laden and Saddam?”  At the Washington Examiner, Charlie Spiering reports that one liberal call Breitbart, “a vile excuse for a human being” and yet another alleged he “was a racist, sexist, homophobe.”

Always the same litany, lefties?  Guess they just assume that if someone is conservative, he must fit their narrow view of what a right-winger must be, someone who hates people who differ from the white male norm.

At least there were some on the left who responded to Breitbart’s death in a dignified and grownup manner.  On Facebook, my friend Rich Miniter linked this post on the left-wing Talking Points Memo, “Shirley Sherrod, who was a primary target of Andrew Breitbart’s criticism, released the following statement on the conservative media icon’s death:

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 through this very difficult time.

That’s how human beings are supposed to respond to the passing of your ideological adversaries.  One wonders at those left-wingers who responded with such bile.  It’s as if their entire identities have become wrapped up not just in their political leanings, but in their animus against their opponents.

One anticipates Democrats, following the lead of Mr. Frank, demanding their fellow partisans “differentiate themselves” from such vitriol and awaits the New York Times‘ condemnation of this gale of hatred.

How politicized these people have made their identities

Share

82 Comments

  1. First, not that it matters, but while I am (obviously) a liberal, I’m not gay, and I am in a committed relationship (if you are curious how I heard about this site, it is through college affiliation). I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

    I’ll just address one thing: the difference between abstinence and contraception is that the first (as numerous studies have concluded) doesn’t work at all, and the second works partially. Or do you REALLY need me to point out the thousands of fierce conservative / religious advocates of abstinence education who themselves (or their dependants) engaged in all manner of sexual misbehavior? People of all stripes want to have sex. Saying abstinence will solve any sort of problems related to sexual activity is sort of like saying, hey, the solution to our obesity problem in the US is easy — just eat less! There, problem solved, right?

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - March 2, 2012

  2. I’ll just address one thing: the difference between abstinence and contraception is that the first (as numerous studies have concluded) doesn’t work at all,

    You might want to link to those and make sure they say what you think they say.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - March 2, 2012

  3. […] of our readers seem to have misunderstood the point of my post earlier this morning, supposedly suggesting […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the (supposed) liberal need to differentiate from Breitbart hate — March 2, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - March 2, 2012

  4. Last time I checked, abstinence has a success rate of 100% every time it’s used.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - March 2, 2012

  5. Wow, Jeff really dropped a flaming bag of liberal stupidity there.

    Abstinence doesn’t prevent pregnancy? So, you can get pregnant without having sex? I mean, I know Georgetown is a Catholic University, but I think even there, the possibility of an immaculate conception is remote.

    And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - March 2, 2012

  6. And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm – March 2, 2012

    It’s more on the order of being stuck in perpetual childhood, V.

    JeffZ and his ilk do not believe that they should ever have to grow up and make adult choices. They want to continue in the self-indulgent, spoiled mentality of their childhood, where Mommie and Daddy filled their every need and they got what they wanted by temper tantrums.

    The problem here is simple. Sandra Flake wants to buy fancy dresses, shoes, and handbags instead of having to pay her bills. Her solution is to demand that Mommie and Daddy pay her bills, and then she shrieks and screams that if they don’t do it, they don’t love her.

    She and JeffZ have just translated Mommie and Daddy to the government. They want the government to pay their bills so they can buy things that are more important to them, and if you don’t agree, you hate women and want them all to die.

    Levi, JeffZ, and Sandra Flake are emotional, mental, and social cripples. They are incapable of making hard choices or value-based decisions. They refuse to believe that they might actually — horrors! — have to go without sex, live in a less-fancy space, buy cheaper food, or not have their new BMW or Jimmy Choos. They are entitled to these things because they want them, and anyone who doesn’t give them these things or agree that they should get them is evil.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - March 2, 2012

  7. NDT, the Obamacrats depend on that. The depend on people who don’t care that the country is nigh on bankrupt, entitlements are unsustainable, millions of jobs have been destroyed, gas is headed toward $5 a gallon, our enemies are on the move and arming up… as long as the Government promises them free sexual aids, they’ll happily march to the voting booth for him.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  8. Jeff Z said to B. Daniel Blatt:

    You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

    This is a new talking point I’m seeing from leftists. I’ve been engaged in a Facebook back-and-forth with a frothing leftist friend. When I brought up leftist hosts use of the terms “slut,” “twat” and wanting a whole political party “fucking dead,” the response was that it didn’t matter. It matters for Rush because he is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

    So my response was “de-facto” according to whom. I also inquired as to why they would even care what the leader of a party they don’t belong to would say.

    We weren’t even debating the contraception issue – my point was that both the left and the right like to dial up the rhetoric for their TV and radio audiences. It’s entertainment. Big deal what some blowhard pundit says on TV.

    What’s funnier is that as much as they hate Limbaugh, he’s getting tons of publicity because they keep making this a story – so they’re actually helping him.

    Comment by ChrisH — March 2, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - March 2, 2012

  9. You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

    This is a new talking point I’m seeing the left use to excuse leftist hosts’ use of the exact same term.

    After confronting a frothing leftist friend’s objection with several instances of leftist hosts using terms like “slut,” “twat,” and an anti-bullying hero wanting a whole political party “fucking dead” he proceeded to tell me that what made if differrent was that Rush Limbaugh is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

    We weren’t even discussing contraception. I was simply trying to figure out why he was so upset over a talk show host making an outrageous statement.

    In fact, I pointed out how he and the rest of the media was actually helping Limbaugh by getting worked up in to a fury. Rush is getting a lot of publicity out of this that he wouldn’t have if everyone just ignored him.

    Comment by ChrisH — March 2, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - March 2, 2012

  10. All these years, I’ve wondered what a “Hoya” was. Now, I know it means “a slut who want you to pay for her birth control.”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - March 2, 2012

  11. I know this thread has gone off into contraception-land, but I just had to say FTR, this line of sonicfrog’s made me laugh:

    There is no respect shown by some of the commenters

    It’s funny because I have a similar opinion but from a different viewpoint; so that it ends up as one of those “A man goes on a journey / A stranger comes to town” perspective-shifting things. Here it is. From where I sit, certain commentors on the GP blog are nearly-full-time bullsh*tters, who are then unhappy because they expect FAR more respect than their (poor) comments earn for them or will ever get them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:27 pm - March 2, 2012

  12. All these years, I’ve wondered what a “Hoya” was. Now, I know it means “a slut who want you to pay for her birth control.”

    LOL 🙂 Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay. Actually, when I first saw her I thought “Wait a tick – lesbians need contraception?”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:38 pm - March 2, 2012

  13. And for “My Sharia Moor” – GREAT handle, best I’ve seen in awhile! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - March 2, 2012

  14. LOL Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:38 pm – March 2, 2012

    There’s the big one, ILC.

    Flake, the 1-percenter Georgetown Law student, doesn’t want to pay.

    Her liberal 1-percenter DC boyfriends don’t want to pay.

    They want the working-class black family with three kids down the street that are scraping to afford their home and education for their children to pay instead.

    If Obama Party rich white liberals like JeffZ, Sandra Flake, Levi, and others care so much about “the poor”, why is the entire point of their rhetoric to ensure that “the poor” have to pay higher taxes so that rich white liberals don’t have to pay their bills?

    That’s what I want Levi and JeffZ to answer. They’re both affluent white males; why do they have to increase taxes on poor black families so that they don’t have to pay for contraception for their many partners?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - March 2, 2012

  15. They want it to be “free” like cheap candy. Why, oh why won’t the grownups work harder to provide it? What kind of cruel world is this, anyway, where you have to work for stuff you need or want?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 4:36 pm - March 2, 2012

  16. Video: Rush Limbaugh apologizes to Sandra Fluke:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yAH-AhDmc

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:27 pm - March 2, 2012

  17. Thanks for that link, V, had been contemplating a post faulting Rush for his use of that term, esp. as per Sister Toldjah’s commentary on Facebook:

    Love me some #Rush but calling Ms. Fluke a slut played into the left’s false narrative that GOP “hates women.” Also, it’s a very ugly word.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 2, 2012 @ 5:32 pm - March 2, 2012

  18. I do not approve of Andrew Breitbart’s comments on Ted Kennedy’s death, but I don’t necessarily disagree with them. Breitbart was a much better man than Ted Kennedy was, and I haven’t seen any instances in which what Breitbart said about Kennedy came close to the vile things frequently said about Breitbart. I reserve celebrating death for truly evil people like dictators, murderers, and terrorists (such as Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il), but Ted Kennedy was about on the line between evil and not evil (in my opinion). And I didn’t see any instances in which Breitbart actually celebrated Kennedy’s death, he merely spoke ill of him.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 2, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - March 2, 2012

  19. I think Rush’s use of the word is defensible on the basis of logic and reason. But logic and reason are unwelcome in our political culture, which is obsessed with drama and narrative. So, you are correct, sir, that Rush’s use of the word was unhelpful and played into the hands of the left; who are desperate to whip up a distraction from Obama’s disastrous energy policy. (Chevy Volt production went on hiatus today, BTW.)

    It bears mentioning, however, that less than a year ago, feminists were embracing and promoting the use of the word ‘slut.’

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42927752/ns/us_news-life/t/cops-rape-comment-sparks-wave-slutwalks/

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  20. Rattlesnake, Breitbart never killed anybody. Ted Kennedy did.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  21. In Mitt Romney parlance, the left gets up every morning with a blow torch and a can of Aqua Net and just waits for the cameras to arrive.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - March 2, 2012

  22. Rattlesnake, Breitbart never killed anybody. Ted Kennedy did.

    That is true, and I considered that while making my comment. The only reason I said he was on the line between evil and not evil was that he apparently didn’t intend to kill her, but he did fail to do what any half-decent person would have, which I guess is just as bad. So, he was at the very least on the line, but is probably beyond it (on the evil side).

    That should settle the matter. For the record, I am not the kind of person that casts everyone in a positive light when they die. Michael Moore is a (something that I will refrain from saying here given it will be incivil), and he will be no different when he dies (which, judging by his obesity, may not be too far away). I won’t celebrate his death, though. And I will criticize anyone who does.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 2, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - March 2, 2012

  23. #51 JeffZ:

    I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

    Stop the presses: !!!!!!!!! We have a whole new moral relativism game of duck and dodge …….. personal morality ……. which is judged and measured by ……… the person who invents his own personal morality.

    Circle: meet argument.

    Well, JeffZ, I am confident that my record when it come to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the left who would purport to tell me how I should live my life, what is politically correct, what I may eat, how I light my home, whose recreation I must pay for, and on and on and on.

    How does that work for you?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 2, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - March 2, 2012

  24. Breitbart delighted in the news of Ted Kennedy’s death, where was his respect for the dead?

    Better yet, where was Ted Kennedy’s respect for the dead? At the bottom of Nantucket Sound?

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 2:07 am - March 3, 2012

  25. I’ve been considerably more gracious towards Breitbart than he was towards Kennedy, does that make him more of a moral relativist than me?

    How many women did Breitbart allow to drown whilst sleeping off a boozer?

    Exactly.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 2:08 am - March 3, 2012

  26. I am confidant that God’s record with personal morality outweighs everyone on this thread. So, yeah, if you’re going to rationalize Breitbart’s reaction to Ted Kennedy’s death, you’re a moral relativist.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - March 3, 2012

  27. Rationalize? Teddy was a piece of shit who let a woman drown, went on to live a good life and a hero to liberals everywhere.

    It’s creepy how many people that liberals love have blood on their hands.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - March 3, 2012

  28. TGC >> Please explain where I defend Ted Kennedy.

    Like I said, God’s morality out-weighs all. So, if you’re going to rationalize Breitbart’s ill behavior, then you are a moral relativist.

    Nothing to do with whether or not I approve or disapprove of Kennedy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  29. Nothing to do with whether or not I approve or disapprove of Kennedy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – March 3, 2012

    Well, except for the fact that you claimed Breitbart was bad because (you claimed) he attacked Ted Kennedy.

    If it were a principled objection to attacking the dead, then you wouldn’t have attacked Breitbart.

    But what you’ve made clear is that it’s wrong to attack dead people with whom you agree, but not to attack dead people who you don’t like.

    Therefore, Breitbart was only following your ethical system, such as it is.

    If you’d like to state that you’re unethical, since you call Breitbart that for following your belief system, then at least you would be consistent.

    Now, you’re just a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - March 3, 2012

  30. ND30, you must be really lean from running in that hamster wheel all the time.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - March 3, 2012

  31. […] – speaking of Mr. Breitbart, way to stay classy, libs (yes, I’m talking to you, Rolling Stone. And you, Matt Yglesias of […]

    Pingback by Your (semi-) Daily Dose of Reality v.3.4.11 « Falcon’s Eyrie — March 4, 2012 @ 4:34 pm - March 4, 2012

  32. Now, you’re just a hypocrite.

    The more so, NDT, because he then insulted you incivilly.

    That’s our Cinesnatch: Always demanding that the rest of us live up to standards which, while nice, he really doesn’t keep himself.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 4, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.