The Great Deceiver

I’m baffled. Why does the MSM keep buyingAndrew Breitbart’s crapola? Film editing isn’t some new fangled thing, it’s been around since the days of DW Griffith. Breitbart dominated yesterday’s political news cycle with a totally spurious story that got Shirley Sherrod fired by a panicky administration. I hope that Tom Vilsack finds his nutsack and rehires her pronto.

Clarence Thomas described his confirmation hearing as a “high tech lynching.” He was wrong but the phrase is a powerful one that seems to apply in this instance. The 24 hour news cycle really sucks sometimes, y’all.

Nobody should ever believe a word that comes out of Breitbart’s lying gob or accept as legitimate any video coming from him. This is what Fox News *always* does but shame on everyone else who got fished in by this shitbird.

p align=”center” class=”asset asset-video” style=”display: block; margin: 0pt auto;”>

7 thoughts on “The Great Deceiver

  1. I saw him speak at a convention once. If he hadn’t had a few drinks, he was doing a great job of imitating someone who was self-medicating with alcohol. Twitchy, sweaty, and a few of the other Seven Dwarfs.
    His persona – which he wears like a cheap, ill-fitting suit – is a P.J. O’Rourke, Hunter Thompson wannabe. In a crowd of non-media, non-Beltway Republicans, it was a disaster. Page hits he may have on his website, but as a personality, there’s a reason he isn’t among the five-figure-per-speech pundit aristocracy.
    Like most bullies, he’s 90% bluster, 10% sucker-punch-and-run…which loses in real life but on the Internet can achieve some temporal success.

  2. No cause for bafflement, Adrastos. “The fix is in” pretty much explains the last decade, at least, and probably the last thirty years.

  3. No, he’s got a good question.
    Once you’ve been played, why fall for the same huckster again?
    Someone skeptical–someone, say, trained to evaluate conflicting claims in a critical manner–wouldn’t be so easily gulled. Someone like, I don’t know, a journalist.
    What we have on our 24-hour news channels and at the political pages of major newspapers aren’t journalists. Not by a long shot. They’re glorified Entertainment Tonight hosts covering less attractive people.
    It wasn’t even FOX News this time. It was Breitbart–>Washington Post–>Vilsack panic attack.
    Now, here’s another question. Are they getting played because they’re stupid, or are they part of the game?
    I’m going with “stupid.”

  4. And one of the rules of the game is: Give the Right 50/50 coverage with the Center. I think that’s the new motto of the Washington Post.

  5. Jude, Fox didn’t start it but once it was made public, they pimped it every five seconds, so they are part of the problem.

  6. Fair enough, Virgo.
    I don’t get cable, so I have to go with Internet news, and I didn’t see much from them regarding this until after the resignation.
    Everytime Breitbart opens his mouth, he weakens the country. What a fuckhole.

Comments are closed.