Being a dead controversial figure does not come without unintended consequences. I’ve started to see the following on several news/blog aggregate sites:
Largely due to his reputation, some reporters appeared hesitant to repeat word of his death out of fear that it may have been a hoax.
That really brings up an interesting point. Why haven’t we seen a death certificate? I can not accept that Breitbart is dead until someone shows me a long form death certificate that has been notarized by a caretaker in the Reagan library.
But just in case he is dead… Andrew Breitbart, how should we eulogize thee? Should we treat you with the respect we normally set aside for the dead, honoring the person and temporarily forgetting politics and personal views?
Well, actually yes.
Of course, we cant discount things like this…
Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist who oversees Breitbart.com and BigHollywood.com, tapped into the anti-Kennedy vein in the hours after the senator’s death was announced, posting a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”
“I’m more than willing to go off decorum to ensure THIS MAN is not beatified,” Breitbart wrote. “Sorry, he destroyed lives. And he knew it.”
(From Politico.com, regarding Breitbart after Ted Kennedy’s death)
Huh. Ironic, no? But still, no sense in taking a grade school mentality about this. I can hardly call him names just because he did it first.
Unless he isn’t dead. I haven’t seen proof yet.