Tucson Citizen.com

Andrew Breitbart Breached His Contract With The Left

by on Jun. 10, 2011, under National Politics, Uncategorized

Recently I wrote regarding what I felt was clearly criminal behavior on behalf of Andrew “the ACORN killer” Breitbart. Many of you justified his behavior by alleging that Anthony Weiner exposed himself, no pun intended, to blackmail. Tell me, just how the hell do you justify criminal behavior by stating that the victim exposed themselves to being blackmailed? It’s like stating a bank robber is not guilty because the bank had the money sitting there in tills, readily available to be taken by anyone with a gun. “They should have better secured the money,” you might say.

In any event it’s obvious that the right wing cronies practice the, “Do as I say, not as I do, concept.” It’s amazing to see the right wing nuts scream bloody murder about Weiner when you have some outrageous behavior from the likes of Mark Sanford and his Argentine mistress and John Ensign the “Christian” Senator who couldn’t keep it in his pants and carried on with his behavior from a “Christian” congressional type dormitory, for a lack of other more descriptive words.

However in this case it’s clearly a matter of a breach of contract on behalf of Breitbart. What occurred at the podium was at once criminal in extorting an apology from Weiner in return for not releasing a revealing picture of the congressman, but what has now occurred is a breach of contract. Breitbart stood at the podium and tendered an offer, Weiner entertained the offer, accepted the offer, and tendered payment in the form of an apology as Breitbart had requested.

The three basic components of a contract are the offer, the consideration and the acceptance. Clearly Breitbart offered to withhold a picture that would further compromise Anthony Weiner’s already precarious situation. As Weiner stood there in the wings, ready to take hold of the podium after Breitbart’s hijacking, Weiner considered the offered tendered by Breitbart, Weiner then accepted the offer and shortly after taking possession of the podium, Weiner tendered the apology subject of the agreement, therefore consummating the contract with Breitbart.

However, Breitbart behaved in his typical sleazy manner and not only did he not keep his word as a gentleman, of which he certainly isn’t, but Breitbart clearly breached the parties agreement by making an appearance on trash radio and “exposing” Weiner’s picture which he had promised not to reveal.

It’s obvious that Breitbart followed the right wing SOP, that is, promise something to get what you want, once you get it, make excuses for not having kept your promise, and then repeat the process. This hypocritical, two time, double talking, double standard way of doing business repeats itself every day and throughout this great country, all courtesy of the greatest hypocrites that nowadays call themselves Republicans and conservatives.

So the way I see it, in the last couple of days Breitbart has not only committed a crime, he breached an agreement. This guy is a criminal and a deadbeat. Hey, I have an idea, maybe he can seize the GOP nomination for president since he meets all the criteria to run on behalf of the Republicans.

Breitbart Lying

Carlos E. Galindo is a radio talk show host & political analyst conducting radio shows in both English and Spanish on four radio stations in Arizona. Mr. Galindo is a weekly contributor to KPFK 98.7 FM Los Angeles and has appeared on CNN, Univision and Telemundo as a political analyst. Mr. Galindo is also an Op-Ed columnist on Prensa Hispana Arizona. www.nospinonair.com/http://www.carlosgalindo.com
Listen to our live radio broadcast every Friday from 5-7 PM on The JOLT Tucson 1330 AM or via the web on www.nospinonair.com



  • chuck freitas

    Nonsense!  If Weiner had not been in ‘that’ position, there would not be a problem of any sort.

    • leftfield

      To quote the author, “They should have better secured the money,” you might say.

  • leftfield

    I don’t hear anybody defending Weiner’s behavior, but Weiner’s bad behavior is not a defense for someone else’s bad behavior, including Breibart.

  • rightfield

    What convoluted logic just so that you’re able to have the words  Breibart and “criminal” in the same sentence.  Did Breitbart publish the photo?  No.

  • Just the Facts

    Hey leftie,

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats who engage in bad behavior typically is that the Republican stands up at a press conference and admits to the bad behavior.

    On the other hand, the Democrats (see Bill Clinton, see the weiner-dude, see Jon Edwards, see Barney boy Franks, see Gerald Studds) stand on the podium, look into the camera’s, and lie thru their teeth. When the truth finally exposes itself, their pestulant denials turn to tears, and they sob like little girls in an attempt to win the sympathy vote.

    Are you pround of the lack of integrity from thses pathetic characters? If they lie about their perverted/immoral behavior, will they not lie about Fannie May, Freddy Mac, government health care, etc. etc.? Mr Lefty, your bar seems abysmally low.

    • leftfield

      I’m not convinced that the difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in who claims the “moral high ground”.  In my opinion, the difference is that the R’s are the world’s biggest supporters of injustice and the D’s are the world’s second biggest supporters of injustice.  A lot of the D’s support for injustice comes from their congenital unwillingness to recognize conservatism as the inherently inhuman evil that it is.  Unlike the R’s, they seem unwilling and/or unable to resort to the methods needed to cripple the enemy.
        

      No, I don’t find Breibart’s behavior any more defensible than Weiner’s.  Weiner, I assume, has made an agreement with his partner about sexually-related activities outside the marriage.  I also assume that the agreement is that this is not acceptable.  If the two of them had agreed (again, I assume they didn’t) to send pictures here and there, even to copulate freely with complete strangers on a daily basis, I would have no issue with this, since this is not my business.   Breibart is just a dirty trickster; a toady for the right.  

    • Florine Francis

      Yeah right, republicans just come forward with the truth all the time!  LOL, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere to see to you!

  • Pamela Powers

    Isn’t blackmail what Breitbart is all about? After fall of ACORN and Elliot Sptizer (not a  Breitbart hit job but still a rising star brought down by right-wing sleuths), all lefty politicians should realize they are being watched.

    On the Diane Rehm Show yesterday, one of the commentators said Weiner knew his multiple flirtatious conversations with young women were being followed on Twitter, but he kept it up. That’s compulsive behavior. His poor wife should have been a follower on Twitter!

  • chrlpolk

    Weiner’s right to privacy ended when he sent those photos.  Breitbart didn’t release the photos, the girls Weiner sent them to did.  Now you want to blame Breitbart because Anthony was a perv.

    This article is rubbish, and I am shocked at how my liberal cohorts will make fools of themselves in order to defend a politician who bold-faced lied to them, claiming to be a victim of a crime because he couldn’t man up and admit to his own actions.

    • leftfield

      “Now you want to blame Breitbart because Anthony was a perv.”

      If Weiner is a “perv” (and I would argue that this is just a moral judgement on your part), then Breibart is just a different kind of “perv” – a voyeur.  If Breibart decides to go after right-wing ‘perversity’ with the same devotion he has shown in pursuing left-wingers, then I might give him credit for his efforts.  As it is, he’s not some moral crusader, he’s just a blackmailer for the right.

      • Blake

        That’s hypocritical. You thrive on moral judgement, and you focus your critiques exclusively on those to the right of you.

        • leftfield

          I’m sure most folks on the right are kind to animals and considerate of their neighbors.  In matters such as these, the right receives no critique from me.  But on matters such as pursuing illegal wars; cutting the social safety net out from under the sick, the elderly and the poor; pursuing continued white supremacy and trying to tell women when it is appropriate for them to have babies, you are G-D right I pass a moral judgement on the right.  Further, I find them without any morals.  I also judge the Dem’s as the world’s second biggest supporters of the things I find morally objectionable.  If that’s hypocritical, so be it.   

          • Blake

            I was referring more to the fact that what “perv” is to chrlpolk, ”racist” is to you. Pervs and racists do exist, but it’s folks like the two of you who like to pile that crap on even those people who agree with you about the evils you cite. I wasn’t talking about the right.

            • http://msn.com Strelnikoff

                   When one is accusing someone of  hacking, you must be sure the one accused can’t fight back, or don’t break the window, the dog may get out &  bite you. Weiner is someone used to running his mouth, and almost never being challenged on anything. Life is tough , so is politics. 

              • mikejha

                The offense of blackmail is created by 18 U.S.C. § 873 which provides:
                “Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
                How much MONEY did Breitbart “blackmail” him for again?  This is a pathetic attempt to slander Andrew Breitbart.

                • http://www.nospinonair.com arizona-unapologetic-liberal

                  Your definition of blackmail contains the wording, “demands or receives any money or other valuable thing” It wasn’t money! It was another valuable thing. An apology! would lend credibility to Breitbart and his antics and would further decline the congressman’s credibility. The threat is credible, because as we all know, it was that photo that ultimately caused the Congressman’s own colleagues to call for his resignation after Breitbart released said photo by and through his antics on a radio show. Therefore he was damaged by Breitbart’s actions after the congressman met Breitbart’s extortive demands.

    • Tom L.

      I don’t defend Weiner’s actions, but I don’t understand why Breitbart’s are praiseworthy. Isn’t possession of, as well as distribution of, pornography a crime? If Weiner’s right to privacy ended when he sent those photos, then look out, because anyone who has a picture of you from Facebook or twitpic can use the same line of reasoning to plaster any embarrassing picture they wish at any time they wish.

  • WHATABAGGER

    We used to know this as “being faithful to your wife,” “being faithful to your husband,” “obeying the Commandments,” etc. Outdated, Neanderthal stuff.
    I wonder whether Democrats, or “progressives,” are comfortable with this double standard: It doesn’t matter what they do, because they are beyond this Judeo-Christian BS. But it matters what Republicans do, because they insist on clinging to the old myths and hang-ups.
    Because we are so out of practice at condemning even utterly shameful conduct, we look for security in law. “Remember,” a constituent cautioned, “he has broken no laws. He has not used campaign funds.” Ah, well, that’s all right then.

    Just look at the author.

    • leftfield

      One big difference here is that folks like Bill Clinton and Andy Weiner haven’t been telling us for years how moral and upstanding they are.  Guys like Newt Gingrich love to tell the rest of us what “moral” behavior is and then they turn around and violate their own stated principals.  Bill Clinton was being publicly chastised and impeached by Newt while Newt himsel was busy cheating on his second wife.

      • usmctrucker

        Yeah, you’re right.  How Kennedy-like of him.  The simple fact is that nobody tops a Democrat in matters of the penis.  Just ask Mrs. Barney Frank.

        • Florine Francis

          Really because I would think Vitter would trump anyone by paying for the services of prostitutes!

  • Blake

    Children bicker about this stuff while adults keep the wheels of the world turning.

  • Don

    Carlos, if you feel this strongly, go ahead and sue, I’m sure you can figure some way to claim you have standing to sue on Weiner’s behalf. I’m especially sure that Breitbart would LOVE to question Weiner…and you… in the discovery portion of your suit.

    • leftfield

      I think you should wait and see if Breibart has any money left when Shirley Sherrod gets done with him.  What’s the point in suing if he’s wiped out?

      • Don

        Well Left…shouldn’t Carlos strike now, while Andrew has money left?

      • Don

        Why Left—I’m surprised to see a commie motivated by money.  Do the right thing—ONLY if there’s enough money in it?  What would Lenin and Che Che say?

        • Florine Francis

          Please, that’s such an old argument Don.

  • usmctrucker

    Care for a tissue?  I’m waiting for you to talk next about how David Brock and Bob Woodward are also worthy of your shrill and and hypocritical girlie-rant.

    Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!!!!  The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!!!!

    • Florine Francis

      The real hypocrites are the republicans, ignoring the white elephant in the room named David Vitter, while screaming and yelling for Anthony Weiner’s cranium on a plate!

      • WHATABAGGER

        Uhhh…I think you find that “Momma” Pelosi has asked for same…..

        Let’s remember Ol’ “Drain- the- swamp” (who would throw our little Houston-resident under the bus IF she needed that vote) is the head of the minority Democrats. Even “The one we have been waiting for” says he would have quit if it were him.