Andrew Breitbart 'Pissed' at Glenn Beck?

Kausfiles Buries the Lede: Andrew Breitbart, a friend of mine,* gave a talk last night to a Republican club in Malibu. His brand-new right-wing media empire is coming off a string of minor victories—exposing the sordid reality of a politician (in this case, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton) not-so-subtly strong-arming a campaign contribution from a lobbyist, catching a wholesale violation of Godwin's Law at a Democratic congresswoman's rally, singlehandedly scattering a sizable group of protesters at a Glenn Beck event in Chicago. Beck, on his radio show, praised Breitbart (who spoke at the Chicago event) as "fearless" for his willingness to confront the crowd.

"Fearless" is an appropriate word for Breitbart, who operates on gut instinct rather than excessive desk work. But he's also fearless when it comes to Glenn Beck. The topic of Beck's giant Aug. 28 Lincoln Memorial rally, with its religious theme, came up in the middle of Breitbart's talk—and Breitbart didn't hesitate to say that he was "pissed that he [Beck] would commandeer the Tea Party for that purpose," meaning a religious purpose. Breitbart's argument seemed to be, to paraphrase: "We had a nice Tea Party going on in a big tent, with secularists and Jews and South Park-ers and what-have-you allied against big government. Why chase away people who don't want it to be all about God?"

I doubt Breitbart's beef with Beck reflects a fatal split among Tea Partiers—indeed, it seemed to be the only point in Breitbart's talk when he maybe lost his audience. But the split's there. And resentment of Beck is widespread among other right-wingers I've talked to—less because he's made the Tea Party about God than because he's made it about Beck. These conservatives don't think he's a dangerous ideologue. They have no problem with ideologues. They think he's a phony who's in it for himself. Like Keith Olbermann, they reference the Budd Schulberg classic A Face in the Crowd, in which Andy Griffith plays a two-faced populist broadcast sensation. I've never seen A Face in the Crowd. I wonder if Blockbuster has a copy. ...

_____

* Breitbart once let me use his Manhattan pied-a-terre for a week, and now he owns me for life. ... 4:15 p.m.

___________________________

Here's why I can't get too worked up about GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's alleged ethics violation in using campaign funds to help pay her rent: It would have been legal for her to flat out pay herself a salary. ... 8:34 p.m.

___________________________

The so-called DREAM Act, which would legalize illegal immigrants who came into the country when they were under the age of 16, appears to have failed again in the Senate, but remains alive for a possible "lame duck" session vote. Here's a paragraph from 2007 on why I think DREAM is a bad idea—basically because it creates a powerful incentive for would-be illegals to sneak into the country when their kids are young. Then they get to be legal Americans, without having to wait in line. ...

Yes, not passing the DREAM Act is a harsh outcome for some very deserving (illegal) immigrants. It's a familiar tradeoff—compassion in the short term vs. preventing large social problems in the long term. Welfare has the same tradeoff: Do we want to help X, deserving unmarried mother, pay her bills even if that means creating a terrible long-term incentive for a thousand unmarried women to have babies, put themselves in X's position and qualify for aid? The problem dealing with such tradeoffs, of course, is that the plight of X gets immediate sympathetic media coverage while the future social disaster (in welfare's case, whole communities of impoverished, never-married mothers) only gets covered when it arrives. ... 6:54 p.m.

_________________________