cpac

Andrew Breitbart got a special surprise at CPAC this weekend:

Blogger Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former U.S. Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod who contends her reputation was damaged by Breitbart's posting last year of an edited video.

The New York Times reports today Breitbart was served with the lawsuit at CPAC Saturday. Sherrod contends in the suit that a video clip he posted last year "has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work."

Salon adds the following:

Sherrod argues in the lawsuit that the clip "damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work." Breitbart, meanwhile,denounced the suit, saying he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech."

(emphasis added)

I just love the conservative definition of “free speech”. What’s funny is if you follow Breitbart on Twitter, there’s been more than one instance where someone says something about him and he threatens a lawsuit. He’s a typical right-wing thug, that thinks he has constitutional protections, yet people he disagrees with don’t.

I am wishing Shirley all the luck in the world with this lawsuit. She deserves it. Breitbart has lower journalistic standards than the worst of the checkout rag magazines.

The number two vote getter for the straw poll at CPAC, Bobby Jindal, clarifies the rules of Republicans to Larry King last night:

King: One more thing. It may be moot now, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele took some shots at Limbaugh and then apologized. What do you make of all of that?

Jindal: Well, I didn't follow the day's events. I'm glad he apologized.

(h/t Attaturk)

So Jindal doesn’t know what all the commotion was about, but he knew Limbaugh must be right? Wow this takes the cake. They have given carte blanche to a man who makes fun of Parkinson's disease, uses racial innuendos to discuss our President, called Hillary Clinton a “hoe”, is a pill addict and a whole slue of other things. And this is the direction the Republican Party wants to do? Again – you guys are fucked.

The same CPAC that our President, vice-President and the potential Republican nominee attended. The same CPAC that "didn't officially invite her", yet is letting her speak (kind of like water boarding is adventures in swimming). Think Progress has this little bit of her words today:

CROWD: (Applause) We love you Ann!

COULTER: I should give you an Edwards joke for that. [...]

Hillary wanted [to change her campaign song to] "I am woman," but it was already taken by Edwards.

So there you have it - all the outrage from the right wingers over Coulter's comments last year was nothing but a show. They love her (hell they said it) and let her speak again this year.

A number of right wing bloggers are speaking out about Ann Coulter and are even telling the CPAC they do not want her to appear again. Here is the letter that they are sending. Ed from Captain's Quarters has more:

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.