Shirley Sherrod is now doing her best imitation of Bill Murray in “What About Bob.” The line is uttered by Richard Dreyfuss when he angrily refers to Murray and says, “Gone? He’s never gone!”
Shirley Sherrod has now decided to sue Andrew Breitbart.
(Full disclosure: I used to write for his site Big Hollywood. I currently have no affiliation with him whatsoever.)
For those who need a lightning quick recap, administration bureaucrat Shirley Sherrod made some remarks. Those remarks were caught on videotape. Somebody (as of now unidentified) gave the tape to Breitbart, who ran it. The tape was taken out of context, causing her to be seen as making anti-white racist remarks. President Barack Obama, who is more concerned about Glenn Beck than Osama Bin Laden, fired her in a panic through Tom Vilsack. When the entire tape was played, the White House panicked again and she was offered her old job back. Nilsack took the fall for Obama.
While Breitbart got the ball rolling, the White House fired her. Yet she is suing Breitbart.
There are several reasons she is doing this.
To start with, liberals love suing. It’s what they do. Liberals fail at the executive and legislative levels, so they achieve what few gains they have through the judiciary. Liberals filing lawsuits is as natural as swimming in Summertime in Los Angeles. It is a given.
As for the target, the trick is to maximize sympathy. Nobody makes for a delightful villain in liberal fantasyland like either a landowner, a corporation, or anybody else that can be portrayed as greedy and sleazy just for being successful. When in doubt, sue a conservative.
Andrew Breitbart is a conservative. Therefore, the left will not stand up for him because even if he is innocent, he is most likely of being guilty of something else. He should be sued because the legal system for liberals is not about justice. It is about vengeance, and harassing conservatives out of existence. Become a Republican small business owner and see how tough it is in a liberal city to get permits for anything.
Some will say that since Breitbart showed the tape, the lawsuit has merit. That could be right in some situations, but in this case that is wrong.
The first requirement to sue is the concept of “standing.” This is why the leftists freaking out over the Patriot Act keep getting their cases thrown out. Hypothetical and theoretical potential injuries do not hold up in courts of law. Actual injuries must occur, and only the aggrieved can go forward.
In this case Ms. Sherrod can go forward. She is the person who was victimized.
Where Ms. Sherrod’s case breaks apart is the concept of suffering. A person has to actually suffer some loss of some kind, be it physical, financial, or emotional.
What has Ms. Sherrod lost? Nothing.
Within 24 hours, she was offered her old job back. She was also offered an even better job, a raise and a promotion. So their is no financial loss. In fact, there is potential financial gain. If she takes the raise, does Mr. Breitbart get a portion of that money? If she writes a tell all book or becomes the subject of a Hollywood movie (Hollywood loves people like her and loathes Breitbart types, in both cases due to ideology), does Breitbart get a share of the profits?
Some will say she suffered emotional loss due to her attacks on her reputation. Her reputation was quickly restored. Everybody on the left except Barack Obama apologized, while many conservatives did likewise. Glenn Beck, who supposedly was the impetus behind the President freaking out, was defending her from the very beginning.
Breitbart did not fire her. President Obama did. Therefore, if she were to have grounds to sue anybody, she should be suing him.
(The Supreme Court ruled in the Paula Jones case against President Clinton in a unanimous 9-0 decision that sitting presidents could be sued civilly while in office. It was a terrible legal decision, but it is the law of the land for now.)
Shirley Sherrod is falling in line behind her president. If she goes after him, she is toast. He has the weight of the presidency. By going after Breitbart, she is now an instant celebrity. Prestigious dinner parties in upper class liberal neighborhoods await her. Tying Breitbart up in court also has the added bonus of taking valuable time away from a conservative threat. The Clinton White House (ironic give that they were sued themselves) used this tactic against political rivals, from the NRA to many others. When that did not work, they sicced the IRS on political enemies.
Shirley Sherrod did not want any of this attention. She was minding her own business when she confronted with her remarks. Yet that does not change the fact that the net result to her from this situation has been a plus. After all, she has learned from the Obama White House never to let a good crisis go to waste.
Until the right learns the depth of hatred that the left has for them, they will continue to try and fight back with hands tied behind conservative backs. Perhaps a few well placed lawsuits against every wealthy liberal in America might teach them a lesson.
This will not happen because we have better things to do. We don’t wake up in the morning looking for an ambulance to chase or a wealthy construction site to trip over and fall.
Shirley Sherrod suffered what the medical community would call a “boo-boo.” She needed a band-aid, not open heart surgery.
Either she should sue President Obama (I will not lose sleep either way), or just get over it and go away.
It is time for her to exit, stage (angry far) left. Her 15 minutes are up.
eric
Is this it for Breitbart too? Is his 15 minutes over?
JMJ
“President Barack Obama… fired her (Sherrod) in a panic through Tom Vilsack”
Is that true? I haven’t seen or heard evidence of that. Can someone enlighten me?
JMJ
Who put Vilsack in there in the first place Jersey ?
Sheesh