The real question about Ann Coulter’s latest hate speech is not whether she’ll change her ways (she obviously won’t), but whether the conservative movement will finally reject her en masse.

One of the most prominent right-wingers to condemn Coulter’s “faggot” remark was Michelle Malkin. But in less than a week, Malkin is already downplaying what Coulter said.

At the CPAC conference, a Marine named Matt Sanchez was awarded the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award. After the conference, a blogger discovered that Sanchez was once a gay porn star and male prostitute, working under the names Rod Majors and Pierre LaBranche.

Malkin’s initial reaction:

I guess we’ll see who the real bigots–on both sides of the aisle–are now. I have a feeling Ann Coulter isn’t the only one who’ll be tossing around the f-word as the story develops.

Malkin today:

I said the other day I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed.

It’s the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion. I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I’ve received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC.

It’s unclear why liberals should be embarrassed because they believe in privacy (Sanchez’ history was completely public) or tolerance and human rights (liberals don’t care if he was gay). What’s notable is that Malkin compares Coulter to these alleged “liberal” emailers. Malkin doesn’t get it: the random people allegedly writing her don’t have regular appearances on NBC News or receive warm praise from leading presidential candidates. Malkin’s attempt to conflate Coulter with random emailers simply downplays Coulter’s influence. Ann Coulter is a leader of modern conservatism, and it looks like that’s how things will stay.

“The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department’s Inspector General. The report, in classified and unclassified versions, remains closely held, but Washington officials who have seen it tell ABC News it documents ‘numerous lapses’ and describe it as ‘scathing’ and ‘not a pretty picture for the FBI.’”

UPDATE: Tomorrow, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will “deliver keynote remarks before the International Association of Privacy Professionals.”

UPDATE II: Washington Post: “The inspector general’s audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations — some of which were potential violations of law — in a sampling of 293 ‘national security letters.’ The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005. The FBI identified 26 potential violations in other cases.”

have now dropped Ann Coulter, and the president of the Universal Press Syndicate is under mounting pressure to stop distributing her columns altogether. Greg Sargent is tracking the latest developments.

UPDATE: Media Matters has a full list of newspapers that carry Coulter’s column. Is Ann Coulter in your town?

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) “signaled Thursday he supported the plan proposed by Democratic leaders today to lay out a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. troops. ‘Conceptually I like what’s been proposed…I think this is on the right track,’ he said. Jones praised the benchmarks in the plan and the inclusion of a date certain for beginning a withdrawal of US troops.”

UPDATE: A new poll shows that a “majority of Americans in competitive, conservative-leaning House districts approve of setting a date for troops to withdraw from Iraq.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other senators met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this afternoon. According to Schumer, Gonzales said the White House will not oppose reversing the PATRIOT Act provision that allows U.S. Attorneys to be installed without Senate approval:

“While we didn’t get any better explanation for these unprecedented firings, two important developments came from this meeting. First, the Attorney General told us the Administration would not oppose our legislation requiring Senate confirmation for all U.S. Attorneys. Second, in one form or another, each of the five Department of Justice witnesses will be made available to us for questioning. The details and venue are still being worked out, but we are hopeful they will cooperate.”

At a speech in Little Rock today, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place.” Watch it:

Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claim is “pure fiction.” The Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as political retribution:

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.

Earlier this week, Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:

You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney.

As White noted, attorneys need to serve “without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way.” By firing well-respected federal prosecutors and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system.

TPMmuckraker has the transcript: Read more

“The House of Representatives voted today to create a new congressional committee, devoted solely to addressing the issue of global warming. Legislation creating the new ‘Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming’ passed 269 to 150, with 44 Republicans voting in favor of its creation.”

UPDATE: More details at The Gavel.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman announced he will hold a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. In addition, Waxman released a letter he wrote special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, stating in part:

“The trial proceedings raise questions about whether senior White House officials, including the Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information. They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important.”