Andrew Breitbart. Does anyone remember what he used to say? The reason I’m posing the rhetorical question is that I well remember the man’s outspoken insistence that conservative tent ought to include all of those who share conservative and libertarian beliefs — including gay conservatives. In 2009, he told social conservatives that they cannot write gays off and have to come up with a coherent policy on gays that makes gays whole.

Then a couple of years later, Breitbart famously threw a party that “almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave the impression that young libertarians — and some not so young — are taking over the GOP.

Not long after his untimely death, he was eulogized as the “Right’s Hero and Unexpected Gay Ally,” and this statement was widely quoted:

“If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”

In an interview, Breitbart elaborated:

“I’ve seen gay groups estimate the percentage of gay people in our country as high as 10 percent, and I’ve seen groups that aren’t amenable to gay rights or whatever say, “No, no, it’s closer to 2-3 percent.” Well, when those people minimize the amount of people there are – two to three percent – what is their fear of that two to three percent coming into the Big Tent and disagreeing with you on three percent of the issues?” he said. “None of it makes sense to me.

“I just don’t get it. I go into middle America, and I don’t see people hating gay people as a part of their agenda. Are there anomalies? … Yes,” he continued. “The majority agrees on the humanity of gay people – and to treat gay people like you treat all people. It doesn’t make sense that the political polarities represent such a small percentage. It’s a two percent versus a two percent versus the rest of the 96 percent of the country that is living our lives integrated.”

Common sense to most people, but near treason to the raging antigay crowd and what I would call the WorldNetDaily right.

Considering how outspokenly gay-friendly the man was, I think it’s fair to say that were he alive today, he would have supported the purported spirit behind today’s panel on the “Uninvited” at CPAC:

The conservative movement, in particular, has to be willing to confront important issues, even if it causes some members discomfort. The left comes from a singular philosophy: increase centralized control over citizens. Conservatism is built on the sanctity of the individual, but its members are animated by different issues. Conservatives must address all issues where individual liberty is threatened, and it must allow all voices to be heard. That is the spirit underlying Breitbart News’ “Uninvited” session at CPAC on Saturday.

Andrew Breitbart’s animating vision was that all conservative voices deserve to be heard. Moreover, that all issues vital to our national interest deserve a hearing. If the conservative movement bows to the media or a political establishment and censors its discussions, it is cheapened and made weaker.

In that spirit, Breitbart News has organized an impressive panel of experts to address issues which are all too often swept under the rug.

Intrigued by this, I read on. It is certainly true that Breitbart’s vision was that all conservative (including libertarian and gay) voices deserve to be heard. So I was quite surprised — especially considering that this panel is being done in Breitbart’s name — not to find one single gay conservative group or spokesperson listed in the panel.

Or was that just an inadvertent oversight?

I realize that they can invite whoever they want to their uninvited panel. But it just looks odd to me that panel on the uninvited  sponsored by can’t see fit to include gay conservatives even when Breitbart had boycotted CPAC over that very issue.

What could be going on? Is Breitbart’s outspokenly pro-gay past being airbrushed out by his own organization? And if this Salon article is any indication,  the left seems perfectly willing to work in collusion with the conservative airbrushers.

Considering how outspoken Andrew Breitbart was, I don’t think he would have liked this. In life, he couldn’t have couldn’t have made it more clear that he wanted to “allow all voices to be heard.”

Over at the Atlantic Wire, they’re saying that “The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Is Alive at CPAC.”

They ought to be careful what they wish for.