Jews, Jesus and Republicans: Playing Ann Coulter's Game
To read Jon Wiener's most recent post, "[Expletive] the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway": Republicans and Israel, click here.
The following piece was produced by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus.
When Ann Coulter remarked on CNBC that Jews should become Christians, it wasn't "a faux pas," and she wasn't being "an idiot," as many commentators suggested. Instead she was playing her game -- provoking her critics to get her into the media spotlight that helps sell her books. That raises the question: should the Republican candidates be asked whether they agree with Ann Coulter that America would be a better place if we were all Christians? Or is that simply playing Ann Coulter's game?
Many people are playing her game this time around: Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, denounced Coulter for speaking in "the classic language of anti-Semites throughout the millennia." The National Jewish Democratic Council asked broadcast news organizations not to give Coulter airtime. Then right wing talk radio got to yell at liberals for trying to deny Ann Coulter her right to free speech.
So it's happened again: Ann Coulter is controversial. Ann Coulter is important. We all need to take a stand for or against Ann Coulter's right to express her views, no matter how repugnant they may be.
But what if we ignored her latest publicity ploy? What if we didn't play Ann Coulter's game - again?
That would be a mistake, Tim Rutten argued recently in the LA Times. We need to press the issue on the candidates, and others, this time -- because, Rutten writes, "the implications of these latest remarks simply are too threatening to be allowed to stand."
Yes, it's worked for her many times before, propelling her books to the top of the best-seller list. Her readers buy her books precisely because they love the way she provokes liberals to screaming outrage. That's why in the past, when asked about our enemies in the Middle East, she said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"; that's why she insulted the 9-11widows.
But this time, Rutten argues, it's different. That's because Coulter's argument - that Christianity "perfects" Judaism, and that Jews need "perfecting" -- is the major theological underpinning of anti-Semitism (along with the notion to that the Jews killed Jesus). The Catholic church, and most Protestant denominations, have explicitly broken with that claim. The Republican candidates ought to do the same thing.
"It's a scandal that in this pluralist nation it falls to the voices of organized Jewry to make this case," Rutten writes, "because it is a case whose outcome is of the greatest consequence to us all. For too long we've pretended that the brutal political rhetoric that now characterizes our partisan politics can be quarantined, that it won't inevitably leach over into every other aspect of our lives."
So it would be good to ask Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and their rivals: Ann Coulter is a best-selling Republican pundit; do you agree with her that the ideal America is a Christian America?
Read more OffTheBus coverage here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's easy to say to just ignore this woman and that she'll just go away and/or that her influence will wane among the non-critical thinkers. Remember the swiftboating attack against Kerry. He didn't mount a counterattack until too late. The damage was done. Remember when Hitler was put into power initially? People were saying to ignore him, that he'd just go away or that his rants would expose him as a madman. Well, it didn't happen. Silence is sometimes akin to acceptance. What's that quote? "First they came after....a
The left is as hysteria prone as the right and none more so when it comes to Ann Coulter.
While not quite Paris Hilton of the GOP, she is more like Michael Moore-- sans the weight, but plus, the confounding "bizarro world" pulchritude of a FOX News bimbo.
This latest episode says more about the responses than the actual incident. Donny Deutsch's knee jerk response is clearly knee jerk. Ann was stating a theological factoid anyone beyond a first grade understanding of world religion can attest.
Christianity believes itself to be the "perfection" of Judaism. PERIOD. Hence, the eponymous attribute "New" attached to "Old" Testament in the King James Version. Does this come as a surprise to anyone living past the 13th century?
Generally when "new" is employed to describe even a soap product, it is inferred to have been "improved". For those of you (numbnuts) who are shocked at this consider the notion that every religion in the world believes itself to be the "perfection" of its theological predecessor:
Buddhism idealizes itself as the perfection of Hinduism. Islam considers itself to be an ethnic and geocentric improvement on both Christianity and Judaism.
Christ! Rabbis around the world say as much every day. One Rabbi told me directly, "If we are really honest about it, we Jews would have to admit that Jesus may have been the greatest Jew to have ever lived."
This was in a Torah study group I attended at Temple Beth Shalom in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
But because Ann said it and Donny Deutsch chose to abandon all journalistic integrity and profess shock that his controversial guest answered (quite reasonably) a question he did not listen to, the media jackals chimed in-- once again making something out of nothing and then patting themselves for having confronted the nasty media whore, Ann Coulter.
Chris Mathews who is prone to wearing his Catholicism on his sleeve went so far as to praise Donny Deutsch for his calm repose under Ann's vicious anti-semitic assault.
Oh please.
You are playing her game. Ignore her. She has no power unless we give it to her(and I hear her last book isn't doing so well-maybe people are catching on and she's just desperate for a fight. Just don't fight. Walk away. She's not worth the time of day).
Good Point!! So this cagey bitch (Coulter) is espousing that she is the last word on christianity?? She has the right to say whatever she wants but we dont have to listen or buy the divisive crap she spews. This country needs all the strong, intelligent women we can find but she is nothing more than a mouthpiece for her own hateful, racist, drivel all in the name of making a buck. Its not "christian", strong, intelligent,or patriotic.
Ann Coulter and Rash Loblow believe in selective law
obeyance. Her with voting violations and Rash with the drug scene. Scooter Libby as proven by his mentor, the VP ,also follows this code of living by the law of power. They all have a wealth of deception in their
character but a scarcity of trustworthiness or honor.
Why play her game? Was it necessary to vocalise opposition to Hitler? It certainly didn't stop him! Does the kneejerk response do anything to the provoker? Does it cause him or her to rethink positions or amend ideology? Ahmedinejad intentionally provokes his opponents, and thrives on the outraged squeals of the opposition. Why can't we ignore the outrager, calmly stating our commonly and strongly held opposing values, which will likely cause him/her to seek more and more outrageous levels of behavior ultimately to self destroy in the light of popular perception? 'Cause we're addicted to the rush of contrarian anger, and the need to excoriate the vilifier - and Anne Coulter/Ah
It's interesting that Coulter should feel the way she does when one notes that a great many of the top neocons surrounding Bush and and who support his present policies are Jewish. Given that they provide such great support, I would think it extremely stupid on her part to reveal how WASPs truly feel about their Jewish cohorts. Or perhaps they old adage "that the enemy of my enemy is my friend." holds true in this case.
yeah, i've been wondering about the AIPAC/neocon backlash on this...
The GOP candidates should be asked whether they agree with her, because if they say no it fragments the party and if they say yes, it exposes their bigotry. How can we lose in this situation? Ann will continue to have a voice on outlets like Fox news regardless of whether we "ignore" her or not.
Let's face it: What Paris Hilton is to Hollywood, Ann Coulter is to the GOP. Like a trainwreck, we can't keep our eyes off of either celebrity. And Ann's "political" career has more to do with America's Cult of Celebrity than with political commentary.
About 15% of America believe pretty much everything she espouses. These people honestly would not mind if America became a fascist dictatorship as long as they got to call it a Christian Nation when referring to it.
But, because only 50% of America votes, their power is increased to 30% in any national election. That is why the Republicans do not denounce her. That 30% of the vote constitutes their base.
Then again, many Republicans serving in Government fully endorse her under their breath while their salaries are payed for by our taxes.
"But this time, Rutten argues, it's different. That's because Coulter's argument - that Christianity "perfects" Judaism, and that Jews need "perfecting" -- is the major theological underpinning of anti-Semitism (along with the notion to that the Jews killed Jesus). The Catholic church, and most Protestant denominations, have explicitly broken with that claim. The Republican candidates ought to do the same thing."
IMO this is the point where the bromide "don't lower yourself to his(her) level" slithers over the dividing line into "keep your mouth shut and do your bit to support the banality of evil."
Absolutely, the Repug candidates should have their feet held to the fire on this one. One of them, namely McCain has already come out of the theocrat closet; who knows how many candidates, Democrat, Republican and especially Libertarian, are also in there?
OK, so Ann Coulter's angry and impassioned and typically outrageous of anti-semitism is ridiculous, but still dangerous, when one considers that the point is really a lack of "pluralism" as the author puts it. But, really, let's be honest here: We're talking about who's fairy, who's apparition, who's non-existent, made-up, pretend friend is more real or legitimate or important. Enough with the superstitious arguments! And, although I agree with the author completely about Ann Coulter and the POLITICAL implications of her comments, the SUPERSTITIOUS (read: "theological") implications are meaningless.
You bring up a question I've been asking myself and others all along the path of Coulter's "career" -- and my answer is a resounding "YES!"
She, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, represent the nobodies with nothing important to say who suddenly become somebody that the population feels compelled to pay attention to.
Why? It hearkens to the (supposedly past) era of yellow journalism, and the reason The National Enquirer is the number one selling magazine in the U.S. We love outrageous and we love confrontation and we love SOBs. Good news isn't interesting.
Coulter spouts off with her drivel with one purpose in mind, as noted in this article -- to sell books and keep herself in the spotlight. Like so many others before her and who will follow, she's a media whore who can't find a respectable way to feel worthwhile, so she instead says and writes malicious things about, and at the expense of, others.
If the morons who buy her books would stop feeding the coffers, she and Limbaugh and all their annoying, mean-spirited ilk would fade away. I aver that those who preach this kind of intolerance, even hatred, are in large part to blame for the intolerance and hatred that permeates our society, from elelmentary schools and neighborhoods to our federal governing bodies and right into the White House.
I wish we could find a way to shut Coulter up, but all those who listen to her, and give her a forum -- this comment included -- only serve to buoy and support her. She shares with the rest of us certain inalienable rights, one of those being freedom of speech.... our freedoms do come with a price, don't they?
Have you ever had someone tie a bandana around your eyes, and spin you 'round and'round? Ann is the political equivalent for many. "Keep 'em confused". For others, she is a precipitator, a litmus test of your dedication to various special interest groups, be they ethno-religeous, political, or business. She works for groups would wish to idenitify people according to their gut emotions. Only then can the "truly trustworthy" be elevated to positions of power. Whatever she is, she is "results oriented", working continually to drive people apart, a true Bush warrior, "You are either with us, or against us". What will be interesting is to see if she is actually taken off the screen, I "severely" doubt she will be. She is the a domestic political warfare "false flag", an "undercover political operative". Check her phone records, I'll bet she talks with Carl Rove twice a week!
Each and EVERY Republican presidential hopeful MUST be asked (repeatedly) IF they agree with Ann Coulter on this one.... they should not be allowed to shrug this question off, avoid giving an answer or make a joke out of it. they SHOULD be pressed hard for an answer to whether or not they agree with Ms Coulter.
Then and ONLY Then might we see Ms Coulter start becoming persona non gratis during the next election for IF the Republican Candidate must constantly defend or condemn Ann Coulters calls for attention the REPUBLICANS might become the ones telling her to STFU for a change....
I feel bad for Ann.
Her twisted ideas and hate really distort the entire message of being a Christian.
If her words are not based in love then they are not Christ-like.
God loves everyone. No matter race, color, creed, sexual orintation, or religion. And it is not for us to judge.
Ann is a sick person. And although I would fight for her right to say whatever she'd like, I also have the right to not read, or listen to a wacco.
Pamiam, your sentiments toward Ms. Coulter are indicative of the general decency of most persons. Most people whom I have dealt with are not evil and do not think of how to use others, so that when they encounter a person of truly bad faith, such people find it very difficult to understand.
We may feel sad for the "class" of persons such as the Ann Coulters who parasitically prey off the good intentions of others to economically make out. But in the "particular" Ms. Coulter has earned the moral condemnation which is being levelled at her.
People such as Ann do particular damage to the social web that binds all together, and she needs to be called on it, named for what she is: a moral terrorist.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
