Now, Has She Gone Too Far?

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.



I think Ann Coulter goes too far every time she opens her mouth. I thought she went too far when she said, of Muslims, that, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." I thought she went too far when she said that you can't be anorexic if you have a boyfriend. I thought she went too far when she advocated revoking women's suffrage. I thought she went too far when... This is tedious. I'll be here all day. Here's a pretty good list.

That Ann Coulter continues to have a career as a political pundit stands as a daily reminder of how much trouble we are in as a country. But this time she may really and truly have gone too far. Not because she advocated turning this country into a theocracy, which alarmingly few people seem concerned about. But, because now she's given the lie to they myth that the Christian right isn't, at heart, anti-Semitic. Sure the ex-girlfriend of Bob Guccioni, Jr., who once said that because she was unmarried there was nothing immoral about sleeping with a different man every night, is an unlikely spokesperson for the family values set, but she has set herself up as one repeatedly. Her horrific performance on CNBC's "The Big Idea," was such an instance, as she regaled her Jewish host, Donny Deutsch, with stories about the wholesomeness of all the "megachurches," where she frequently lectures.

Her aggressive proselytizing of poor Deutsch, and admonition that Jews must be "perfected" by accepting Christ, has touched off a firestorm that may put even Coulter's natural allies on alert. Insulting Jews does nothing to advance a rightwing agenda. Consider the number of Jewish neoconsertives, or what a force AIPAC is to reckon with, for both parties. Let alone Republicans who want to bomb Iran... or, as they put it, "transform the Middle East." (Although, so far, David Horowitz is gaffing off any concern about her remarks.)

Coulter's latest verbal tick underscores one of the dirty little secrets of the Christian Zionist movement; that they are using Jews to bring about the rapture, after which they fully expect them to go to hell.



The issue is spelled out in segment three (above) of recent edition of "Bill Moyer's Journal," when Rabbi Lerner and evangelical Christian Dr. Timothy Weber address the concept of dispensationalism and how disadvantageous it is to Jews who wish to remain Jews, rather than converting to Christianity.

BILL MOYERS: Before we go any further, give me a shorthand definition of dispensationalism.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Dispensationalism is a particular way of reading Bible prophecy which divides the Bible into two stories. There's a story about God's earthly people, Israel. And then a story about God's heavenly people, the Church. And the basic premise of dispensationalism is that all Bible prophecies concerning earthly events applies to the Jews. And all of those events will be fulfilled literally in the End Times. So, Israel must be returned to the land. They must stay in the land. Without Israel in the land, there can be none of the other events prophesied in the Bible. There can be no rise of Anti-Christ. There can be no rebuilding of the Temple. There can be no Battle of Armageddon. And there can be no second coming of Jesus Christ. So everything is riding on the Jews, getting them there and keeping them there in the Holy Land.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: But I think-- but what you have to add in there is that when this is a step in the process that they see towards the end of end times in which the Jews will be cast down into eternal damnation and to the fires of hell. And only those Jews who convert to Christianity will be okay. And everyone -- all the rest of us so they're welcoming us now -- with open arms and saying, "Oh, we love the Jewish people" But they love the Jewish people literally to death because they they want see those of us who stay Jews burn in hell but not-- not right away. They don't imagine it will happen right away. So there's a staged process. And this is the first stage in the process that will eventually lead either to us converting totally to Christianity or burning in hell. So it's not a really great future for the Jews that those theological people have in mind.

Staring at Train Wrecks

What is it about crazy people that makes them so compelling? But we're all mesmerized. Its hard to turn away. I don't want to rubberneck the mad pile-ups on my television and computer... and yet I do. Anna Nicole Smith. I'm not proud of it, but I had to watch at least a little of the faithful, interminable, press vigil. I cover my eyes and try not look. I peek. She was just such a fascinating, tragic, beautiful, mess. Like Marilyn taken to the nth degree, in every area of her short, sad life.

But now, in keeping with the news cycle, my eyes are drawn by the glint of other shiny psychos: Ann Coulter and the artist formerly known as Armando.

I don't think I'm revealing any state secrets when I say that Armando rose phoenix-like from the ashes of his infamous outing as Big Tent Democrat. (Affectionately known as BTD) It looks like we won't have him to kick around anymore and I find that I'm a little sad. Like Coulter, he's just so fun to hate.

As reported earlier the artist penned a GBCW diary. It seems he bridled when it was suggested by the Great and Powerful Kos, that he should make a greater attempt at civility. Perhaps Kos finally realized that banning people right and left for spitting on the sidewalk, while simultaneously letting the artist spew venom at anyone and everyone, was, how say, incongruous. He as much as admitted that he's been hypocritical as hell. From the thread of a thousand and one nights:

If you want to talk "double standards",

fact is you would've been banned a long time ago if you weren't you.

It's a perfect example of sliding-scale standards -- you are such a stellar writer, thinker, and friend that you survived despite behavior that would've zapped a lesser mortal long ago.

I really wish I could have my cake and eat it too in this case -- keep your writing brilliance without the message board meltdowns.

by kos on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:45:32 PM PST

But then, we've long known that there were special rules for special boyz.

As per Booman it's now official. The artist has been shown the door permanently.

Since this is a meta thread, I guess I'll add that Armando has been banned by Markos from Daily Kos. Armando claims it was done at the behest of DHinMI and Plutonium Page. That's just his opinion. Apparently they suddenly noticed that Armando wasn't civil. That's a fine way to reward his loyalty. I used to get angry emails from Armando anytime anyone so much as thought of criticizing Markos and/or Daily Kos. Armando's flamewars jacked up the pageviews at Daily Kos into the stratosphere. I guess he's no longer convenient.

Armando acted unforgivably in the orange threads for several years. He made many enemies. But that is still no reason to try to do him harm or get him fired. And it's a little late to ban him for it.

Interesting perspective. So flame is good if it's "loyal" flame; like if you're serving as a noble knight for his royal majesty, King Kos. Once again. Special rules for special boyz. Whatever.

So the artist formerly known as Armando will no longer have a comfortable, orange platform for his screeds. And it looks like Ann Coulter has also jumped the shark. It seems high profile conservatives have, to borrow Booman's phrase, "suddenly noticed" that she's vile and offensive.

In the melee triggered by her unfortunate use of the word "faggot" to characterize John Edwards, she has now been dropped by four newspapers. (That's as of this writing. I fully expect that number to climb.)

The Times of Shreveport, Louisiana has become the fourth newspapers [sic] to drop Ann Coulter's column as a direct result of her 'faggot' remark aimed at presidential candidate John Edwards.

"Today we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter. The Times is dropping her column effective immediately." Times Executive Editor Alan English wrote.

"It is her recent 'joke' about John Edwards being considered a 'faggot' that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time," English added.

The Times joins The Oakland Press of Michigan, The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tennessee and the Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania) in dropping Coulter. Others may follow suit.

Coulter has become embarrassing enough to conservatives, that we're beginning to see things like this from within their ranks:

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care [sic] little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

It's taken them long enough, but it looks like conservatives have finally noticed that Coulter serves liberals/progressives very well by providing fodder. Her screeds are more of a rallying cry to the left than the right. She even makes for fun party games.



What we're witnessing with Coulter is a tipping point. It's all downhill from here. My husband has long had this theory that when Ann Coulter's career started trending inexorably south, she would pose for Playboy. She can't live without the attention, so the theory goes. We'll know soon whether or not my husband's prediction is accurate. But what will Armando pose for? Shudder.

Someone Has to Feed Her

Originally published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The second pie tosser has copped a plea for his "assault" Ann Coulter last October. If you missed the initial incident report, it can be viewed on the Smoking Gun. Editor & Publisher reports that:

William Zachary Wolff, 25, was fined $250. But the fine will be suspended if he pays $915 to the University of Arizona for damage caused to a backdrop during the incident.

The same plea agreement was reached last Novemeber with Coulter's other "attacker" Edgar Smith.

Personally, I think they should have gone with a "humanitarian" defense, instead of pleading out. They were clearly staging an intervention. Note to Miss Coulter: When your hands look like giant spatulas attached to broom handles, someone has to feed you.