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 said 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.

Annimosity

When Ann Coulter shot John Edwards in the face with the F-word at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year, it was the slur heard ‘round the world. Surprisingly, it didn’t get the results Coulter hoped for. Her latest “joke” (wishing that Edwards was killed by terrorists), didn’t do so well either. Is Coulter losing her evil mojo? Sheldon Alberts, a reporter from the National Post, explains: Making vengeance pay WASHINGTON -She has accused 9/11 widows of enjoying their husbands' deaths, mocked Hillary Clinton for having "chubby little legs" and says Democrats--pretty much by definition--are "the Spawn of Satan." Ann Coulter's acid-tongued attacks have long infuriated U.S. liberals, but the uber-conservative commentator has finally pushed one hot button too many for Elizabeth Edwards. The wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has embarked on a campaign to silence Ms. Coulter after the bestselling author told ABC's Good Morning America she hoped the White House contender would be killed by terrorist assassins. "This is not legitimate political speech," Mrs. Edwards fumed yesterday. "This is speech of hatred and meanness, meant to distract us from the issues." Earlier in the week, she challenged the columnist when she called MSNBC's Hardball program and "politely" demanded the best-selling author stop making personal attacks on her husband and other Democrats. But Mrs. Edwards has also taken the anti-Coulter effort to another level -- using it to help drum up political donations for her husband's White House bid. In e-mails and text messages sent to Mr. Edwards' supporters, the campaign distributed video of Ms. Coulter's Good Morning America appearance along with a request for donations to help meet a US$9-million fundraising goal for the second quarter of 2007. A similar appeal for "Coulter Cash" raised US$300,000 for Mr. Edwards in March after the right-wing commentator called him a "faggot" during a speech to a conservative political action group. The appeal for money has triggered accusations Mrs. Edwards' showdown was spurred more by political calculation than moral outrage. The deadline for second-quarter donations is tomorrow. "Whether there is a real personal animosity between Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter --who knows?" says Mark Rozell, a presidential scholar at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "But they are exploiting the situation and doing it beautifully. "As far as the core Democratic constituencies, Ann Coulter is one of the most hated people in this country. This has been a very effective way for the Edwards campaign to raise big cash." Good. Maybe I’m foolishly choosing to see this vulgar episode through rose-colored pragmatism, but I think there’s a dim silver lining to be found in the mushroom cloud Coulter left behind: It’s seeing how scared Coulter and the rest of the Republican Party is of Edwards. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Edwards. Let’s put the cards on the table, O.K.? I don’t care how politically incorrect it sounds, but I think that once the gaudy fireworks fades and the smoke clears, the Last Democrat Standing is going to be Edwards. Why? Well, because he’s an articulate, charismatic, intelligent, handsome white man, that’s why. Hallucinating about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as viable presidential candidates is a waste of time, money, energy, and oxygen. Regardless of how loudly the pundits and the pollsters pontificate, a sizable percentage of voters are going to vote for the white guy. To believe otherwise is dangerous. Why? Because the Republicans will then run a Trojan Horse Candidate in 2008, a handsome, well-spoken "moderate" white guy that the other white guys can feel good about. Romney? He’s not African-American. Giuliani? He’s not female. That’ll be good enough for all the undecided voters, fence-sitters, bigots, and the Republicans hiding in the closet of the Democratic Party. But not for us and the rest of America. Eight years of Bush is too long. Another four years of Bush Lite isn't what this country needs. Hopefully, it looks like John and Elizabeth Edwards have finally learned that turning the other cheek is a stupid idea, especially in the violent, barbed-wire arena of politics. Good. That's how you win elections.

three reasons to give three cheers to blogtopia! and yes! we coined that phrase!

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs. we have noticed, as of late, a disheartening trend in various comments and blog posts around blogtopia (y!wctp!). several writers have seemingly fallen into the dumps because things are not progressing as progressively as progressives would like. they cite the dems' refusal to discuss impeachment, the iraq defunding which looks to be dead in the water, and the general tendency of those in charge to ignore the common citizens they are supposedly hired by to run things. however, we here at skippy international are feeling pretty good about things, and we wish that the rest of you in blogtopia (y!wctp!) would join us. after all, there are several major accomplishments that have come to fruition recently, all of which were done, if not completely, then certainly with major efforts, by the netroots. to start with, blogs and bloggers really came into their own as true-to-life journalists with the libby trial. thanks to the kids at firedoglake, and to marcy wheeler (also known as "emptywheel"...and maybe some day she'll explain what the hell that screen name means), as well as swopa of medianeedle, jerlayn merritt of talkleft and margie burns for bradblog (plus others we have surely missed, and our apologies if we have), the idea of blogs as actual journalism came into existence. where before blogs were seen mainly as an outlet for cranky powerless people to whine, suddenly it was proven that they could be used as an outlet for cranky powerless people to disseminate information on a national level at a level far deeper and wider in scope than any electronic media, and most dead trees media. dan froomkin, and admitted fan of blogs, said on a washpost.com q&a: i think what firedoglake.com did with this trial was not just impressive, it was transformative. by offering the public live-blogging of this very important trial, you not only put the msm to shame, but actually became a must-read for journalists who couldn't attend the trial, but wanted to get a better and faster sense of what was going on than they could from their own colleagues. i'm not saying that the msm should emulate everything bloggers do -- far from it -- but the blogosphere's enthusiasm for this story was something to behold, and admire. now, we here at skippy international had little to do with the libby coverage, short of a recurring photoshop, but just the very fact that several blogs made history by making journalism with this story should be an inspiration to everyone in blogtopia (y!wctp!). this post is far too long to take up any more room here at iba. you can find two more reasons to give three cheers, as well as tons of pithy analysis, available at skippy.

Sorry, Matt, but when you're a hypocrite, all bets are off

Conservatives sure do love their gay prostitutes, don't they? First it was Jimmyjeff Gannonguckert, now Matt Sanchez, darling of CPAC because he's a Latino gay military conservative. Today, in a truly cranium-combusting piece in Salon, Sanchez sees nothing inconsistent about sucking up to the very people who revile people like himself. In September 2005, I wrote a column for the campus newspaper that blasted the anti-military bias among my fellow students at Columbia University. In addition to being an American studies major at Columbia, I am a Marine Corps reservist, and my comrades in arms were proud of me once that column had turned into appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" and an opinion piece for the New York Post. None of those media outlets knew who I had been before I was a Marine, an Ivy Leaguer and an outspoken defender of the military. Up until last weekend, Salon and the rest of the left-wing media had largely ignored me. Given the left's constant talk about equality, discrimination, minority rights and systemic oppression, I thought the fact that I was a Latino Marine, a nontraditional, 36-year-old Ivy League student and a 100 percent flag-waving red-blooded Reagan Republican would make my point of view interesting, but so be it. Everything is political now, and even the double standards have talking points. Then came last weekend. I was invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, an annual convention of the right attended by more than 5,000 people, to accept the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award. It was recognition for what I'd said in print and on-air about anti-military attitudes on campus. During CPAC, I had my picture taken with the controversial conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter. Coulter's comments about John Edwards drew unprecedented attention to this year's CPAC. Then, after a while, some of that attention was turned on me. [snip] Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified. Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high. Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let's face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points. Sure, I had my picture taken with Ann Coulter. I don't agree with what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I'm not apologizing for it. I'm also not going to claim I'm sorry for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae. A lot things in my life don't add up, but then I was never good at math. It's just a part of my past, and as anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today. Yes, it does, Matt. And you're wrong -- no one on the left cares about your past in gay porn. Unlike the people you're sucking up to on the right, we believe that what consenting adults do is their own business. Now, I can't speak for anyone in the gay community, but from where this 100% heterosexual, 20+ years married, middle-aged lapsed Jewish suburban woman is standing, you are not just a hypocrite, but are wrestling with a good bit of self-loathing. I refuse to associate with any activities sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R., because their pro-Palestinian view is NOT limited to opposition to Israeli government policy, but veers over into anti-Semitism. I won't associate with groups that hate people like me, nor will I support them or help them to gain power. So why on earth are you willing to associate with people like Ann Coulter and the rest of the crew? Why are you willing to associate with someone who refers to gay marriage as "insane"? Why on earth would you want to associate with people who profess to hate everything that you are? And even if they don't (which I wonder about, since the Republican party and its allies seem to be rife with barely-closeted gay men and women), why would you want to associate yourself with people who are willing to sacrifice YOU on the altar of their drooling, ignorant Jeebofascist base? Matt, there is help for you -- not help to "cure" homosexuality, but help so that you can better accept yourself and stop allowing yourself to be used by people who would wipe you off the face of the earth if they thought they could get away with it. But you cannot expect to align yourself with the moral scolds of the right and expect your hypocrisy to not be fair game. (cross-posted at Brilliant at Breakfast)