Extra! Someone in the World Agrees with Me!
There is actually someone in the world who agrees with me that Ann Coulter’s statement about Clinton ejaculating on a “fat Jewish girl” was gratuitous and apparently pejorative. After having a couple of long-time readers declare that they are going to stop reading my blog because I criticized Coulter, and having another one tell me that “I’ve decided that you ain’t particularly bright,” it’s nice to have a little support.
At Hot Air, Allah (whom I admire greatly) says:
For the record, I think Patterico has a fair point. Read the quote and make up your own mind; in the context provided, her use of “Jewish” does sound gratuitous and pejorative.
Allah actually put it best in a comment at Ace’s:
I don’t think she’s anti-Semitic, but it does make me raise an eyebrow to see “Jewish” mixed into a string of pejoratives.
Well said.
Allah took a huge ration of crap in his comments for even suggesting that Coulter’s comment was ridiculous. Down in the comment thread over there, Bryan Preston said:
Ann hit both appearance and ethnicity in that sentence. I certainly don’t view it as among her best moments.
And further down, Michelle Malkin came on to say:
As for Ann’s description of Monica Lewinksy, it was dumb.
I’m disgusted every time Ann’s detractors bring up her weight. There was no need for her to turn around and mention Lewinsky’s. And what does Lewinsky’s Jewishness have to do with anything? Call her foolish, loose, promiscuous, or skanky. “Fat Jewish girl?” Totally gratuitious.
Here’s the thing: Coulter’s point was to deride liberals’ belief that Clinton had saved the Constitution, when in fact all he had done was something really tawdry.
Besides the word “Jewish,” every word in her statement was calculated to make the blow job seem tacky and cheap (as it indeed was): Clinton repeatedly (not just once) ejaculated on (not just kissed) a fat (not attractive) girl (not woman) in the Oval Office (not in private). And then the word “Jewish” is in there too . . . And I was left wondering: why did Coulter think that word belonged in a description that was otherwise geared to make the act appear as offensive and tawdry as possible?
It’s still hard for me to see why she included that word if she meant it as anything but pejorative.
Plus, it ruined for me what was otherwise a very funny line.
But for what it’s worth, while it seemed like a vaguely anti-Semitic comment, I don’t assert that Coulter herself is categorically anti-Semitic. (She seems generally prejudiced against Arabs — witness her “raghead” comment, for example — but not against Jews.) Also, as I said in comments at Hot Air, I ran this quote past several Jewish friends today from both sides of the political spectrum, and none was really offended. A couple of them chuckled. And the most negative reactions I got from Jews were along the lines of: “I’m not sure it’s anti-Semitic, but it sure is weird.”
I’m willing to go with that. If the Jews aren’t particularly offended, I’m willing to scale back the outrage on this particular comment, and just leave it this: it sure was a curious thing to say.
P.S. Ace has the best defense of the comment I have seen yet: it’s the “unnecessary specificity” that sometimes gives comedy its zing. He adds: “I would have avoided it, myself. It’s not really that funny, and, as is lately the case with Ann, the comedic or rhetorical value of the barb is far outstripped by its likelihood of giving offense.”
Thanks, Patterico, the feeling is mutual. I’m surprised to see your regulars defending her, though. With my regulars, it was a foregone conclusion.
Coulter is the conservative id: her aggression can be supremely gratifying, but let her too far off the leash and something bad is guaranteed to happen.
Comment by Allah — 6/16/2006 @ 10:15 pm
INDC Journal blogged about this too today.
Comment by Allah — 6/16/2006 @ 10:19 pm
If Lewinsky had been Mexican Coulter would have said Mexican (I can’t imagine she’d say greaser or spic or something overtly racist since I don’t think she is racist at all), Canadian, Canuck, just plain white, white trash or cracker, etc.
It’s her schtick, I doubt it stems from any real hostility towards Jews or any other ethnicity. If you don’t agree with her 110% then you’re most likely a treasonous liberal or an arrogant, aristocratic Northeast “Republican” sissy.
Comment by Chaos — 6/17/2006 @ 12:21 am
If you don’t agree with her 110% then you’re most likely a treasonous liberal or an arrogant, aristocratic Northeast “Republican” sissy.
You forgot Godless and slanderous, but otherwise, yeah.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 12:27 am
I see we’re dealing with “weighty” issues here today.
Coulter can certainly be tasteless on occasion, and worthy of condemnation. But actually this is kind of humorous:
I have a Jewish background, and I wasn’t offended. It’s factually correct, so you can’t fault Coulter for accuracy. If it had been a fat black girl or a fat blond girl or a fat hispanic girl then liberals and the MSM may well have been less enthusiastic about defending Clinton on this.
Of course, Coulter is deliberately being politically incorrect (i.e. “fat” is not pc, nor is “girl” pc, nor is identifying ethnicity pc). The “Jewish” reference is amusingly suggestive that some liberals believe there is some kind of religious First Amendment issue with what Clinton and Lewinsky did. It’s also suggestive that Clinton was taking advantage of a minority.
Anyway, there’s enough to legitimately criticize about Coulter, without blasting her harmless little accurate diatribe about the fat Jewish girl. And who knows? Maybe Coulter’s little jab at Lewinsky will make people slightly more aware that their sleazy behavior could reflect badly on their ethnic group.
Comment by Andrew — 6/17/2006 @ 1:53 am
Patterico, I don’t think the line is at all funny with or without the “Jewish”.
And how do you feel about “godless”, “atheist” or “pagan” mixed into a string of pejoratives? Equally offensive or ok?
Comment by James B. Shearer — 6/17/2006 @ 1:55 am
There is something about Anne Coulter that drives some people nuts. There is, of course, the Left which is the object of her ridicule and invective. But you really don’t have to drive them nuts, they have already reached at that destination all by themselves.
But there are those on the Right or Libertarian part of the spectrum that really, really don’t like Anne. Her first UNFORGIVSBLE SIN was referring to the “Jersey Girls” as witches who “enjoyed the deaths of their husbands.” In this case this metaphor was interpreted literally. The detractors did not even try to deny that these women used the shield of their widowhood to accuse anyone who disagreed with them of impiety while they bled all over the media attacking George Bush.
And now we have the “nuclear option” being employed. Anne is being accused of anti-Semitism for describing Monica Lewinski as Jewish. Oh the humanity! There are some things that you can’t say in America today: the “N” word (unless you’re Black) and you cannot call a Jewish girl Jewish.
Which brings up the question if: why? Oh, Anne is a spear thrower. It’s what she does. But why are so many parts of the “visible” Libertarian/Right so afraid of spear throwers? Are they what Tom Wolfe once deliciously described that fabled “Victorian Gent?”
They would probably describe themselves as defenders of universal standards. In Biblical terms they do not wish to be seen as hypocrites. As the Bible says: “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, But considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? “ So they would maintain that they are disassociating themselves with Anne before she fouls their nests and they are seen to be association with people who call other people names.
That is a logical and even a principled position. But it’s not a position with which I wish to be associated. Not in this case, and not for the reasons given.
First, because the objections to Anne’s words are in bad faith. They require not just a strained interpretation of her words, but they have to be taken in the worst possible light. And having lost the fight over the Jersey Girls, to bring up an accusation of anti-Semitism based on Anne’s description of Monica Lewinski is simply slander.
Which gets back to the question of motivation. Patterico has made a virtual internet career over criticism of the LA Times. It’s fun and often correct. He lives for the too infrequent correction and gleefully prints his correspondence with their ombudsman. I have enjoyed reading him. But I suspect he craves their approval. He wants to convert them and be told he is right. And for that reason, he must distance himself from critics who really don’t care for the conversion or approval of the kind of people who write for the LA Times.
Amateur psychoanalysis? Perhaps. But if Patterico can keep asking the question of why Anne used “Jewish” to describe Monica Lewinski, it’s fair for me to ask why he has this obsession with Anne, and why he wants to make it perfectly clear that he believes she is an anti-Semitic witch.
Comment by moneyrunner — 6/17/2006 @ 7:09 am
Patrick, I think that including “Jewish” is another jab at Clinton. Remember, Hillary went on record that they supported a Palestinian state back when she was still First Lady; and I recall, not long before Drudge broke the Lewinsky story. That comment, her “f*****g jew bastard” comment, and the general hatred for Israel among the world’s liberals and jihadis provides an interesting context for the “President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office” line.
Comment by Paul — 6/17/2006 @ 7:12 am
I haven’t seen anyone say this yet, so I will. Is it just possible that the reason so few people are agreeing with Patrick about “Jewish” is because of the 8 or 10 other screeds, er, posts on Ann Coulter? I mean, if Patrick had brought up the “Jewish” thing in the very first post, I might have agreed with him, but, being the contrary soul I am, by the 10th post on AC (and finally showing umbrage at her use of “Jewish”), I am determined to simply disagree with him about AC regardless.
Comment by sharon — 6/17/2006 @ 7:55 am
Well, her racism towards Arabs is far more pronounced.
Then there’s the reference to “Camel Jockeys.”
Of course, nowadays she reminds me of this story:
Marilyn Manson Now Going Door-To-Door Trying To Shock People
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 6/17/2006 @ 9:00 am
Geek,
How dare Anne Coulter refer to an old Arab as an old Arab? By God, it’s so insulting to be both old and Arab. And how dare you, sir, use the term “camel jockey” in front of people. You can’t use the term unless you are a camel jockey. I have known camel jockeys in my time and you, sir, are no camel jockey.
Comment by moneyrunner — 6/17/2006 @ 9:50 am
First, when Ace uses two contiguous words with more than three syllables to explain something, he is right (Newton’s 17th law…). The “unnecessary specificity” of the line does contribute to the humor - assuming one finds it humorous. Paul above adds that the term fleshes out the “saved the Constitution” context.
Coulter is Don Rickles reincarnated. She is an insult comic who specializes in the political realm. She *must* say and write things that piss people off. It’s what she does.
So, to me, what she wrote was very insulting, but not so much to Jews as to her real target, liberals.
By the way, I’m not going to stop reading your blog or anything, I like that you don’t like what she said as it provides a good and necessary forum for discussing the issue.
Keep it up.
Comment by Dr. Deano — 6/17/2006 @ 10:32 am
I don’t like Coulter, but I think Patterico has gone too far insinuating that she’s anti-Semitic. My first instinct was comedic specificity, like Ace.
Comment by Agnoiologist — 6/17/2006 @ 10:35 am
@james b. shearer:
i am proud to be a pagan. unlike christians and muslims, we don’t go around killing people for our faith.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/17/2006 @ 10:39 am
You go to your church, and I’ll go to mine:
In times of old, pagans killed just to hear the screams of the honey roasted. Pagans bound up their war captives inside wicker baskets and danced the moonlit night away while those inside toasted. But pagans will be pagans, and they kept right on killing, till Christians came and stopped their grillin’.
Comment by Black Jack — 6/17/2006 @ 11:42 am
Geek,
Have you seen the price of racing camels lately? High end Mercedes are cheaper.
Ann Coulter? I wouldn’t say she’s willfully ignorant. Obstinantly ignorant is much more accurate. The kind of person who could make a bulldog turn vicious.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 6/18/2006 @ 12:11 am
Reading the sentence in its full context, no where is there any sense that Coulter is attacking Lewinsky’s ethnicity. Coulter is simply illustrating a point to take a slap at Clinton.
I think Patterico, Allah & Co. are suffering from what Shelby Steele termed “White Guilt” and have become overly sensitive. Allah feels that the use of “Jewish” disparged Jewish people, yet in his own words Jewish people he spoke to weren’t offended and some even chuckled.
Naturally, Coulter’s use of “old Arab” and “raghead” have been brought up by Allahpundit. Now, don’t get me wrong. I like Allah and I thoroughly appreciate is work for Michelle Malkin and Conservatism. But I “think its odd” that a person who assumes the nick of “Allahpundit” and writes satire in the persona of the Muslim god, Allah, in a depreciatory tone would be attacking someone for using the word “Jewish” in a sentence that most of his Jewish associates are not offended.
Has liberal PCism so conditioned us that we have to sterilize our thoughts and writings and attack our own Conservatives who aren’t as equally sensitive?
.
Comment by GT — 6/18/2006 @ 5:49 am
[...] This is classic Greenwald: a confident assertion of fact, which is totally false. I have called Bill O’Reilly a “humorless and self-absorbed blowhard” and called Michael Savage a “moron.” I regularly denounce Ann Coulter here, and recently spent days boxing her about the ears for her numerous stupid and violent comments about public officials. There are so many posts I can’t link them all; a few examples here, here, here, here, and here. Regular commenters will tell you there are many more; indeed, they got very frustrated with me for being so obsessed on the topic. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag — 7/13/2006 @ 7:01 am
I just recently learned about Coulter’s reference to Monica Lewinsky as a “fat Jewish girl.” Only an idiot would not understand that Coulter’s use of the word “Jewish” in this context is pejorative. Further, her “Witches of East Brunswick” label for the “Jersey Girls” is also anti-Semitic. It is well-known in New Jersey that East Bruswick has a large Jewish population. (Other Jews with whom I discussed this think it is a slur also.) I believe that at least one of the “Jersey Girls ” is Jewish. Coulter is well aware of the connotations of her words. There should be no doubt about Coulter’s anti-Semitism.
I have not read Coulter’s book because I refuse to give her money. I did peruse it a bit in a store but it was very hot as it came from Hell and I had to put it down before it burned my hands. It was also nauseating me. I have seen her in action on Bill Maher and I have read plenty about the “Jersey Girls” controversy.
Coulter is quite the hypocrite: She makes her living off of books, talk shows, lectures, and public appearances and then slams the “Jersey Girls” for taking their message public. I normally would say it was a case of the teapot calling the kettle black. Or, more likely, jealousy. (Do the “Girls” get more for an appearance than Coulter does?) I think the “Jersey Girls” have higher moral standing to publicize their message than Coulter does to be a political hack. As for Coulter’s money qualms, I don’t see HER raising kids and paying for college educations. She should walk a mile in the Jersey Girls’ shoes. The widows deserve every cent they get.
I think the best thing anyone could do, and worst thing to do to Coulter, is ignore her. People who want to use her “stuff” to bolster their own arguments will do so. People who can think will listen to some of it, dismiss it as crap, and move on. Her cracks have offended many–she is hanging herself with her own rope. Pundits on the extreme edges usually lose steam. Ignore the her and she will hopefully fade away.
Comment by barrycourage — 7/19/2006 @ 12:21 am