Is it just me?
Bookworm on Mar 13 2008 at 11:38 am | Filed under: Anti-Semitism
Or is Ann Coulter veering in being really nasty about Eliot Spitzer’s Jewishness, and about Jews in general, both of which are entirely irrelevant to his free-fall?
Eliot Spitzer was the golden boy with an absolutely charmed life. His parents were the children of Jewish immigrants, who created a Ralph Lauren lifestyle for their children.
[snip]
Forget about his career — those around him better have him on suicide watch. Dudley Do-Right is on tape in a white-knuckle negotiation with pimps about payment for a prostitute. (Let’s just be thankful that there’s no anti-Semitic expression for Jews haggling about money.)
Had Spitzer’s Jewish up-bringing had anything to do with the crime or with any defense he offered, I could understand making his Jewish-ness an issue in writing about this whole sordid episode. However, since it isn’t, and he didn’t, that last quoted paragraph strikes me as nothing but a mean-spirited anti-Semitic sentiment that has no place in this farce, drama, tragedy, or whatever else you call it.
I’d like your opinions on Coulter’s writing, because I need a reality check to make sure I’m not simply being too sensitive to a perceived smear.
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “Is it just me?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Coulter has a use for shocking people. Using the Jewish ethnicity also sort of mimics Leftist notions of rich Jews and how the Left is the one fighting the privileged class… from the vantage of the privileged class.
Yeah, you are. The remark about his parents was just sort of a generalized remark about the poverty of his upbringing. I’m sure if he was the child of Italian stoneworkers, Irish horse trainers, or Polish farmhands then that would have been equally reported. No story about Lincoln seems to be complete without hearing about he had to lie on the floor in front of the fireplace to read a book. Just part of the “rags-to-riches” deal.
The second part was, I suspect, a joke; which perhaps flew right past you. “Lets just be thankful that there’s no anti-Semitic expression for Jews haggling about money.” There aren’t? Only several thousand, last I heard. I read that as a rather sarcastic remark aimed at pretty much everybody else, who will/have/are succumbing to the stereotypical view - but not aimed the Jews.
I could be wrong.
As for Coulter’s intentions, I think she intended to mention the Jewish background to provide mroe clamour to his rich parents and lifestyle. It was not the Jewish background that she saw as important, but the fact that it was rich and decadent. The Jewish thing simply reminds one of all the people that think Jews are in a conspiracy for the Right, when Spitzer is for the Left.
No, not just you. Her comments just aren’t useful or needed - IMAO.
I agree with JJ’s take. However, there is one question just kind-of hanging out there - Spitzer’s father came up from rags to riches by making a fortune in real estate. Was his father a slum lord?
If so, could that explain some of Spitzer’s overt hatred of the monied classes despite he being one of them? It certainly would explain a lot of white Liberal/Lefty self-hatred and guilt.
Just asking.
It’s a Coulter classic designed to get attention. In her world no publicity is bad publicity. I don’t know if she’s anti-Semitic or not, but she’s not above saying things that make people think she is to garner some press time. Branding.
Someone needs to tell that Coulter that playing a role is all nice and good for the cause, but becoming the role and believing that you are what you represent yourself as, is simply the Alexander complex. You know, when Alexander the Great started actually believing he was a god, instead of just using that as a propaganda line to cement the loyalty of his troops in enemy territory.
Coulter would be better served and would serve herself better by learning how to counter the enemy propaganda of Leftists, not just out shocking the audience.
Shock is useful for counter-propaganda, yes, but there is such a thing as an art to propaganda. It is not just a brute force approach as Coulter uses.
Until now I did not know his religion. Was this information useful? No.
This does not alter his actions or my reactions.
So, I agree BW. This was unnecessary.
Ann Coulter’s credibility took a big hit went she went after John McCain the way she did. She may be trying to use shock-jock tactics to get back onto the stage. I say that as a fan. I hope that she doesn’t go the way of Pat Buchanan or she will lose ALL credibility.
I rarely read her pieces, but the rocking rhythm of this one brings to mind the hystrionic scene in My Fair Lady when Higgins denounces Lisa’s dalliance with Freddie Insford Hill, though Learner and Low’s effort is considerably tighter, organized, and more coherent that her’s. I can see her arms flailing around Higgins’ library to emphasize each barely connected point.
No, I don’t see the line as anti-Semitic, just blunt force.
I also get the sense that Coulter really does not like the guy at all. Maybe she has friends that Spitzer used his own version of governmental blunt force on.
Al
No…it’s not you. I cringed as well. The ’smirky’ little comment is what gives Ms. Coulter the Acid Ann tag - she has earned it!
She is the ’shock jock’ of print. There was no need to mention his religion. All this from the woman who wears a cross, it was not exactly the Christian thing to do.