Comments on: Is it just me?

By: SADIE

SADIE — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:46:21 +0000

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.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:37:24 +0000

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

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:40:20 +0000

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.

By: rockdalian

rockdalian — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:43:40 +0000

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.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:05:01 +0000

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.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:03:47 +0000

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.

By: Allen

Allen — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:50:37 +0000

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.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:24:17 +0000

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.

By: CDR Salamander

CDR Salamander — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:18:01 +0000

No, not just you. Her comments just aren’t useful or needed - IMAO.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:04:14 +0000

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.