Ann Coulter on Perfecting Jews

I generally avoid making too much out of anything Ann Coulter says because so much of it seems to be an act. She purposely says things which are shocking to keep her act alive and, while I’m not actually predicting this, I really wouldn’t be too surprised to see her some day write a memoir confessing that she doesn’t  believe most of the stuff she says. Some times it is impossible to ignore Coulter as she goes too far, even by the extreme standards she has already set. This occurred when she discussed how Jews need “perfecting.” Editor and Publisher and  Media Matters have posted a transcript of her appearance on Donny Deutsch’s show:

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We’re going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —

COULTER: I like this.

DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women’s — with abortion — what would this country look like?

COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like.

DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?

COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I’m talking about this country. You don’t want to make this country — it’s not about Republicans. I’m saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.

COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] —

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don’t want — I’m not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.

DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —

COULTER: Well, all of those things.

DEUTSCH: — I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —

COULTER: Oh, no.

DEUTSCH: — that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let’s give you — I’m going to give you — say this is your show.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?


DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you’re not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That’s not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were – if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —

COULTER: Whenever I’m harangued by —

DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can’t believe that.

COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it’s true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that’s really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it’s like they have a chip on their shoulder. They’re just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

DEUTSCH: I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don’t see any more or less chips there either way. That’s erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you’re lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that’s reflective of what’s going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn’t what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —


DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly believe that.


DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly — you’re too educated, you can’t — you’re like my friend in —

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don’t I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can’t believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, “Let’s wipe Israel” —

COULTER: I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: “Let’s wipe Israel off the earth.” I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we’re all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there’s no —

COULTER: What’s absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I’m going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that’s what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I’m offended by that personally. And we’ll have more Big Idea when we come back.


DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I’m going to give her a chance. So you don’t think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, “Jews need to be perfected.” Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I’m saying that’s what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that’s what you said — don’t you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —


DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You’re an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn’t hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that’s even a scarier thought. OK —

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won’t we? Ann Coulter. New book. More Big Idea straight ahead.

Yes, someday everyone can be “perfect” like Ann Coulter.

Klein vs. Sullivan (and Malkin)

When he hasn’t been fighting with Michelle Malkin this week (and having a debate challenge turned down), Ezra Klein has been arguing with Andrew Sullivan regarding the problems with HillaryCare. Andrew Sullivan began with a post which was hard on the Clintons, but not unfairly so:

Yes, I remember. I was an unillusioned Clinton supporter in 1991 and 1992. As editor of The New Republic, I helped guide the magazine toward an endorsement of the guy. Heck, I edited Sid Blumenthal’s coverage of the campaign and wrote the editorial that endorsed him. And I absolutely understand that the hard right was out to get them regardless. That remains the greater failing, I’d say. And I gave the hard right hell in the Clinton years, and opposed convicting Clinton in the impeachment. But to argue that the Clintons were innocents – or didn’t give their enemies enormous and needless ammunition – is far from the truth. Read Bernstein’s book. Or “Primary Colors” again.

I witnessed the following eight years close-up. I was lied to repeatedly, as all of us were. (For a brief reprise, Hitch’s book, “No One Left To Lie To” is helpful.) The lies were not as bad as Bush’s – WMDs and torture. But the stakes were much lower. The arrogance and condescension of the healthcare debacle were revealing of a classically bad left-liberal mindset on Senator Clinton’s part. She knows best; she always has; everyone else is part of the VRWC. (You just saw a flash of that in Iowa – but her main lesson of the last eight years has been not to change but to better disguise who she is. MoDo, who also endured those eight years, has her number today.) Watching the Clintons pivot off homophobia – while pretending to be civil rights pioneers – really sickened me (although not as much as the gay establishment symps who rolled over and begged for more. They’re still at it, of course). Then the wagon-circling over the sexual harassment suits; the firing of the Travel Office staff; the dissembling over legal records; the smearing of enemies; the enabling of preventable genocide in Bosnia … maybe being forced to cover them day after day made me swear off the Clintons for good. Or maybe watching them close-up gave me a false perspective and we should just chill and let them take over the government again. But I would be remiss if I didn’t write that the idea of restoring the two of them for two more terms on top of the two they have already had fills me with dread.

The man was a perjurer and an abuser of women; she was deeply complicit in all of it, and ultimately used it for her own political advantage. This is who they were. I don’t think they’ve changed – and God knows what psychodramas the right-wing press has in store for us next spring if she wins. That the Clinton presidency was immeasurably preferable to the last six years I do not dispute. As I wrote continually at the time, their co-presidency was in many respects a substantively admirable one, although I doubt it would have been half as admirable if the Congress hadn’t reined them in. But it came at a severe cost – to the polarized country and to the integrity we have a right to expect in public figures. She has re-earned her credit as a national leader in the Senate, and she deserves respect for that. I think she’d make a great Supreme Court justice for the left. But she is still part of that co-presidency aiming for another eight years; and she is still part of that ruthless machine. She may be preferable to many Republicans (who isn’t, at this point?); but it amazes me she is given such a pass on her past, especially since she has already wielded national power through her husband for two terms. We still have alternatives. If this blog can help remind people of that, and of what we already know about her and her co-president-in-waiting, so much the better.

Klein, I fear, has bought the myth that HillaryCare was shot down solely because of unfair attacks from the right:

Check that passivity! As if the “healthcare debacle” was simply a result of the Clintons’ “arrogance and condescension,” and had nothing to do with a broad, coordinated attempt to smear, misrepresent, and, in Sullivan’s own words, “torpedo” their health care plan…Maybe if articles like No Exit hadn’t been published, and editors like Sullivan hadn’t been out to get the Clintons, the Clintons wouldn’t have acted as if articles No Exit were being published, and editors like Sullivan were out to get them.

Sullivan responded:

It’s odd that Klein still supports a plan that Clinton herself has now conceded was misbegotten. Her current plan is far more market-friendly and less bureaucratic. At the time, The New Republic editorialized in favor of universal coverage, but endorsed plans that were much more similar to the one that Clinton backs today. I think the magazine’s refusal to be mau-maued by the Clintons at the time – and Hillary was threatening blue murder against anyone who so much as dared to criticize her – is a feather in the magazine’s cap. We weren’t “out to get the Clintons.” Some of us – well, two of us – were merely worried that America’s excellent private healthcare system would be hobbled by too much government regulation. I am glad we helped head off the Clinton-Magaziner behemoth. Proud, actually…

Clinton’s Cheneyesque refusal to debate healthcare openly, her sequestering of experts to draw up an overhaul of the entire heathcare system in secret for months, her contempt for anyone who dared ask what was in it, and her arrogance in dumping it on Washington in one fell swoop and then demanding we endorse it or be labeled evil … these tactics were deployed long before we published “No Exit”. We didn’t create her paranoia. Ask Bill Bradley. I don’t blame Ezra for not knowing this. He was nine years old at the time. But I would add that Clinton herself has conceded that she acted like an arrogant, paranoid self-righteous prick during this debacle. TNR tried to rescue universal healthcare at the time by proposing an alternative. Clinton’s refusal to allow alternatives killed off the project once and for all.

I was significantly older than nine years old at the time. While I couldn’t see things up close as Sullivan did, my recollection is pretty close to what he describes. I recall the promises of seeking many opinions to develop a plan, and then was disappointed to see this all occur behind closed doors. Even worse, I was amazed at how bad the result was. It was a bad plan which deserved to fail.

There’s no doubt the Clintons were the recipients of a lot of unfair attacks from the right, but this is a poor example of that. Even Barack Obama, hardly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, has criticized Clinton for her secrecy in drawing up the plan.

Klein subsequently argues that there were alternatives and disagrees with Sullivan’s final line quoted above. While alternatives were offered, I do not believe that the Clintons were willing to seriously consider anything other than Hillary’s plan, causing Congress to give up on the effort.

Sometimes I agree with Sullivan and sometimes I disagree. In this case, if Andrew Sullivan really had a role in shooting down HillaryCare, he deserves to be proud. The full exchange is well worth reading, as is the more amusing (even if less consequential) exchange with Michelle Malkin (which primarily left me wondering why an insurance company would deny her their preferred rate for being underweight, if otherwise healthy, unless this was a sucker rate which few were actually offered.)

What the High Court in London Really Said About Global Warming

I’ve often noted how the right wing blogs have an extremely low threshold for what they will accept as “evidence” that the scientific consensus on global warming is incorrect. Their desperation is really seen in the number of blogs are citing the ruling in Great Britain that there are nine inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth. The primary problem remains that climate change is a scientific matter, not something which comes from Al Gore. Even if Al Gore really made numerous errors, it would have no impact upon the science.

In actuality, An Inconvenient Truth has stood up quite well with most of the criticism of it turning out to be disputed or over minor points. Media Matters has a good summary of the criticism against the documentary.

Being a matter of science, rulings from a court have little bearing. However, as conservatives are widely quoting this decision, let’s look at what they really said. While the conservative Times of London stresses the errors which the court believed were present, note the significant areas where they agreed with Gore:

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

Update: Deltoid has a far more comprehensive review of what the court really said, and how this differers from the spin on the conservative blogs.

Ron Paul Receives Endorsement of White Supremacist Group

It is such a shame that Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who has made any sense whatsoever on foreign policy and the Iraq war at the Republican debates, is otherwise a far right kook. I first noted Paul’s extremism (and not the good kind, in defense of liberty) with regards to his acceptance of right wing revisionist history which denies the fundamental role of separation or church and state in the founding of this nation. As I wrote in July:

While I sympathize with Paul’s opposition to the war and some of his other positions, his absurd claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” prevents me from considering him as a candidate, or believing his rhetoric of being a strict defender of the Constitution. Paul has supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn.

That was enough to eliminate any consideration of backing Paul, but so far this doesn’t make him worse than the bulk of the current Republican Party. There have also been the embarrassing moments with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but Paul escaped serious damage here when he distanced himself from their beliefs. In general a candidate cannot be expected to turn down the votes of those who hold some beliefs they disagree with.

There are notable exceptions to this. This morning Jesus’ General noted that Ron Paul has received the endorsement of the white supremacist group. Stormfront. There has been significant support for Paul in their discussion forum for some time.

This is one group whose support Paul should repudiate if he hopes to be considered a serious candidate, even among Republicans. Instead it appears Paul is encouraging such support. Steve Benen reported on other signs of Paul’s extremism as seen in this handwritten letter (pdf). Hatewatch reports on plans for Paul to speak before a racist group. Orcinus has further reviewed “Paul’s extended history of dalliances with right-wing xenophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.”