Ann Coulter defender Xrlq offers still more ammunition against Coulter: her own words. Our pal X provides this link to excerpts from Chapter 1 of her latest book. This way, you can form an intelligent opinion about whether the book is crap without having to pay her a dime. Go. Read. Have fun. Don't get any on you....
Xrlq cites a disturbing passage in which Coulter suggests that she hopes liberals won’t make it into heaven:
I don’t particularly care if liberals believe in God. In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven.
To me, this kind of sounds like she wants liberals to roast in hell, but I’m sure her defenders will have all sorts of explanations: she didn’t say the word “hell”; maybe she meant they should go to purgatory; she didn’t really mean it; liberals should roast in hell anyway.
As much as I like that passage, I have another favorite:
Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.
Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.)
Here’s what I find especially interesting about that passage: why did Coulter find it necessary to include the word “Jewish” in that last sentence?
We have all sorts of Coulter apologists populating the comments here, so I am sure someone can explain this to me.
To me, every word in that sentence is designed to show how repugnant and disgusting Clinton’s actions truly were. I mean, just look how bad his behavior was. He didn’t just kiss her; he ejaculated! Not on a woman, but a girl! Not just once, but repeatedly! Of all places, in the Oval Office! And she was fat!
And to top it off, she was Jewish!
I just don’t know how else to read this. I can’t see the inclusion of the word “Jewish” in that sentence as anything but an attempt on her part to heighten the outrage.
As if the fact that she was “Jewish” somehow makes it worse. As if it is somehow relevant to anything.
My initial impression is that this is about as strong evidence of the repugnance of Ann Coulter as anything I’ve ever read by her.
If I’m wrong, why did she use that word?
UPDATE: Some explanations from commenters are offered in the extended entry.
Scanning the explanations, I find one that kind of makes sense, from PrestoPundit:
What the language does is to make the act impersonal — Clinton isn’t doing this with a unique individual, he’s doing this to what they call in the social sciences an “ideal type”. The language objectifies the target, turning her into a familiar kind rather than a singular person on equal terms as an individual with Clinton — making Clinton look even more the sexual pred[a]tor.
OK, I’ll buy that as a possibility. It seems to me, though, that there is a deliberate (and, at a minimum, curious) choice in the decision to pick the word “Jewish” as one of the words used to objectify Lewinsky. “Naive intern” would objectify her as well — but it would have a different effect. Evidently Coulter needed the effect that comes only with objectifying Lewinsky as a “fat Jewish girl.”
Another explanation is offered by commenter nash: that the line “plays to a sterotype of single Jewish women which Monica Lewinsky seems to fit into, if barely.” This stereotype, nash explains, is one of a “Jewish American princess” as a “grasping, selfish, lazy, and sexually manipulative” person — like those “JAP” jokes you hear.