web analytics
October 23, 2014 / 29 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Exclusive Interview: Liberals, Bush, and Israel: A Chat With Ann Coulter

Tuesday, July 4th, 2006

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers, including the current Godless: The Church of Liberalism.


Coulter, who writes a popular and controversial syndicated column, is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, Scarborough Country, The O’Reilly Factor.


Coulter consistently raises the ire of liberals, most recently when she castigated several 9/11 widows for using their status to score political points against the Bush administration.


America knows Ann Coulter’s views on liberals and liberalism in America, but little is known about her views on Israel. Ms. Coulter addressed that and other questions in an interview last week with The Jewish Press.


Jewish Press: Why is it that liberals can attack and ridicule you and other conservatives and it’s considered within the realm of free speech, but when someone like you lashes out at liberals you are silenced and castigated? How do you explain this liberal double standard?


Ann Coulter: You said it yourself: the famed liberal double standard (although I think now they’re calling it “multi-standardizing”). There’s one set of rules for them and another, much stricter set of rules for everyone else.


How do you explain the phenomenon of so many American Jews identifying with liberal views and policies that often go against Jewish interests?


Absolutely baffling. But it is changing. I believe about 40 percent of Jewish males under 30 voted for Bush in the last election.


Moreover, both America and Israel are quite popular with Jews who actually practice the Jewish faith in some way. President Reagan’s approval rating in the chassidic community was off the scale (something like 90 percent) – surpassed only by his approval from residents of Grenada.


Why, when it comes to terrorism in Afghanistan or Iraq, does the U.S. apply a strong hand – but when it’s Palestinian terrorism against Israel, there’s not the same tenacity and determination?


Probably because of the formidable left-wing lobby, which has now added anti-Semitism to its sins.


Many conservatives have been increasingly disappointed with President Bush’s performance on issues like immigration, the economy and of course the war in Iraq as it drags on. Do you share their dismay?


Like most, I am utterly baffled by Bush’s position on illegal immigration (amnesty for illegals, no serious wall at the border). But President Bush has fought the war on terrorism magnificently, completely ignoring liberal naysayers who want us to capitulate to savagery. For that, he deserves our support.


Even though the 2008 presidential election is still more than two years away, what’s your early guess of who the Democratic and Republican candidates might be?



Absolutely no idea. My most interesting prediction at this stage – since she is the clear front-runner – is that the Democratic nominee might possibly not be Hillary.


Have you ever written about Israel? If not, why not?


I rarely write about any country other than the U.S. There are too many big juicy fih to fry right here at home! Also, I’m a Protestant girl from Connecticut and there are many other capable writers who know a lot more about the subject than I do. In fact, I just started a screenplay about a Connecticut shiksa like me trying to become an expert on Israel. It’s called “Mission Impossible IV.”


Have you ever visited Israel?


No, but I have been to Miami if that’s any help…. Actually, I would like to go, but I’ve been too busy keeping my eye on liberals here at home for the past several years to have taken any vacations. My parents went to Israel a few years ago and loved it. I definitely will go some day.


While we know how you feel about liberals in America, what’s your opinion on the liberals in Israel like Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert and others like them who gave away the Gaza Strip and plan to give away the West Bank, which many perceive as a victory for terrorism?


No one can be as contemptible as American liberals. I am informed, for example, that, in Israel, even liberals serve in the military.


What are your feelings about the disengagement from Gaza last year? Since Israel’s withdrawal from the area over 500 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Jewish communities. Al Qaeda has moved into the territory abandoned by Israel. Iran is looking to establish an embassy there. Egypt has accused the Gaza terrorists as targeting them as well.


My first thought is that the Jewish people may not drive as hard a bargain as I’ve always been led to believe. I take it this is part of a long-term Israeli strategy to achieve lasting security by giving up some disputed areas while re-doubling efforts to protect their new, smaller boundaries with measures such as the security wall, which I understand has been very effective in keeping suicide bombers out. By the way, would you happen to know where the U.S. could get one of those walls? One about, oh, seven hundred miles or so long? No special reason, just curious.


What about the planned withdrawal from the West Bank, from which rockets can hit Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel’s International Airport?


If you start a war and lose, you lose your land. Next.


Have you ever thought of running for elected office?


No, but if I did, I’d run for the U.S. Senate from New York. Those people will elect just about anybody!


Have you been threatened, physically or in any other way, for being so outspoken against liberals?


Frequently on college campuses – or as we call them, “America’s madrassas,” I’ve had food thrown at me and I’ve been cursed out in the foulest language imaginable.


Has the response to your new book been largely congratulatory or disparaging?


Overwhelmingly congratulatory.

None Dare Call It Treason

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003

Controversial pundit Ann Coulter’s best-selling book Treason has raised the ire of liberals, and not a few conservatives, who feel she wields too broad a brush in painting Americans on the left side of the political divide as unpatriotic – even, as the title implies, treasonous.

Coulter’s critics have a point, of course; her over-the-top generalizing makes it difficult if not impossible to take the book seriously (a far more judicious – and better-written – treatment of the subject is Mona Charen’s Useful Idiots). But whatever degree of sympathy one might feel for liberals traumatized by Ms. Coulter’s barbed prose dissipates rather quickly when one considers the way liberals have insisted on talking about the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the administration’s decision to go to war, or of approving or disapproving of how the U.S. is handling the rebuilding of Iraq. Rather, it’s the castigation of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft in language far stronger than many liberals ever employed against Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

It’s the shamelessly cheerful reception given any bit of news that seems to cast the slightest bit of doubt on anything the administration may have said or done in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.

It’s Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter, whose “Editor’s Letter” in front of the magazine has become a monthly shout-out to his fellow Bushphobes, trilling in the August issue that “The war in Iraq is not a minor scandal; it may well prove to be the biggest scandal in American politics in the last hundred years. And although the Bush administration may feel it has gotten away with its phony war up to now, deceit on this level always catches up to you.”

It’s Representative Richard Gephardt, one of the Nine Ninnies desperately seeking the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination (and whose ill-fated 1988 presidential run is best remembered for the disclosure that he dyed his eyebrows so that they’d show up better on television) bellowing nonsensically at a recent campaign appearance that “George Bush has left us less safe and less secure than we were four years ago.”

It’s Sen. Edward Kennedy, who, after a briefing in which the former chief UN weapons inspector who’s now heading the search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction said that ‘solid progress’ is being made in that search, vociferated to reporters that “It’s looking more and more like a case of mass deception.” (Kennedy, as the Wall Street Journal caustically noted, “was referring to Bush, not Saddam.”)

It’s all the liberal writers, artists, actors and activists whose reflexive Blame America First mentality, fully operative even after thousands of their countrymen were murdered on 9/11, has been amply documented.

It’s all the liberals and leftists (including Jane Fonda, Ed Asner, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kurt Vonnegut, Spike Lee, Art Spiegelman, Alice Walker and Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen) who signed the outrageous two-page ad placed in The New York Times by the organization Not In Our Name, an ad that is still up on the group’s website as its “statement of conscience” and which reads, in part: “…we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration….In our name, the Bush administration…not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and at any time. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction.”

It’s all the liberal and left-wing demonstrators who marched in all those mass rallies during the months leading up to the Iraq war and loudly denounced the leaders of their country as warmongers and war criminals even as they hoisted signs and banners proclaiming death to Israel and devotion to Palestinian terrorists.

It’s all the smug know-nothings on the Left who think that merely labeling George Bush an idiot somehow makes him one, just as they and their ideological forbears sought to cut off any semblance of debate by mocking the intellects of Eisenhower and Reagan, two presidents whose esteem among historians has only grown with the passage of time.

(The actor James Woods, one of the few Hollywood celebrities who openly refuse to follow the liberal party line, recounted on the liberal website Salon.com a conversation he had with a typical Tinseltown tinhead.

(“I sat with somebody who was once the president of a studio,” said Woods, “and we were having dinner and he said, “George Bush is an utter moron.” And I said, “Oh, on what do you base that assertion?” And he said, “Well, he’s just a moron.” And I said, “Can you give an example?” And he said, “Well, there’s a lot of examples.” And I said, “Well, I’m not asking you for 300, I’m asking you for one.” And he sputtered for about ten minutes and he couldn’t think of one…”)

All of which brings us to Pete Hamill, who in a recent Daily News column took palpable pleasure in rubbing readers’ faces in his admiration for France, precisely because that country had been so staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq.

Hamill’s fraternal feelings for the French, he informed us, have only been magnified by “the yahoo chorus of France-bashers, acting as if they speak for all Americans,” and he described in great detail how he looked forward to visiting Paris as “a way of saying yes to America, and no to the yahoos.”

Presumably, the Americans Hamill speaks for are those found on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and in such leftist university enclaves as Berkeley, Ann Arbor and Amherst. Hamill may have mellowed some over the years, but he has a long history of viewing his country through mud-covered glasses (all the while portraying himself as something of a throwback to the simple loyalties and right-wrong ethos of 1950′s Brooklyn).

In fact, back in 1968, immediately following the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy, Hamill wrote a column so mindlessly anti-American it’s worth citing thirty-five years later as a proof-text of how times and events may change, but not the unbecoming ease with which too many on the Left trash the nation they claim to love.

Describing the scene in the Los Angeles hotel where Kennedy was celebrating his victory in the California Democratic primary, Hamill introduces us to the assassin, one Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, like so: “Then a pimply messenger arrived from the secret filthy heart of America.”

Got that? A Palestinian who’d lived on the margins of American society since his arrival in the U.S. becomes, in the fever swamps of Hamill’s imagination, a stand-in for everything Hamill and his generation despised about America.

In case his readers missed his drift, Hamill elaborated a little further on in the column, his words dripping with scorn for his yahoo country men: “We knew then that America had struck again. In this slimy little indoor alley in the back of a gaudy ballroom, in this shabby reality behind the glittering facade, Americans were doing what they do best: killing and dying…”

Again, one can only marvel as a master of his craft turns reality on its head and transforms the act of an immigrant ne’er-do-well into an act of collective murder committed by an entire country.

But Hamill was hardly finished, hoarding his venom for an all-purpose, one-sided indictment of the purported sins of a country he obviously viewed with such disdain it’s a wonder he didn’t vamoose to Paris right then and there:

“Kennedy’s death,” he wrote, “would mean nothing. It was just another digit in the great historical pageant that includes the slaughter of Indians, the plundering of Mexico, the enslavement of black people, the humiliation of Puerto Ricans….While Kennedy’s life was ebbing out of him, Americans were dropping bombs and flaming jelly on Orientals.”

Oh, Hamill did make a perfunctory acknowledgment that “the kid I saw shoot Kennedy was from Jordan,” but, predictably, still assigned the real blame to America; after all, the gun was American and the city where the murder occurred was not only American but was run by a man – Sam Yorty – who, it happens, was despised by the Left of his day nearly as fiercely as George W. Bush is despised by the Left of ours.

Whether the year is 1968 or 2003, America apparently is just too tempting and convenient a whipping boy for our home-grown Left – our critical but patriotic Left, or so they tell us.

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/none-dare-call-it-treason/2003/09/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: