Trending Topics:

Coulter’s point is that Republicans pander on Israel to win donors, not voters

on 88 Comments

Everyone is talking about one thing today, anti-immigrant activist Ann Coulter’s outburst on twitter during the Republican debate last night about the Israel pandering by the candidates. Salon characterizes it as anti-Semitic, and John Podhoretz is also worked up about it– “Holy shit, Ann. Shame on you.” They refer to a hate-tweet about “fucking Jews,” though Coulter was raising a legitimate issue.

Her tweets began like this.

That’s a fair point, right. It happened again and again during the Iran debate. Politicians were asked about the U.S. and they talked about Israel. Then came this tweet, which is getting all the headlines. Salon calls it “gratuitously anti-semitic.”  

Leaving aside the invective, this is a fair question. The answer is 2.2 percent overall and even in states where Jewish voters are said to be crucial, New Jersey and Florida, the numbers are actually fairly low, at 5.9 percent and 3.3 percent. New Hampshire, .8 percent, Iowa .2 percent. The point is, The candidates are bending over backwards for Sheldon Adelson’s money, not for primary voters. That’s why Jeb Bush has tacked right on foreign policy and hired Paul Wolfowitz and thrown Jim Baker under the bus, to get money from the Republican Jewish Coalition. If they were doing this for the Koch Brothers, the media would be all over it. Remember that Adelson called for the U.S. to nuke Iran, and this man has power over the candidates!

Coulter’s next tweet:

Maybe she was being intellectually honest; there are a bunch of evangelical Christian Zionists out there. Then she said: 

Right, donors are pushing a warmongering neocon agenda in the Republican Party.

Coulter’s big offense was exclaiming about “fucking Jews” on twitter– in between anti-immigrant invective. The issue here is that the power of the Israel lobby derives from conservative Jewish wealth. There are many ways to counter this influence, including other Jews who are critical of Israel giving money; but sunlight is the best disinfectant. When an issue is suppressed, people are going to explode.

You’ll see on twitter that Coulter is tapping into a deep well of anti-Israel comments. Something like all the sharp comments on anodyne New York Times articles: people remarking on the Gaza slaughter and U.S. military support for Israel. This is what democratic discourse is all about: an informed public engaging on important questions, some of which have been suppressed. Former radical Bernie Sanders can’t even address Palestinian persecution. And just as the Israel lobby transcends party, the hate-on-Israel movement transcends party and will go wherever it can get oxygen.

One good result of this conversation will be more Jews condemning Sheldon Adelson and Norman Braman and the Republican Jewish Coalition moneybags for trying to have a war with Iran, more Jews declaring that they aren’t Zionists.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

88 Responses

  1. Whizdom on September 17, 2015, 10:37 am

    I am almost certain I recognized Dr. Miriam Adelson in attendance for the debate.

  2. Boomer on September 17, 2015, 10:39 am

    Yes. I’m not a big fan of hers, but clearly the comment wasn’t anti-semitic by any definition of the word I’d endorse. She was going after pandering politicians. The language used in public for emphasis today is different from what was considered acceptable years ago, but the more noteworthy change is the public acknowledgement of the pander to Israel. In that regard, also noteworthy was NPR’s explicit discussion of AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby this morning (without the “f” word).

  3. David Green on September 17, 2015, 11:27 am

    “The issue here is that the power of the Israel lobby derives from conservative Jewish wealth. ”

    That’s nonsense, Phil. The power of the Lobby has always derived just as much from “liberal wealth.”

    • philweiss on September 17, 2015, 12:10 pm

      Dont you mean liberal in quotes?

      • echinococcus on September 18, 2015, 1:28 am

        Mr Weiss,

        Liberals are increasingly (and correctly) defined just as the ones Annie mentions –not all rich, of course.

      • CigarGod on September 18, 2015, 10:04 am

        Good point…and a source for great discussion.
        1. The difference between a label and positions/actions.

        Most of us are completely unaware.

    • Krauss on September 17, 2015, 12:12 pm

      It was the “liberal” Bill Clinton who signed the “welfare reform” bill.
      It was the “liberal” Bill Clinton who signed the homophobic DOMA.
      It was you-know-who who saw the prison population explode.
      It was you-know-who who gutted the Glass-Steagall act.

      My subtle point is that labels can be very, very misleading.

      Especially when it comes to supporting Jewish apartheid or invading muslim-majority countries or just bashing muslims in general.

      Who is a “liberal” and who is a “conservative” starts to blur real fast.

      • annie on September 17, 2015, 2:34 pm

        even alan dershowitz calls himself a liberal. heck, neoliberals call themselves liberals. it’s an intended blurring.

      • RoHa on September 17, 2015, 7:17 pm

        Annie, I thought “liberal” was a dirty word in the US.

        (Along with “geography” and “grammar”.)

      • annie on September 17, 2015, 7:25 pm

        muddied is not the same as dirty, although they may appear the same.

      • echinococcus on September 18, 2015, 1:30 am


        I thought “liberal” was a dirty word in the US

        No longer. Now it’s a dirty character.

      • Kathleen on September 18, 2015, 10:59 am

        It was the conservative and the so called “liberal” media that went along with repeating the Bush administration’s “pack of lies” leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It has been so called “liberal” Reps who have gone along with anti Palestinian legislation for decades.

        It has been the so called “liberal” NPR that has blurred the facts about occupation for decades. It is the so called “liberal” Terri Gross who will have Max Blumenthal on to talk about his book exposing and pounding the Republican party but the same “liberal” Terri Gross will not have Max on to talk about his latest book reporting about the Gaza massacre.

    • JLewisDickerson on September 17, 2015, 3:05 pm

      “Compassionate Conservatism: a Reconsideration and an Appreciation” /
      by Andrew Levine / / September 4, 2015

      [EXCERPTS] . . . Political philosophers and intellectual historians have their own take on “liberalism.”

      For them, “liberalism” is a political ideology that took shape in Western Europe and on the British Isles in the early modern period, and that came into its own there and in North America by the late eighteenth century. . .

      . . . Liberals think that there are principled limitations to the rightful use of state power; or, what comes to the same thing, that there are areas of individuals’ lives and behaviors that ought to be immune from (coercive) state interference.

      In time, influential liberal thinkers extended this principle to societal interferences as well.

      Because, of all the political values they uphold, liberals accord pride of place to individual liberty, freedom from coercive restraint, they seek to protect individuals not only from the state, but also from what the great nineteenth century liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill called “the moral coercion of public opinion.”

      Another way to say more or less the same thing, that takes account of liberalism’s rise as a philosophy of tolerance that emerged in reaction to the wars of religion that devastated early modern Europe after the Protestant Reformation, would be to say that, in the liberal view, the political regime and the social order it superintends should be neutral with respect to competing “conceptions of the good,” or at least between conceptions that are in any way controversial. Religious convictions are conceptions of the good in this sense, though hardly the only kind.

      The first liberals were at least as interested in economic liberties – in what the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called “freedom to engage in capitalist acts among consenting adults” — as in tolerance and the social and political liberties that sustain it.

      Libertarians, “classical liberals,” still are. They also still think that economic and political liberties comprise a seamless whole. Mainstream liberals nowadays disentangle economic liberties from the rest.

      The realization that capitalist acts can, and normally do, make most people less, not more, socially and politically free is an important reason why.

      In recent decades, liberals have held various views about the moral and political virtues and shortcomings of free markets and private property. But the debates they have engaged in are almost entirely academic; hardly anyone in public life cares. When politicians make philosophical arguments, nine times out of ten it is only to advance the pecuniary and political interests of the capitalists they serve. . .

      . . . Neoliberalism is classical liberalism adapted to the needs of late twentieth and early twenty-first century capitalists.

      In our time and place, those capitalists are on the offensive, while everyone else is quiescent or in retreat. One consequence is that many of the social and political advances of earlier decades are in jeopardy or are already becoming undone.

      Although neoliberalism came to the fore in the United States, the UK and former white dominions of the British Empire, and although the United States has been its global enforcer from Day One, people in the English-speaking world – especially in the United States — have only lately taken to using the word.

      Perhaps this is because in political, not philosophical, contexts, “liberal” has a different meaning in America than nearly everywhere else.

      This gives rise to certain ironies. What people at the left end of the mainstream spectrum, liberals in the American sense, want to preserve and expand is what neoliberal public policies work against.

      Welfare state institutions are at the top of the list.

      Those institutions are defensible from genuinely conservative points of view; indeed, they have a long and complicated, but generally supportive relation, with conservative political philosophy, as I will go on to explain. Nevertheless, the people we Americans call “conservatives,” the people on the right end of the spectrum, want to do them in.

      This strangeness of this situation – which is plainly more than just linguistic – was easily overlooked when Americans didn’t yet acknowledge the deep affinities joining self-described conservative policies to liberal philosophical objectives.

      But now that “neoliberal” has entered into the American vocabulary, the strangeness can no longer be ignored.

      There are many reasons why “liberal” has come to mean what it does in the United States.

      Part of the explanation has to do with the situation that got people talking about “American exceptionalism” in the first place – the comparative weakness, already evident a century ago, of the socialist movement in the United States.

      Unlike elsewhere, progressive politics in America never broke free from a party system that took shape before industrialization set in; and it never quite accommodated to the rise of a self-conscious working class.

      To be sure, socialism was finally on the rise in the United States in the years immediately preceding America’s entry into World War I; but it was too late. By then, progressives, even full-fledged socialists, were used to calling themselves “liberals,” and to having others think of them in those terms too.

      The comparative weakness or tardiness of American socialism is not the main reason why. The exceptional nomenclature has more to do, instead, with the nature of liberal theory and practice in nineteenth and early twentieth century America.

      Liberalism in America has always been about more than just free markets and private property. Securing political and social rights had been its main focus from the beginning, and from very early on, there were strains of liberal theory and practice that underwrote the movement to abolish slavery.

      When the North’s victory in the Civil War finally settled the slavery question, the connections continued – politically, culturally and philosophically. By the second half of the nineteenth century, nearly all strains of American philosophical thought were profoundly liberal in both spirit and substance.

      This exceptional situation went on for a long time; long enough for American liberal theory and practice to change enough to be able to accommodate political currents and popular aspirations very different from the ones that had given rise to liberalism centuries before.

      It was different elsewhere, especially in continental Europe. There, progressive politics took shape in ways that earlier liberal traditions could not absorb.

      This is why what took a socialist or social democratic form elsewhere took a liberal form here. The differences are not insignificant, but the affinities are plain. . .


  4. Whizdom on September 17, 2015, 11:29 am

    It isn’t about the number of the Judahs, it is about the Benjamins

    • Marnie on September 17, 2015, 1:14 pm

      Damn straight Whizdom, always about the Benjamins.

  5. Scott on September 17, 2015, 11:40 am

    Go Ann! She’s the most popular right-winger since Buchanan to raise this issue (though less prominent than he once was). There will be a big effort to marginalize her too, but I think–in age of social media and blogs–it will be more difficult. I doubt she cares whether or not there is a Palestinian state (Pat actually does) but she is aware the neocon double standard of an ethnostate for Israel and open borders everywhere else.

    • Krauss on September 17, 2015, 12:07 pm

      I view Coulter as a Republican Firster. Not a white nationalist, per se, but she has de facto become a white nationalist because she understands a fundamental truth: demography matters.

      And the right has been in a submissive and subservient position on this for a long time. She understands that America is about to become California. In fact, it’s probably already mathematically impossible for a GOP candidate to win the WH:

      So she has become something of a white nationalist because she understands these issues and she gets that the Republicans can only really win with a large white majority population. The problem is that she understood this way too late in the game, but obviousy she understood it before most other people in the GOP establishment(what does this say about the average intelligence of the typical GOP hack?)

      She (correctly) assumes that the GOP is never going to be able to match their white base with the non-white urban crowd that is growing by the day.
      The reality is that assimilation in America doesn’t happen in any meaningful sense anymore. People don’t “assimiliate” into middle America, we’re talking about two islands, drifting apart.

      And in this moment when reality is so obvious to her, she becomes hypersensitized to fundamental truths in American politics; like pandering to (rich) Jewish donors.

      I mean Sheldon Adelson is pro-amnesty, but is also pro-Jewish only immigration in Israel. This is the hypocrisy which probably gets under her skin.

    • diasp0ra on September 17, 2015, 1:21 pm

      Really? Go Ann?

      We’re cheering for bigots now?

      The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if that enemy is also a raging racist who spews hatred every day.

    • ckg on September 17, 2015, 8:28 pm

      I strongly suspect all of the staff snd most of commenters on Mondoweiss loathe both Coulter and Buchanan. I certainly do.

      • echinococcus on September 18, 2015, 1:19 am

        You may be right, but the point of meeting others on MW is to try and see what can be done about helping the resistance in Palestine. [An unexpressed aim could be to first and foremost feel good about an infinitesimal fraction of the population, saving the good name of the tribe, but it is not shared by all.] What we all may agree, except the Zionist propaganda conduits, is that any politician’s attitude before Zionism international law is the criterion on this site.
        Given this, I cannot see why we should tend to loathe Buchanan, who has expressed himself forcefully against war and also against the invasion, expulsion and repression of Palestinians. I observe that he continues to call for the scrupulous observance of international law, in stark contrast to both Republicans and Democrats. So Buchanan, as opposed to both main US parties, is an ally.
        Not familiar with Coulter’s stand re Palestine but I suspect it would be strongly pro-Zionist.

      • ckg on September 18, 2015, 9:10 pm

        Buchanan is indeed a critic of Israel.. But so is David Duke. I loathe him too.

  6. Kay24 on September 17, 2015, 11:54 am

    This is a strange situation, but I find myself agreeing to what Coulter said (but not the way she said it).

    Of course it is ridiculous considering the minuscule population of American Jews, that these politicians must publicly avow their love, support, protection, and priority first, for Israel.
    EVEN MORE THAN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Did they mention any other ally this way? No.

    The last debate was the same. Every time I heard them look into the camera and mention Israel it was a cry for campaign donations and support. Unfortunately, in our nation no politician can win his election without the zionist media, Israeli lobbies, and the shekels. Time for our politicians did the right thing by the American people, and refused to take any contribution from an alien nation.

    • Citizen on September 18, 2015, 7:46 am

      Me too. Coulter asked the question somebody on the CNN panel should have asked, given how Israel was so often brought in by name by so many candidates: “Why Israel?” Actually Chris Matthews repeatedly asserted right after the GOP debate that some of the candidates like Rubio were making direct appeals to the Adelson type moneybag donors.

  7. doug on September 17, 2015, 11:55 am

    Wow! I wonder what Cathy Seipp would have said to this? They were pretty close back in the day. Coulter doesn’t leave many bridges standing.

  8. pabelmont on September 17, 2015, 12:09 pm

    Yes, anti-Israel and anti-war and anti-big-money are new themes among the American electorate (sometimes even also among the talking-heads and twittering-heads ). But not among politicians. And as for pro-Palestine (.eq. anti-Israel) not even from Bernie Sanders who tells us he doesn’t need contributions from big-money but is still a prisoner of Zion. Some habits are hard to break for pols long-in-the-business.

    As to Bernie (the best among an unattractive list), see this comparison with UK Labour’s Corbyn:

    • ckg on September 17, 2015, 1:53 pm

      Thanks for the link, pabelmont. Stephen Lendman criticizes Sanders for saying nothing during his Liberty University speech about decades of Israeli persecution of Palestinians. But Sanders rarely speaks of the I/P conflict unless pressed to do so. Like Elizabeth Warren he’s almost completely focused on domestic economic issues. I thought it refreshing that Sanders did not use the speech at this extremely Zionist university to bring up Israel. He must have known that Ted Cruz received his loudest cheers during his own LU speech earlier this summer by mentioning Israel. Sanders passed up that opportunity. (Please don’t interpret this paragraph as an endorsement of Sanders. I haven’t ruled out supporting Chafee, O’Malley or Stein.)

    • HarryLaw on September 17, 2015, 1:59 pm

      Thanks for the link pabelmont, Stephen Lendman’s blog is my first port of call, I always thought as people get older, they mellow, Stephen does not, and quite rightly is an angry senior citizen, [or should I say middle aged] rather like you and I. He pulls no punches and tells it like it is. I wish I had his stamina.

    • Danaa on September 17, 2015, 3:00 pm

      Sanders has been super careful to say next to nothing about foreign policy in general. You can’t pin him down on Syria, on Ukraine, on Russia or China. He does everything he can, short of dropping the microphone to avoid these topics.

      AS a politician, and given his crowd, I must say that’s a smart move. All these foreign policy topics – each and every one of them, I/P not the least but not even the most – is likely to split his progressive audience like a knife. Sanders probably figures that the longer he can go without dropping into any of the foreign policy traps, the better for his standing and the more likely he is to keep his momentum, as well as an image of being “above’ the fray.

      The reason i say this is smart is not because I buy into the platitudes sanders manages to conjure when confronted. I say it because i know very well – as do most people here – just how divisive something like Syria is, for exampe. WE have had threads going into the 100’s just on this issue, and it’s not hard to see the reasons why (or, not hard for me, at least, even if the reasons I may come with are not popular or proper to say in polite society). Then we have the question of the migrant explosion in Europe and the relentless bombing going on in Yemen. Can anyone make a public pronouncement on these topics that is not vanilla?

      The main problem for any politician to tackle the foreign policy issues, IMO, is simple – no matter where they stand on anything, they are still citizens of the Empire. To be too critical is to question the Empire, and that even before we get to something real tricky like the I/P question. Ron paul did just that – as does buchanan – and look how carefully they shunned him – both right and left. Ultimately, it is of course not possible to be a real progressive while supporting the projection of power that an Empire does. So even as the republicans can march in lock step with the most hawkish positions (more bombs! more boots!) a progressive candidate will have a serious issue. I suspect that ultimately, this is the shore on which sanders’ candidacy will break.

      Alas, in the US, I don’t think we are ready for someone like Corbyn.

    • Keith on September 17, 2015, 5:21 pm

      PABELMONT- “As to Bernie (the best among an unattractive list)….”

      I take it that your list does not include any Third Party candidates?

  9. Kay24 on September 17, 2015, 12:51 pm

    I wonder if anyone heard Fiorina call Bibi “my friend Benjamin Netanyahu”? Wow! Shameless name dropping. It seems those who want to become President in this country must become the good friend of one of the world’s notorious human rights violators, from a “democratic” country.

  10. kalithea on September 17, 2015, 1:33 pm

    I just want to inject Jeb Bush’s so-called big moment at the debate last night to demonstrate how false his reply to Trump was, and the ignorant panderers to Israel they both are. Jeb’s brother GW did not keep America safe; 9-11 happened on his watch! And there a two major factors that contributed to 9-11.

    – The first was his and Cheney’s hypocritical, biased support for Israel’s severe oppression of the Palestinians and the huge settlement expansion emerging at the time in Israel.

    Here are two quotes from Bin Laden’s fatwas:

    The aim [of the United States] is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

    The expansion of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.

    The second reason Bush didn’t keep America safe is his administration’s gross incompetence in dismissing the red flags, or warning signs prior to 9-11.

    So what does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that Jeb Bush is a LIAR and Trump panders to Israel like everyone else, because had Trump been the smart cookie he prolifically boasts and professes to be, he would have replied to Jeb’s sassy retort: No, he didn’t keep us safe; 9-11 happened on your brother’s watch because his administration continued to pander heavily to Israel completely ignoring a big push in settlement expansion and its treatment of the Palestinians both of which incite terrorism and completely ignoring the warning signs before 9-11. That would have been the truthful, intelligent response!

    Trump was right about one thing though: Obama got in thanks to Bush who was undoubtedly the worst president in U.S. history. And Jeb’s false statement will never erase the latter fact from people’s minds.

    • Kay24 on September 17, 2015, 2:14 pm

      Jeb belongs to the same group that pushed for the Iraq war. He may appear quieter than others, but he has surrounded himself with the same neocons as foreign policy advisors, including his brother GW Bush. Jeb is also one of the signatories of PNAC. A dangerous group of pro Israeli neocons, mostly Republicans, the same war criminals who lied to us and pushed this nation into wars that we never seem to recover from. The man from the dark side, Cheney, is also one of the signatories:

      Elliott Abrams[5]
      Gary Bauer[5]
      William J. Bennett[5]
      John Ellis “Jeb” Bush[5]
      Dick Cheney[5]
      Eliot A. Cohen[5]
      Midge Decter[5]
      Paula Dobriansky[5]
      Steve Forbes[5]
      Aaron Friedberg[5]
      Francis Fukuyama[5]
      Frank Gaffney[5]
      Fred C. Ikle[5]
      Donald Kagan[5]
      Zalmay Khalilzad[5]
      I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby[5]
      Norman Podhoretz[5]
      J. Danforth Quayle[5]
      Peter W. Rodman[5]
      Stephen P. Rosen[5]
      Henry S. Rowen[5]
      Donald Rumsfeld[5]
      Vin Weber[5]
      George Weigel[5]
      Paul Wolfowitz[5]

      This should frighten any American.

      • Citizen on September 18, 2015, 7:52 am

        It sure does.

    • Chu on September 17, 2015, 3:12 pm

      Jeb was reaching with that response. Everyone knows GW was a moron
      before and after 9-11. At least he’s retired and began safer activities like
      water colouring

      Remember his Texas amigo, DC Press Speaker Scott McClellan, accused
      GW of self deception. And McClellan was the mouthpiece of the White House at the time. He couldn’t say lied, because he’d likely be implicated in the racket.

  11. Chu on September 17, 2015, 3:00 pm

    They may be about 2% but in previous election cycles, per Washington Post, they have contributed up to 60% of the election money.
    [“Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources.”]

    Thanks why sycophants like Huckabee and stooges Cruz/Rubio bend over backwards for them. Rubio’s like a horse in a race for a Maimi Jewish Billionaire, While Cruz is another horse for a separate Jewish billionaire. Both are in large measure pre-programmed stooges for a foreign national interest. No wonder Trump is soaring in the polls, as the electorate sees what low-life bottom feeders make it to the stage.

    • JWalters on September 17, 2015, 8:48 pm

      Well put. They’re all fingers on Israel’s hands.

      • Kay24 on September 18, 2015, 9:29 am

        Unfortunately because of that Israel keeps giving us the proverbial finger, when it comes to Illegal settlements, and trying to own all of Jerusalem.

  12. JLewisDickerson on September 17, 2015, 3:48 pm

    RE: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” ~ Coulter

    MY COMMENT: Although I think I understand (and might agree with) the point Coulter was trying to make (in 140 characters or less), it is absolutely inexcusable for her to use something like “f—ing Jews” in doing so. Personally, I consider it highly offensive!
    As far as I’m concerned, it constitutes anti-Semitisn per se! ! !

    • Walker on September 17, 2015, 4:01 pm

      JLD, I appreciate your point. However, look at this another way.

      Christians are probably 2% of the population in Israel. If a plurality of the big donors in Israel were Christian, and Israeli candidates pandered to them the way that US candidates pander to Israel, you’d see plenty of Israeli references to “f–ing Christians” on social media .

      • JLewisDickerson on September 17, 2015, 8:03 pm

        RE: you’d see plenty of Israeli references to “f–ing Christians” – Walker

        MY REPLY: Yes, and that’s offensive too. As is “f–ing Arabs” and/or “f–ing Muslims”.
        But “f–ing this-and-that” doesn’t excuse “f–ing such-and-such”.

      • Citizen on September 18, 2015, 7:55 am

        Coulter said hers were two comments in succession and she meant them to be read together. Context, considering the character limit on a single tweet.

      • JLewisDickerson on September 19, 2015, 6:05 pm

        RE: “Coulter said hers were two comments in succession and she meant them to be read together. Context, considering the character limit on a single tweet.” ~ Citizen

        MY REPLY: That is one of the reasons I often like to say “Twitter is the devil’s workshop”!

        T.S. ELIOT:
        . . . Here is a place of disaffection
        Time before and time after
        In a dim light: neither daylight
        Investing form with lucid stillness
        Turning shadow into transient beauty
        Wtih slow rotation suggesting permanence
        Nor darkness to purify the soul
        Emptying the sensual with deprivation
        Cleansing affection from the temporal.
        Neither plentitude nor vacancy. Only a flicker
        Over the strained time-ridden faces
        Distracted from distraction by distraction
        Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
        Tumid apathy with no concentration
        Men and bits of paper, whirled by the cold wind
        That blows before and after time,
        Wind in and out of unwholesome lungs
        Time before and time after.
        Eructation of unhealthy souls
        Into the faded air, the torpid
        Driven on the wind that sweeps the gloomy hills of London,
        Hampstead and Clerkenwell, Campden and Putney,
        Highgate, Primrose and Ludgate. Not here
        Not here the darkness, in this twittering world.

        Descend lower, descend only
        Into the world of perpetual solitude,
        World not world, but that which is not world,
        Internal darkness, deprivation
        And destitution of all property,
        Dessication of the world of sense,
        Evacuation of the world of fancy,
        Inoperancy of the world of spirit;
        This is the one way, and the other
        Is the same, not in movement
        But abstention from movememnt; while the world moves
        In appetency, on its metalled ways
        Of time past and time future. . .
        SOURCE –

    • oldgeezer on September 17, 2015, 4:29 pm


      Well said and I agree totally.


      I don’t doubt you are right but the violent and pervasive racism in Israel neither makes it something we should emulate nor something we should overlook, or excuse, in our own countries when it occurs.

    • mariapalestina on September 17, 2015, 6:14 pm

      I have a feeling if she’d made the same comment without the expletive she would have come under just as much criticism.

      • Citizen on September 18, 2015, 7:57 am

        I agree, the expletive was counter productive, although, watching that repetitive aspect of the debate for 3 hours, emotionally understandable.

    • JLewisDickerson on September 17, 2015, 7:54 pm

      RE: “anti-Semitisn per se! ! !” – me (above)

      CORRECTION: Of course, I meant anti-Semitisnm per se!
      I just wish things (like my brain, fingers and Grammarly) would work properly.
      But to be fair to Grammarly, I probably had too many tabs open for it to detect the typo.

    • Keith on September 18, 2015, 10:39 am

      JLEWISDICKERSON- “As far as I’m concerned, it constitutes anti-Semitisn per se! ! !”

      Does this one quote indicate Jew hatred? If not, how is it anti-Semitic?

      • CigarGod on September 18, 2015, 11:44 am

        How many [email protected]#&ing Catholics do they think are in…?
        How many @$#ŕing Yanks do they…?
        How……boy scouts…?

        Nope, just a disgusting potty mouth…making a good point.

      • JLewisDickerson on September 18, 2015, 4:11 pm

        RE: “Does this one quote indicate Jew hatred? If not, how is it anti-Semitic?” ~ Keith

        MY COMMENT: It is anti-Semitic because it demeans Jews as a group (in a very crude, vile way). It promotes hatred of Jews.

      • Keith on September 18, 2015, 5:05 pm

        JLEWIS DICKERSON- “It is anti-Semitic because it demeans Jews as a group (in a very crude, vile way). It promotes hatred of Jews.”

        Do you see it as more offensive than Victoria Nuland’s comment to fuck the EU? Is Nuland promoting hatred of Europeans?

      • JLewisDickerson on September 18, 2015, 5:09 pm

        P.S. THIS is more a matter of being a “disgusting potty mouth”.

      • Keith on September 18, 2015, 6:04 pm

        JLEWISDICKERSON- “P.S. THIS is more a matter of being a “disgusting potty mouth”.

        Help me out, JLD, I am trying to figure out when something demeans a group in a vile way and promotes hatred versus relatively innocuous potty mouth. Had she said fuck the Germans, would that still have been relatively harmless potty mouth? How about if she accused Gentiles of eternal and irrational anti-Semitism?

      • Mooser on September 18, 2015, 6:22 pm

        Don’t look at me, “Keith”. I’ve said all along that when the I-P issues are popularly discussed in the US, they will be discussed like any other issue is discussed. Or Tweeted about. And it will be a real shock to Zionists. To many anti-zionists, too.

      • JLewisDickerson on September 18, 2015, 9:05 pm

        And, as far as I am concerned, a person who says or writes things like “those Black bastards” is a racist! ! !

      • CigarGod on September 19, 2015, 3:56 am

        That isn’t even comparing apples to oranges, man.

      • JLewisDickerson on September 18, 2015, 9:14 pm

        RE: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” ~ Coulter

        HERZL: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”*

        * Source – “The Last of the Semites” / by Joseph Massad / 21 May 2013

        P.S. John Podhoretz’s reply to Massad’s article

      • Keith on September 19, 2015, 1:15 am

        JLEWIS DICKERSON- “And, as far as I am concerned, a person who says or writes things like “those Black bastards” is a racist! ! !

        Yes, but she didn’t say “those Jew bastards,” did she? And the relevance of the Herzl quote? Don’t misunderstand, I am not defending Coulter, a right wing jerk, I am trying to get at the source of your umbrage over “fucking Jews” versus “fucking EU” versus “fucking whatever.” All are uncouth, yet you seem to zero in on “fucking Jews,” without any clear explanation of why the use of the word “fucking” in relation to Jews, and apparently Jews alone, vexes you so. I am still unclear of what your definition/perception of anti-Semitism is. And your comment about “those Black bastards” is nothing but a diversion from the topic under discussion. If you don’t want to intelligently discuss this issue, fine. Just say so. But enough of the bullshit.

      • annie on September 19, 2015, 4:39 am

        i think the use of the word f’king (in this circumstance) was more towards the topic than jews per se. ie; if a guy from wyoming or montana was bitching about illegal immigration (mexican/hispanic, because we know they could care less about canadian) i might say to him ‘how many f’king illegal immigrants are even in f’king montana (the answer btw is next to nada)?

        so is that racist, or an expression of exasperation w/his f’king political perceptions? and does it mean i don’t like illegal immigrants, montana or his political perceptions?

      • CigarGod on September 19, 2015, 9:23 am

        Perfectly stated, Annie.
        That is how this Wyoming guy see’s it.

        Last year a Dutch friend was in town and we discussed this topic. We decided to use each other to explore it. We decided “Dirty fucking Jew” and “Dirty Fucking Wooden shoe” were both racist slurs…unless I was actually talking about his shoe.

      • oldgeezer on September 19, 2015, 8:21 am

        Anne Coulter may well be pro Israel, and pro Zionist, but as Hagee demonstrates this does not mean she is not an antisemite. Right now it’s quite possible only she, and/or a few close associates know her actual feelings and position.

        That said I’ll stick with my opinion that her statement is antisemitism per se.

        The statement was made against an entire minority grouping. It was in no way qualified to indicate just donors or rich donors or some specific small group of select people. Not that I’m entirely convinced that would make it better.

        I don’t think it would be natural speech to refer to f’ing illegal immigrants unless you were responding to someone who referred to them in the same way. Tossing out the grammatical rules I think the more natural tendency, if you were inclined to swear, would be to say something along the lines of ‘how f’ing many illegal immigrants do you think..”, or “how many illegal immigrants do you f’ing think there are?”

        To refer to Jewish people as f’ing Jews is antisemitism per se and, yes, it contributes to antisemitism (or reinforces it) amongst those who think of all Jews as f’ing Jews or who harbour some degree of dislike or hatred towards the group.

        Perhaps I would feel differently if speech patterns I’m used to were different than they are.

        For me there is only one way to interpret f’ing Jews and while it doesn’t prove she is an antisemite the statement itself is antisemitic.

        ymmv and all that.

      • CigarGod on September 19, 2015, 9:38 am

        I disagree.
        The way people in my life use that structure, is to divide it thus: How many fing/Jews do they think there are?

        It is the same thing as saying: G-damn it man, how many Jews do they think there are?

        That said…Those fing Jews at aipac really piss me off…while at the same time, I fing love those Jews over at MW.

      • Mooser on September 19, 2015, 2:58 pm

        “so is that racist, or an expression of exasperation w/his f’king political perceptions?”

        Or, more likely, an adjective the charming Ms. Coulter uses to precede almost anything.

      • JLewisDickerson on September 19, 2015, 5:34 pm

        As far as I’m concerned, given the history of U.S./UK/European anti-Semitism, “f—ing Jews” is pretty much the equivalent of “k-kes”.
        Likewise, given the history of U.S./UK/European racism/colonialism, “f—ing Blacks” is pretty much the equivalent of “ni–ers”.
        Similarly, given the current omnipresence of U.S./UK/European Islamophobia, “f—ing Muslims” is pretty much the equivalent of “sand ni–ers”.
        Personally, I loathe Victoria “F–k the EU” Nuland, but there is no history of persecution of Europeans (or “the EU”), so “F–k the EU” is similar to “F–k the banks”, “F–k Big Pharma”, “F–k the Chamber of Commerce” or “F–k the GOP” (something I confess to frequently thinking to myself).
        I loathe Victoria Nuland because I don’t think she really cares how many Ukrainians die as a consequence of the coup she engineered in order to make Ukraine part of the US’s empire.
        Also, I don’t think she has any regrets about having greatly empowered Ukraine’s neo-Nazis in the process.
        Frankly, I don’t feel much differently about her mentor, Hillary Clinton.
        Lastly, Ann Coulter (like John Hagee and his ilk) is an excellent example of Herzl’s prediction that the anti-Semites would become Zionism’s most dependable friends.
        Likewise, Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of Herzl’s prediction that the anti-Semitic countries would become Zionism’s allies.

        HERZL: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”*

        * Source – “The Last of the Semites” / by Joseph Massad / 21 May 2013

        P.S. John Podhoretz’s reply to Massad’s article
        P.P.S. THE BOOK OF JOHN:

        • 1940: John Hagee is born in Goose Creek, Texas, to pastor parents.
        • 1958: Hagee preaches for the first time, at his father’s Houston church.
        • 1960: Hagee marries his first wife, Martha.
        1975: Hagee divorces Martha and leaves his ministry, amid hints of infidelity[*]. He quickly begins a new ministry at Trinity Church.
        • 1976: Hagee marries Diana Castro.

        • 1978: Hagee and Diana make their first trip to Israel. He also launches Global Evangelism Television.
        • 1981: Hagee hosts the first “Night to Honor Israel”
        • 1987: Hagee dedicates new Cornerstone Church.
        • 1996: He draws fire from African Americans for his “go home with a slave” promotion to raise money for high-school students.
        • 2005: Hagee blames the sinfulness of New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina.
        • 2006: Hagee helps to create Christians United for Israel.
        • 2008: He endorses John McCain for president. McCain later rejects the endorsement.

        SOURCE –

        * Some “pastors” like to dip their “pens” in the congregational “ink”! ! !

        “Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car salesman.”
        SOURCE –

        P.P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “John Hagee’s Controversial Gospel”, by Sarah Posner,, 12 March 2008
        An excerpt from Sarah Posner’s book, God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters.
        LINK –

  13. joer on September 17, 2015, 4:03 pm

    This incident is representative of a fracture in the American right wing that goes deeper than ordinary election year rhetoric. I guess it could roughly be called Christian nationalism vs. Corporate bullyism. It’s tempting to cheer on one side or another if a few words here or there happen to coincide with an issue we care about. But in reality, we don’t have a dog in this particular fight. Things will not go any easier for Palestinians if Coulter gains any more influence. The only relevance or this quarrel to people who care about peace and justice is if the Left can take advantage of the Right wing in-fighting and push through some real world changes…unfortunately, I don’t really see that happen because the Left itself is unfocused. For instance, is Black Lives Matter about instituting a more humane type of policing(body cams, etc.), or is it about sharing true power, wealth and opportunities that have been denied minorities in our country too long? Similarly, is BDS about instituting a more humane type of occupation and changing the location of a fence here or there, or is it about the right of return and full and equal rights-including long denied property rights-for Palestinians in Palestine?

  14. Les on September 17, 2015, 4:21 pm

    “How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war ”

    When did Coulter become anti-war?

    • Scott on September 17, 2015, 10:18 pm

      When was she pro-war? Like a lot conservatives who are conservative for other reasons, she went along with her party’s consensus without much enthusiasm, but without the courage (or possibly conviction) to dissent. I can name several others. Those that did paid a professional price.

      • Mooser on September 18, 2015, 6:25 pm

        When was she pro-war”

        You are kidding, right, Scott? Miss Ann Coulter:

        We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

        Need more? There’s plenty.

      • Scott on September 18, 2015, 10:49 pm

        @Mooser, I stand corrected, I had forgotten about that. She goes for the hyperbolic to such an extreme that it’s difficult to discern what she cares about and what not. My rough sense is that she really does now care about immigration, and the other issues are fluff (and she probably right now doesn’t want to start any wars) but there is no way to rationally argue that based on the record. So. . .

      • Mooser on September 19, 2015, 11:25 am

        “@Mooser, I stand corrected, I had forgotten about that.”

        Yeah, sure. Forgotten Ann Coulter is pro-war. After all, she was so subtle about it, you would hardly know, unless you looked at the first friggin things which come up when you Google her.

        “My rough sense is that she really does now care about immigration”

        My conclusion is that she trades in Islamophobia, and any other prejudice she can turn a dime off of.

      • Scott on September 19, 2015, 5:32 pm

        @Mooser Yeah, sure. Forgotten Ann Coulter is pro-war. After all, she was so subtle about it, you would hardly know, unless you looked at the first friggin things which come up when you Google her.

        Actually Mooser, I didn’t google her. My sense of her comes from once knowing her a bit, and coming roughly from the same class/social/ethnic milieu. Ie, I know where she’s coming from.
        Agree that she is racist and xenophobic, which puts in her line with most of humanity. I actually think it would be a good thing if “racist” and “xenophobic” WASPs stopped pandering to Netanyahu, even if their motives are not as pure as everyone else on this site.

      • RoHa on September 19, 2015, 7:23 pm

        “friggin things”

        Mooser, I hope that is an expression of exasperation, and not anti-Reist bigotry.

      • Mooser on September 19, 2015, 8:36 pm

        “Mooser, I hope that is an expression of exasperation, and not anti-Reist bigotry.”

        Perhaps it is an expression of subconscious anti-Reist bigotry. But I hope not. It was not my intention to say anything bad about Reists.
        (what’s a Reist?) Anyway, I apologize to all Reists. What’s a reist, Roha?

      • RoHa on September 19, 2015, 10:01 pm

        Anti-Reism is hostility to or prejudice against things.

      • RoHa on September 19, 2015, 11:15 pm

        Unless, of course, you are a philosopher. (And if you aren’t, you should be.) in that case, anti-Reism is disagreement with Reism.

      • CigarGod on September 20, 2015, 9:01 am


  15. Les on September 17, 2015, 7:29 pm

    ‘The only one to call out Zionists’: Ann Coulter’s ‘f—ing Jews’ rant sparks ugly Twitter defense

    • ritzl on September 17, 2015, 9:04 pm

      One of the tweets cited as an example of “ugly” in that article:

      ●#IStandWithAnn because if Israel can build a wall, accept no refugees, and deport immigrants, so can the USA and Europe.●

      Seems like a completely legitimate observation to me. Though the tweep meant it to justify exclusion by using Israel as a model of exclusion, it can equally be used, without changing a word, to point out that there are no shared values.

      It’s interesting that the US right and left [accurately] see the same things in Israel. I wonder what that means politically here.

  16. stopaipac on September 18, 2015, 12:01 am

    I think you got it wrong, Phil. it is just the opposite. Coulter supports the Republican Party pandering to the wealthy. She is also xenophobic racist. To say this would be helpful in any way is really sickening. downright *uckin’ idiocy. Palestinians need Fascist pigs like Coulter like they need Israel to get another Cat’.

  17. wondering jew on September 18, 2015, 2:35 am

    Ann Coulter. Sing her praises at your own peril.

  18. Neil Schipper on September 18, 2015, 4:38 am

    “Anyone with a pulse knows I am pro-Israel and against the enemies of the Jewish people. I have a whole chapter in my current book praising Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s the people attacking me who couldn’t care less about Israel or Jews,” she said.

    “The hypocrites who are mad at me are the ones who support anti-Israel college professors, who refuse to condemn Islamic barbarism, who supported the overthrow of Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, who spread the deadly libel that Jews in America are only successful because of ‘white privilege.’

    “There has been a huge spike in anti-Semitism across Europe due to the massive influx of Muslim immigrants. The same people in a faux uproar about my tweets are also leading the charge to import Muslims into the USA. Half a million girls in the U.S. are now at risk for female genital mutilation. I doubt their dads are voting for pro-Israel politics. I’m the one who just wrote a book about these problems.”

    Ann Coulter Calls Fury Over Jewish Debate Tweet “Fake Outrage”: “I’m Pro-Israel” – Hollywood Reporter

  19. Abuadam on September 18, 2015, 8:01 am

    A White Supremacist Christian Zionist finally gags while sucking on Israel’s donkey.

  20. Kay24 on September 18, 2015, 9:44 am

    As expected, the reaction from the zionist supporters are that she is “anti semitic”, thereby taking the focus out of what has been said about American politicians running to be President, showing (sickening) love for Israel during early debates. It is always about Israel, but the American people are supposed to focus on the fact that it is “anti semitic”. This is is usual method of trying to deflect from the truth, which usually hasbara does on the web. The easiest way of taking the attention from what has been said, is to attack the way it was said.

  21. RobertHenryEller on September 18, 2015, 11:29 am

    Coulter knows how to push buttons, get attention. She knows what works.

    But I could care less about Coulter’s language. I’m Jewish, and I call all kinds of right wing (self-styled) Jews much worse things. (I call Coulter much worse things, for that matter.)

    However, Coulter’s point, for a change, is correct. Republicans I’m sure would like to get more Jewish votes, but what the GOP really wants is Jewish big donor money – particularly if they can wean it away from Democratic contributors.

  22. DaBakr on September 18, 2015, 5:48 pm

    that PW has laid down in bed with Ann Coulter was worth reading every lame-brained comment on this thread.

  23. Rashers2 on September 19, 2015, 5:27 am

    Sorry, Phil. Sympathetic as one may be to any who “calls out” the GOP’s (or, for that matter, the Democrats’) presidential wannabes for their genuflexions to the wallets and influence of the Israel lobby, excusing the tweeted “`king Jews” question is a hiding to nothing; or less. I had never heard of Ann Coulter until Twitter brought her tweet to my attention. What a 5 minutes’ search reveals makes me not wish to learn more. I endorse stopaipac’s comment: Palestinians and bona fide anti-Zionists need such as la Coulter like they need holes in the heart.

  24. annie on September 19, 2015, 12:10 pm

    i’ve always thought she was gross, infuriatingly so … and that has not changed. but i think her rant was more about being pissed everybody wasn’t talking about her obsession — immigration. someone should inform her illegal immigration pumps 100’s of millions into the federal social security system while states pick up the tab. this is why the gop will not end illegal immigration, because our country couldn’t afford it.

    so, she doesn’t like israel getting the attention, she wants it to be all about immigration immigration immigration. poor ann, that train’s already left the station.

    and yes, i think she’s a xenophobic racist.

Leave a Reply