Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Every true Conservative loves Ann, Ann's legs, and Ann's gun collection. But what they really love is Ann's prose. She gets medieval with Safire over the latter's criticism of The Passion of the Christ. It's a hoot; indeed, it's also an event. Most conservatives don't jump on Safire because of his position (in the pre-Brooks era) as House Conservative on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Coulter doesn't hesitate. I suspect she consider's Safire a deviationist.
She reflects the Popular Front attitude towards Gibson's film (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan). Conservative solidarity with the Church is more important than deviationist misgivings about the film by a Jewish Conservative. For all that, her defense of Gibson's film is not so much a defense of Gibson as it is yet another attack on the liberal interpretation of popular culture. Money quote:
Gibson didn't insert Jews into the story for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way.
Ann Coulter is an aneurism waiting to happen. However, while she's with us she is a relentless advocate of her own special brand of scorched-earth Conservatism. Simply put, she is fun to read. Unlike Dowd, she is also coherent and not in love with her own prose.
Reading a Coulter column is like watching Curtis LeMay's B-29 fleet firebomb Tokyo: it's okay from a distance, but you'll get your ass torched if you get too close.