Who buys Coulter's crap?

Anne Coulter appeared on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, June 14, to ask: Why aren't the liberals complaining about being called "Godless liberals"? And how come their only problem with her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" is the chapter about "the Jersey girls"?

That's an interesting couple of questions. To speak for myself for one moment, I'll just say that I'm much happier to be called "Godless" than a liberal. A secular world view is probably the last best hope for civilization as we know it. Liberalism, on the other hand, seems to be in crisis.

But the so-called Jersey girls should be spoken up for. She's refering to women who, through no fault of their own, lost their loved ones in the atrocities committed by America's enemies on Sept. 11, 2001. If Godless is a dirty word to Coulter, I'll assume she's some kind of Christian, the sort of Christian who says mean things to the bereaved.

Coulter appeared to laugh off any criticisms. But her attempts to be amusing were labored. Leno asked her if she might get her point across better by sweetening her message. Oh, no. If she wanted to be attractive, she'd wear a sexy dress and grow her hair long...

Oh, wait. That was her awkward little joke. But Leno's studio audience seemed to lap it up. Did Coulter bring in her own band of shills? Perhaps not. In the U.S.A, blonde + emaciated = beautiful. She might almost be Paris Hilton's mother. She implied that this is the reason she doesn't have to worry about running into anybody who might be angry enough to harm her. She said she always travels in the company of conservative men.

But Coulter was able to clarify the recent uproar over her bestselling book. Concentrate for a moment and let me know if this story of hers seems to hold water. She said all this outcry is proof of her book's central premise. She said it's only Liberals who have a problem with her remarks. And they only object because liberals have been strategically using victims such as Cindy Sheehan and the 9/11 widows as their spokespersons so that good conservatives would feel too inhibited to respond in the same spirit that they would to a Howard Dean or a Hillary Clinton.

So that's the only reason she felt she had to refer to "these broads," as she puts it. She believes she has put forward her conservative perspective in response to the liberal arguments raised by the widows. And yet her refutation to those Liberal stalking horses seems to be nothing beyond the unsupportable allegation that these "Jersey girls" are enjoying their financial compensation so much that they're actually happy to have lost their husbands.

I'm not sure this ad hominem attack is actually a conservative position at all. And it doesn't seem very Christian. While Dean and Clinton are generally debated in terms of political discourse, the victims of terror are subjected to the most unpleasant second-guessing of their personal motivations. And yet Coulter's book remains on the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list?

Who is buying this book? Are American conservatives so demoralized by the war on terror that they have gone into denial and they need to convince themselves that the victims on our side are actually happier now? Was this the sort of conservative denial we heard from first lady Laura Bush when she reportedly said those who lost their homes in New Orleans are mostly poor people anyway and will be better off with the government's paltry compensation?

I checked the Amazon.com best seller list today and Coulter's book is number two; which seems appropriate, some how.

Try this little quiz and the results may surprise you.