It's obvious from the conservative reaction to Ann Coulter's screed that I've underestimated her importance to their opinion machine. Apparently her job is to throw out an idea that's so far out of bounds that the "compromise" between it and reality happens to fall somewhere near what conservatives really want to say.

In [TS] Mourning in America, John Tierney says what conservatives really wanted to say.

The widows and widowers of the victims of Sept. 11 are not urban planners who should get veto power over the rebuilding at Ground Zero. The parents of Americans killed in Iraq do not have special expertise in foreign policy.

Whether they support the war or not, they are expressing their personal views, and not necessarily even their slain children's. Cindy Sheehan camped outside President Bush's ranch in Texas to protest the war, but her son voluntarily re-enlisted before his death.

I wish they had just made the case instead of setting up ol' Horseface. Mr. Tierney actually shows it can be made honestly...now that Republican coherence is getting all wobbly, anyway.

Coulter faults liberals for exploiting victims and their relatives as human shields for their arguments against the war and in favor of gun control. But conservatives use these tactics too. President Bush had the parents of a slain Iraqi soldier stand up during the State of the Union address as a tacit endorsement of his policy. Republican widows of Sept. 11 victims have been exploiting their status to oppose the Democratic widows.

America is supposed to be a government of laws, not men, but the surest way to pass a law is to name it after someone, ideally a girl or woman. Dozens of states have passed Megan's Law. There's another measure against sex offenders in Ohio called Nicole's Law, not to be confused with the Nicole's Law in Massachusetts, which requires carbon-monoxide detectors in homes.

There is a federal Katie's Law (giving money to rural police agencies), a New Mexico Katie's Law (requiring DNA samples to be collected from suspects), and a Minnesota Katie's Law (providing money to track sex offenders).

The ultimate in custom legislation was Terri's Law, designed solely to prolong Terri Schiavo's life. There's also Kristen's Act, Jennifer's Law, Aimee's Law, Brian's Bill, and the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act.

Some of these laws undoubtedly make sense, but the names appended to them cut short the sort of debate required.

Said Republican wobbliness is the only reason the message needs to be sent, of course. And it should be noted the "9/11 Families" meme and automatic ennoblement of all who made the 'sacrifice' for their country generally works to conservative advantage. The need to reduce their influence comes from the increasing awareness that this is not a conservative regime. It's also a pretty good support for David Brooks' fairy tale assertion:

Evil, meanwhile, contains the seeds of its own destruction.

I'm not stressing Mr. Tierney point this time. What really bothers me is this.

That's over the top even for Coulter. But she has identified a real problem

What does Ann Coulter do that is in any way different than what Ward Churchill did? Ward Churchill identified a real problem: much of the anti-Americanism in the world is a legitimate reaction to American exceptionalism and American foreign policy.

Different? Ms Coulter did it on the most popular morning news show in America, whereas Churchill did it in an obscure journal. And Coulter gets paid. Oh, and she lied; Churchill's phrasing was merely inartful, even if he wanted to maintain the general theme of that essay. Had he called the workers in the WTC 'good Germans' instead of 'little Eichmanns' he'd have been just as wrong to impute evil to them, but he'd have survived it.

sigh

I just wish the intelligent types would open the discussion.