That should read: "For reasons that remain unclear, the Post decided to publish the article, despite not having one single reference to or basis in fact."

The problem is that this strategy works. In 2004, I heard people lament that they "couldn't tell the difference" between the candidates, and now this year I hear people who are disgusted with the "nasty attacks" flying from "both sides" when the truth is that McCain is the one indulging in the mudslinging. People are all to ready to be cynical about politics, and this feeds that impulse. That's part of why I think that Obama *himself* needs to keep a high tone, even if he lets the 527's do as they will.

let's not pretend that there aren't people out there who ridicule Palin's religion: I can hear them on AirAmerica 2-4 every weekday afternoon on a local radio station

the important point, however, is the way her religion informs her politics to a degree that is unusual and, frankly, a good bit scary: so, her take on the Iraq War, for one, or on global warming

Democrats and their liberal allies

But Gerson is off message here -- he concedes Democrats aren't necessarily liberals, doesn't he?

What we're left with is a bizarre and column in the Washington Post blasting straw-man bigots who exist in Gerson's imagination.

....and inoculating her from examination of her genuinely extremist religious beliefs.

The reasons aren't unclear at all. It's part and parcel of a anti-elitist, you versus them, "'they' think they're better than us good folks" campaign theme.

"For reasons that remain unclear"? Come on Steve. You know the reasons. Don't give such people that kind of break. Gerson is a right wing columnist. Call a spade a spade. The clue which is hard to ignore is your accurate use of the term "straw man". But for those who might read your stuff, who are not really sure what that term means, spell it out for them.

Steve Benen wrote: "For reasons that remain unclear, Gerson wrote the column anyway."

The reasons "remain unclear" only to those who are unwilling to recognize that America's corporate-owned media -- most definitely including The Washington Post -- is following EXACTLY the same script that they followed in 2000 and 2004, working hand in hand with the Republican Party and the openly partisan right-wing media to put in power right-wing Republicans who will cut taxes on the ultra-rich corporate aristocracy and deregulate media ownership.

During the 2000 campaign, The Washington Post printed a column by Richard Cohen, in which he blasted a speech made by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman about the role of religion in politics. Cohen's column included numerous quotes from the speech, which Cohen found particularly offensive.

There was only one problem. It turned out that the speech Cohen wrote about had not been delivered by Joe Lieberman, but by George W. Bush.

A one-sentence "correction" was appended to the end of Cohen's next column.

That is typical of the "journalistic standards" that the Post editorial board adheres to -- when it comes time to character-assassinate Democratic candidates.

Palin's religion is All black or white. There is no gray. It is Right or it is wrong. There is nothing in betwee. Very bad trait for diplomacy and as VEEP as well know is an imperative trait. Conversely Palin is RAW ambition so it does not matter to her whether she lies ot Americans because to her the end justifies the means. ENOUGH! We have had this attitude for 8 years and America will die if McCain is elected.

And it is even more insulting when the argument is made that "pocketbook" issues will somehow override a man or woman's deepest beliefs.

Arguing that someone should be concerned about how they're going to feed, clothe, house and educate their family is "insulting"? O......kay. Well. What do you say to such lunacy?

This reminds me of a conservative magazine that used to appear on my college campus. I used to pick it up in between classes or when I was eating a meal so I could see what they were thinking. It seem as if every issue had a complaint about the alleged liberal bias. Yet, aside from specific mentions of areas where they disagree with professors (like what about a turn of events in the Middle East in a Middle Eastern history class) or complaints about the methods or personality of a teacher, I can't remember anything they wrote about the biases of any person. Sure enough, the whining persisted, as if it was a struggle just to go to class. I get that it's hard to expect a student to attack his professor in class, but if you have a legitimate complaint, why not sign it anonymously? My guess is, they never had anything. They just liked the play the game.

And what basis do you have, Steve, for accusing Gerson of going to Google to try to find some examples?

We're not helping by making fun of Palin's religious views, even here on this site. As long as Palin isn't trying to give her religious beliefs the force of law, she can worship any way she wants.

We're not doing Obama any good by focusing any attention at all on Palin. Let the mainstream media, that seems to have found some gumption again, take on her lies. The issue in this campaign is the direction John McCain wants to take the country.

I don't think Americans want another four years of tax cuts going to the rich. They don't want more corporate deregulation leading to bank failures, toxic products imported from China, tainted food sold in the U.S. and soaring gas prices. They don't want endless war in Iraq and more wars elsewhere.

A masterfully dishonest individual can frame his dishonesty in diffusive enough ways to skirt any scrutiny of his dishonest arguments. Hell is waiting for such men! -Kevo

Keith Olbermann had a piece on Palin's religion that was extremely mocking of faith. It was the night of Rachel Maddow's debut. Maddow continued the attack.

And that anti-religious attitude is all over the left blogosphere.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm also religious -- and I don't think the left hears how it comes across on the subject.

He (Gerson) also makes the common mistake of asserting that morality can only come from religion. All athiests, must therefore, be fundamentally immoral. I think what really drives this conviction is the secret feeling that many religionists have that if they didn't fear a punishment from a righteous god, they themselves would engage in drastically different behavior, such as killing, raping and pillaging.

Actually, what concerns most rational, thinking individuals is not her religion per se, but rather that when you find anyone with extreme religious views who is vying for the 2nd highest power position in the free world and saying that they want to run this country, then you want to know HOW extreme those views and practices are. Will they interfere with her ability to make decisions based on science and logic, does she seem dogmatic in her beliefs, will she be able to keep the separation of church and state clear in her decisions? Because her Pentecostal beliefs, and her church specifically, consider speaking in tongues, and belief in the rapture/ the end times to be normal, one might pause to ask further questions. She also has stated publicly that the war against Iraq is a 'task from God'. She is on tape telling her fellow to congregates to pray an oil pipeline into existence, and she apparently believes that being gay is a dark sin, but you can pray away the gay in others through sustained supplication to God. It would be intelligent and behoove anyone to look further into the extent or her extreme views, and how they might impact her ability to govern in a way that honors the American principle of church/state separation. God is telling her that killing people in Iraq is His task? War is OK, and in fact commanded? To what end? If it is a task from God, and she knows it, what else is God telling her? What might she think that God says next? If God tells her to do something that is not in the best interest of the U.S., or the world, does God trump? He is the 'highest authority', isn't he? Americans have a right to be concerned and to ask these questions. And we have a right to have answers before we elect a politician to a position of power that has the very real potential to change the course of America's future.

Well I tried to get specific references and got this: "Thank you for your email. It is not possible for me to respond to each note, but I attempt to review them all, and I deeply appreciate your input."

Something tells me he doesn't deeply appreciate my input.

*

Tell you what: put a person thrashing about and speaking in tongues in Gerson's mainline church and then watch the disgust and panic in Gerson's face when the spirit strikes.

He'd crap his Dockers at the sight of it.

This campaign is driving me nuts.

Its as if we have lost our respect for intelligence (the IQ type) and thought and replaced it with sound bites and the influence of money. The notions of "god's will", original intent (both constitutional and biblical) seem to have displaced reason.

We've lost our abilty to evolve and will ultimately face extinction.

I'd like to know what Palin's church has to say about the religious beliefs of Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Quakers, Mormons, ...

I assume there is neither disdain nor derision but utmost respect.

You write: "Indeed, he (Gerson) wrote an 800-word piece chastising "liberals" and "Democrats" for their religious insensitivities, and proceeded to list exactly zero examples..."

Republicans today aren't merely anti-science, anti-Constitution, anti fiscal sanity, and anti any foreign policy other than bomb somebody. They are also anti-English, by which I mean anti-English teachers.

All across this great land, in high-school and college classrooms, there are instructors giving out essay assignments that require students to make a generalization and support it with three or four (or whatever) examples.

I'll bet Gerson himself had to write like this when he was in school. Maybe he became a Republican just so he could avoid all these writing (and thinking) requirements (he probably wakes up every morning and tells all his old English teachers to, as Dick Cheney would put it, "go f#&k yourself"). It's like intelligent design as science -- who needs evidence?

The situation Gerson finds himself in is that Palin's Pentecostal religion is considered unacceptable even among conservative mainstream Christians that make up the Republican base. To deal with this, he has simply invented claims out of thin air that the liberals are the ones who are criticizing Palin's religion, so as to get the mainstream Christian Republicans on Palin's side out of solidarity. He needed to make up a story in the hopes of creating the situation he wants (mainstream evangelicals and conservative Catholics coming to palin's side) to rectify the situation he has (Christians familiar with Palin's religion aren't necessarily considered fellow travelers).

"For reasons that remain unclear, Gerson wrote the column anyway."

Actually, the column was written before he sought any examples. Similar to how the Iraq war was 'planned,' "the facts were fit to the policy," as the Downing Street Memo put it.

Yes, there are those who point out that Mrs. Palin's version of Christianity is important to how she might govern (the Iraq war is a mission from God), and there are those who point out the extremist nature of that version of Christianity, without making the connection to "how she might govern".

For some people, pointing out an extreme position held be one's opponent is not good enough. The conclusion MUST be stated, none of this elitist professorial "the conclusion is left to the student" stuff. For these people, talking about Palin's religion is in itself bad, so they "call out" anyone who doesn't complete the syllogism. Literalists -- we call them "Right Whingers" -- can't make that connection, and take umbrage that they are called on to do so.

I sometimes think that the main difference between liberals and right-whingers is that the whingers get their knickers in a twist when someone says, "It's as simple as two plus two," and the whinger says, "So, what does that mean?" To talk to these people, you have to say, "Four." Nothing less than completing your argument (or syllogism, more accurately) will do.

An old saying comes to mind: "A fool will insist on starting a discussion with a definition; the wise insist on finishing with one."

I'm not sure every liberal who denigrates religion is making a syllogism, particularly about public policy, but I do know that most who point to Palin's convictions do so not to belittle her depth of religion, but to point out the consequences of taking those religious convictions to their end, writ large, so to speak, in a national forum.

Ed

Palin's religion is All black or white. There is no gray. It is Right or it is wrong. There is nothing in between.

There is nothing worse with a religion that is "black and white" vs one that is gray. They are both heaped up superstitions

And what basis do you have, Steve, for accusing Gerson of going to Google to try to find some examples?

Go back and read the post again, dumbass. Here is what Steve said: Maybe he even went to Google to try to find some examples.

Better concern trolls, please.

This is a common tactic from the right; to launch outraged responses to criticisms that have never actually been made. Other examples: "How dare liberals say that a woman with small children can't be a Vice President?", "The liberals are always putting down farmers/people from small towns/servicemen/religious people/people who enjoy NASCAR/whatever."

Basically, if you have a good defense against some attack, pretend that somebody made that attack so you can roll out your outraged defense. It's all phony and manipulative as hell, but paradoxically it works.

Better concern trolls, please.

She wasn't concern-trolling. She was making a subtle dig at Gerson saying that there's no evidence he even bothered to check Google for examples before writing his article.

I still think the best tact to take after asking anybody WHY they are inclined to vote Republican is to follow up on these idiots who are always quoting in general terms -"Just which comment or instance are you referring to"? Sure would make for some embarrassing moments for them.

There are enough radical religious fundamentalists advocating religious based government in the middle east; we don't need more here. Sarah Palin's religious beliefs ARE important if she is so devout that she, like George Bush, would choose to listen to what she believes to be God's voice instead of listening to her advisers, Congress, and the American people. We have a right to know exactly which voices she'd be listening to if she found herself occupying the oval office. This doesn't mean jokes should be made about her religion, but we do have a right to know exactly what she believes and the press shouldn't shy away from pursuing this issue.

Argh! Thanks Tyro. I'm seeing ghosts it seems. On rereading, I see it. Where is that sackcloth and ashes? I know they're around here somewhere...

Just thought I would go on record that I (a) find it reasonable to pray for healing, although without any hope that God is a puppet on my string and (b) suspect that someone with a grounded serious religious faith is likely to better handle moral issues than someone without. That said, I see little in Palin's religiosity other than finding God in a mirror, which is somewhat worse than finding Him (Her?) in the bottom of a bottle.

When various Moslems chose to respond to Pope Benedict's admittedly less than adroit remarks at Regensburg by murdering nuns, did anyone ask to have their religious views respected? When Bernard Law chose to put pederasts in positions to abuse more children, did anyone take seriously the position of his defenders that the critics just didn't like his views on abortion?

For twenty-five years I have focused my life on raising a child with development issues much easier than Down Syndrome. Is there any evidence that Sarah Palin or Todd Palin has moved beyond self-congratulation at not aborting their child to dealing with what they will have to do in the next twenty-five years? Or what will happen to the child when they are dead and buried. (Hint, check under Clinton, Village) God is not an exemption from the serious moral work of life.

Gee--Just in the past few minutes I've read Ari at *Edge of the American West* going after Palin's religion, and Sarah Posner over at *Tapped* going after Palin's religion. This reminds me of all the Amy Sullivan bashers that used to hang around on this site, of whom Kevin once noted that half of them denied that the left had any problem with evangelicals, and the other half--bashed evangelicals. Your complaint is reasonable insofar as it applies to the Obama campaign, which has properly, albeit implicitly, treated Palin's faith, like her family, as off limits except insofar as it leads to bad public policy [book-banning, etc.]. But antireligious attitudes are rife in the left blogosphere; you're just in denial.

P.S. As a liberal Presbyterian, I have problems with Palin's religious views as well; they're just not relevant to the task at hand.

It is humorous the ony person the journalist hack could find that denigrated Palin's Pentecostalism is a celebrity atheist who also vehemently supported the Invasion of Iraq. Hitchens and Palin would make a great couple.

Sorry, Steve, but Maggie is right. I think the piece was entirely justified, but Rachel's coverage of it was -- deservedly -- mocking of 'speaking in tongues' etc., and Keith had begun it. (She used it as a lead in to the T.D. Jakes piece, which was far more respectful.)

I have never understood why, if a person's religion is shown to form her world-view, and if that religion includes ideas she uses in her politics it is 'off-limits' to discuss this.

If a religion is kept private and out of the public arena, and if the person involved has demonstrated a firm belief in chuch-state separation, then it should be off-limits (i.e., Biden's Catholicism). But, especially since preachers have been blurring the distinction for the past 3 decades, it should be worth discussing.

The discussion has to be honest, not the sort of sound-bite attack on Rev. Wright, but I'd have no problem with a serious discussion of either Obama's or Palin's real beliefs. (I am an atheist, but I know that religion can affect people for good as well as for evil. Certainly a Martin Luther King or an Obama is a prime example of good, the way GWBush and Palin are examples of the opposite.)

No, Gerson doesn't think Democrats and liberals are mocking Palin for her faith. Instead, he knows that there's this kneejerk reaction among millions of fundamentalist Christians that Democrats and liberals are anti-religion. This is just more propaganda designed to fire up the GOP base.

Why a Washington Post columnist would write an 800-word propaganda piece for McCain/Palin is the better question. I believe that's been dealt with upthread.

"And it is even more insulting when the argument is made that "pocketbook" issues will somehow override a man or woman's deepest beliefs."

Sounds like Gerson doesn't believe in our Constitution. As founded, the United States was supposed to be governed by thinking about secular issues like the economy (aka one's "pocketbook") and NOT by religious beliefs.

American's can't quite bring them to do that, though, because magical thinking (like "anyone can become rich") has always been a part of the "American dream." Well I have a little news for you America, dreams are not reality.

Wake up! Praying for better times is NOT going to bring them. You have to do actual, you know, WORK to bring them about. You have to face the reality of what's going on and try to come up with a real world solution, not a solution in heaven.

Jesus said that this is NOT his world, that his world is in heaven. Take Him at His word, and do good works here to help those more unfortunate for yourself. You have to if you believe Him and want to join Him after you die.

Fools.

Steve, I think you are making the wrong point. Liberals are criticizing Palin's religious perspective, but not because of general insensitivity towards vaguely conservative beliefs. It's the dangerous flakiness of *her* church, the Armageddon/God talks to believers/Jews are punished by terror for not accepting Jesus/Hell awaits Democrats/extreme social conservatism etc., all *worth* criticizing. Gergen is still an asshole, but what he misses is what about her far-right church and beliefs is worth complaining about. This is like a guy saying "liberals complain about so-and-so's political conservatism" - often true - but really, so-and-so is an ultra right-wing nut or someone like Phil Gram who is a moneycon shill etc.

Steve, there is no problem here. Since Gerson is clearly not a member of the reality-based community, there is no need for trivia such as evidence. One merely listens to the voices in one's head; it's simplicity itself.

Of course some are! The are millions of Democrats, plenty of them liberals, and at least some of them, like me, think Palin's Pentecostal religion is literalist lunacy and a danger to our nation and the world. I'm a choir-singing churchgoer myself, and as a religious liberal I try to respect my fellow citizens' spiritual paths and argue about morals in a secular context: but sometimes I slip up. Derision is a great temptation! And an effective political strategy if the the mainstream shares it. If Pentecostalism is popular, better not dis it. But if it becomes the US's governing principle, I plan to flee to somewhere sane!

Of course some are! The are millions of Democrats, plenty of them liberals, and at least some of them, like me, think Palin's Pentecostal religion is literalist lunacy and a danger to our nation and the world. I'm a choir-singing churchgoer myself, and as a religious liberal I try to respect my fellow citizens' spiritual paths and argue about morals in a secular context: but sometimes I slip up. Derision is a great temptation! And an effective political strategy if the the mainstream shares it. If Pentecostalism is popular, better not dis it. But if it becomes the US's governing principle, I plan to flee to somewhere sane!

"Just thought I would go on record that I (a) find it reasonable to pray for healing, although without any hope that God is a puppet on my string and (b) suspect that someone with a grounded serious religious faith is likely to better handle moral issues than someone without."

Interesting comment, Gene, and I see in it your sincere good faith. However, I think because YOU have faith, you equate it with "morality."

I have no faith, but I DO believe in the truth of most of the messages of Jesus. And those, my friend, are philosophy, not faith. I do not believe Jesus was divine (i.e. something other than, or in addition to, being human). I do not believe that his mother was a virgin. (I do believe in the Y chromosome.) I do not believe flesh can be reanimated after three days dead. I do not believe in corporal "ascension" to another plane of existence.

I guess, if anything, I'm a Pythonist. My credo:

"Matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia."

I think that people who believe in a philosophy because they think it came from a Supreme Being are intellectually lazy compared to those who have contemplated various alternatives and picked the one they think best for themselves and humanity in general.

And I think this is manifest in the fact there are "faiths" that contain seriously evil (i.e. wrong) components, like making women subordinate to men to the point that they can be blamed for rape. And certain so-called "Christian" faiths treat women as secondary beings to me, as do many Muslim "faiths." Certainly radical Muslim interpretations of "jihad" are evil, I think you would agree. But would you also agree that the forced conversions and torture of the Crusades and the Inquisition were evil?

Nothing good can come from thinking that there is one and only one source of "good" and everything else is "evil."

"We're not helping by making fun of Palin's religious views, even here on this site. As long as Palin isn't trying to give her religious beliefs the force of law, she can worship any way she wants."

Wonderful sentiment there. So, given that she wants to get creationism into public school science classes, which *is* an attempt to give her religious beliefs the force of law, that makes it a legitimate issue. Right?

... and for reasons that remain even less clear, the Washington Post chose to publish it.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm also religious -- and I don't think the left hears how it comes across on the subject. Posted by: Maggie

Sorry. One program and the blogosphere does not mean that it's everywhere. I mean, MSNBC gets shitty ratings and the faithful don't watch anything but FOX, so how would they have know any of this until Gerson's overstatement. Of course, the vast majority of the "religious" right don't read real newspapers either, so they won't know anything about this until they get a viral Rove generate e-mail of until their pastors tell them from the pulpit on Sunday.

What pushes this into the hypocrisy zone is the contrast between calls to lay off Palin's church and the microscopic examination of Rev. Wright's sermons. Surprised this hasn't been mentioned.

"Gerson lasshing out at straw man" means Gerson writes an article, there is little difference.

This is because the press relies on republicians to tell them what "liberals" are saying.

Well, Democrats and liberals probably ARE mocking Palin for her faith. But we are smarter than to do it in public, thank God. ;-)

How dare you criticize Gerson's faith? He sincerely believes that liberals and Democrats have been deriding Sarah Palin's religion, and this belief is clearly very important to him. It's just like you sneering elitists to demand "proof" and "evidence" before you're willing to grant these deeply held beliefs the respect they so obviously deserve.

Of course, what is most eminently mockable is her faith in the Bush administration, which is perfectly fair game.

Would saying that you know Palin is going to burn in a lake of fire be sufficiently respectful; a case can be made...

Ahh, with such brilliance as is on here, we can probably go ahead and put another loss on the "Dem presidential candidates" column.

First, to the Amy Sullivan defenders... there's a difference between critiquing/criticizing a strategy of chasing after right-of-center, or even centrist, religious voters, and attacking religion wholesale, and I don't think you've discerned that. Ditto by analogy on critiquing/criticizing or even attacking specific beliefs of Palin for either how they'll play on Main Street or how they'll influence her political actions, since from Jim Watt on, we've seen how that works.

Brainchild, WHAT 527s? Obama "requested" MoveOn fold up its tents, and it stupidly agreed. Control Freak Obama (that's Scholars and Rogues, not just me) has sucked the oxygen of cash out of 527s in general, and now he's being hoist by his own petard.

If there are more would-be Dem voters who don't realize that, and probably won't wake up to realize it, it's no wonder his campaign is running the way it is.

Tom Frank gets the whole issue of pocketbook vs. religion wrong in "What's the Matter with Kansas," this all said.

David Stuart, in his excellent "Anasazi America," points out that, as the Chaco culture neared collapse, it UPPED its focus on religion. For the highly religious around the world, it's a common phenomenon, and it shows how little Frank gets the power of religion.

And, I'm an atheist with a graduate divinity degree, so I'm in a damn good position to know that myself.

That then, ties back to the issue of critiquing specific aspects of Palin's beliefs vs. her belief system.

Plan B will never work. Plan A should be pushed.

And, THAT said, on the personal side, Hitchens is the best of the New Atheists, primarily because he goes after New Ageism and Eastern religions with the same scrutiny and fervor as Western monotheisms.

In short, per this thread, Cal Gal is probably as much a flake as Sarah Palin.

I saw several examples in the media, where were the rest of you this week?

Um, you watch Keith or Rachel?
Rolling of eyes and wide eyed looks while they lead with promos for the talking in tounges bit?
Now, a story about Jews for Jesus, would have been ok but they both were over the top early this week.

Weird. Bob Somerby at dailyhower is approvingly quoting this Greson column.

As a religious liberal with a fundamentalist conservative family I've found what I think is an effective talking point with fundamentalists. My family will never vote for Obama, but I might have talked a few into staying home or voting for Barr. Fundamentalist really believe that a woman's place is in the home, raising (homeschooling) her children. Many churches won't allow women to participate in the church services other than filling the pews. So when ever someone praises Palin, I don't waste my breath pointing out what a lying uniformed disaster she is. Instead I just look troubled and say that I'm concerned about her priorities. I point out that she went back to work 1 day after the birth of Piper and 3 days after the birth of Trig. I talk about the long plane ride 6 weeks before her due date after her water broke. I ask if they (or their wives) would have made the same decisions, and the response is always a horrified no. I point out that I took 6 months off work after my son was born. Although they don't like to admit it, my family believes I was a neglectful mother since I am a divorced professional woman - and even someone like me took time to bond with her baby. I know that these are not the reasons Palin is a disaster, but they are the reasons that will resonate with fundamentalists. This can't be used by the campaign, but on an individual basis, try it the next time you talk to a religious Palin supporter. Trust me, they are uneasy about a women in a position of power. If they start thinking that she puts her ambition ahead of her kids, they may stay home on election day.

Deb, you scare me. Effective maybe, but you scare me.

I'm with Gregory on this. Palin's extremist religious views and her overt willingness to infuse politics and policies from those views are a legitimate subject for inquiry, and Gersen (and Buchanan on Maddow's show on Monday) trying to make her religion off limits are a preemptive strike against Americans knowing just the kind of Theocratic Wingnut they are foisting off on us.

Congrats to Steve, who is doing a ton of good work, but I disagree on this one. I think this sort of thing has been fairly widespread this past week.

For me, it started Monday night on Olbermann, when he referred to Palin as "Elmer Gantry" and "Amy Semple McHockey Mom" (after Amy Semple McPherson). He inaccurately said that, at Palin's current church (which isn't Pentecostal), "they speak in tongues, in other words, in words or sounds neither they or anybody else understand, kind of like Fox News."

Olbermann continued thoughtfully: "Which group is larger, do you think? Do we have any idea, those who will look at those tapes, whose eyes will then roll back in their heads and in tongues they will say, 'I like this woman or this candidate,' or Americans who will then shout a three-word question, beginning with, 'What the --?'"

He was talking with Rachel Maddow, who tried to be more recondite, but I thought she pushed things that night too. For example, she clearly implied that Palin had said "that god is directing troop movements in Fallujah." I think it's abundantly clear that that isn't what Palin said.

Needless to say, we got the classic disclaimer, hard on all the mockery:

OLBERMANN: Isn't it safe to say--and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the belief in God. In fact, it`s quite to the contrary. Some of these things that are addressed to her deity, doesn`t he, she or it have better things to do?

MADDOW: And if god really is working on this stuff, wouldn`t god be better at it than god has apparently been? If god prefers Sarah Palin`s specific Alaskan pipeline idea, why hasn`t construction started? You think that god could just like zip, zip, you know.

Truly, that was pathetic. At best, that's junior high level commentary, even without the silly disclaimer. "Liberals" like these have lost elections for lo these many years.

Oh sorry--I forgot. We mustn't speak ill of TV hosts! (semi-joke)

Michael Gerson loathes democrats and liberals, regardless whether you consider them to be one group or two, and in his world they are responsible for everything that is wrong. To his unfortunates who "pray for healing in times of sickness and trouble" - who do you think is really listening? John McCain, in his $500.00 shoes and dizzying collection of houses? Give me a break. Are you sick? John McCain suggests you go to the emergency room: after all, it's free. Can't make your mortgage payments? Tough, says John "the font from whom all sympathy flows" McCain; goofs who failed to accurately predict the caprices of the market don't deserve a bailout, because they were foolish.

The John McCain who makes Michael Gerson stiff is a figment of his imagination; a strong, decisive leader who incinerates enemies of America with his steely gaze while scattering democracy like corn upon the world's troubled outposts, simultaneously opening up new energy markets who are only too glad to cut America a sweetheart deal, and kickstarting the manufacturing sector as the machines rumble on and on into the night, churning out " Made in the U.S.A." to a hungry and grateful world. Peace breaks out all over, and "Happy Days Are Here Again" plays on an endless loop.

Sorry, Mike. I'd vote for that guy, too; but he isn't real. Take off those "Student's for McCain" beer goggles and look around. Is this the America you ordered? You poor sap.

A bit more weigh-in.

Brojo, Despite Hitchens' support for the Iraq War, for reasons contorted, to put him in the same breath as Palin is simply ridiculous.

Sceptic and Tbogg are both exactly right.

Bob Somersby (and others) — I've never been a huge Olbermann fan. Basically, it's ESPN schtick translated to a quasi/pseudo-liberal posturing.

BUT, I disagree w/your take on Maddow. Now, we don't know how much of a micromanager Palin thinks god is, but it's an open question...

One final note for Somersby — you're way wrong, IMO, if you think Gibson did a good job.

He was the male equivalent of a "fluffer," from what I've seen or read so far.

It was Gerson who mentioned Hitchens for criticizing Palin's religion. Since Hitchens supported the Iraq Invasion, he deserves to spend the rest of eternity as Palin's spouse.

Hell, I'll say it! All Pentecostals are fools and liars, no exceptions! There, now Gerson can use my comment for source. And Pentecostals are some of the most ridiculous and insidious Islamo-Christianistas ever to have become.

(You aren't supposed to understand me, you see, I'm typing in tongues and writhing in my chair; only the Lordy-Gourdy-Grape is hip with it.)

Just thought I would go on record that I (a) find it reasonable to pray for healing, although without any hope that God is a puppet on my string and (b) suspect that someone with a grounded serious religious faith is likely to better handle moral issues than someone without.

Lots of people pray for healing, and they often attribute their recovery from disease or injury to the power of prayer. But has anyone who's ever prayed that God would heal their amputation ever had an arm or leg grow back?

And if not, what the fuck does God have against amputees?

What's really offensive about this article is that Gerson compares Palin to Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

When I read the comments on ABC after the first part of the interview I was shocked at the anger that people have for the Democrats or as they call them all "liberals"..it seems that there is no differance in some minds. I haven't heard word one from the Democratic party or any member regarding the religeous choice of the Governor but you wouldn't know that by the attacks from her supporters. I think all the attacks need to stop NOW. There are enough issues to bring up that are legitamite areas to discuss and leave all the nonscence alone. This crap about whether the baby is her daughters etc takes us away from the issues. I really don't care about anyone's religion except my own and I don't talk about mine to anyone ever. The feelings in the country regarding this elections are so raw and people are fighting like I haven't seen since Nixon! I for one will be so happy once the election is all over and done with and President- Elect Obama is getting his cabinet together.

She's so close to Reagan that the CIA should start selling missiles to Iran again.

Yes, even as an Olbermann and Maddow fan, I have to agree that their obvious disdain for the beliefs of Palin's former church was clear.

The problem for liberals, progressives, or Democrats (whichever label fits) is to determine what battle we want to fight.

Do we want to have a fight between denominations of Christianity to determine which is correct?

Do we want to have a fight between those who believe in God and those who don't?

Or, do we want to win an election?

To win an election, perhaps the only acceptable (meaning, and still be able to win) discussion of religion is how it impacts one's view of one's fellow citizens and of the world.

After having suffered through the sliming of Obama on the basis of what his pastor said, I think the opportunity to dish it back overrode any consideration of strategy. After all, the religion that was being discounted is loosely tied to the fastest growing religion in the country. There was no logical reason to force believers to decide their election vote purely upon whether their beliefs were respected or being slammed.

After decades of being proved wrong, we still think that a superior logic and line of thought trumps something like faith. Bulletin: it doesn't.

For progressives to be successful in Presidential elections, a "live and let live" rule must be followed, and using an election campaign to beat down any religion is going to insure our loss.

And rule #2 is to never refer to a belief as "lunacy".

Why? Because people who would otherwise use their heads and vote their economic interests will choose to defend their concept of faith if they think it is not respected. I don't think that most require that it be their candidate's (OR HIS SUPPORTERS) belief, but that he and his supporters damn well better not disparage their belief.

In response to "it is even more insulting when the argument is made that 'pocketbook' issues will somehow override a man or woman's deepest beliefs", Stephan wrote "Arguing that someone should be concerned about how they're going to feed, clothe, house and educate their family is 'insulting'? O......kay. Well. What do you say to such lunacy?"

This is what many liberals don't understand about the tenants of most religions. When you force an issue in terms of "what you believe" vs. "what you want or need", to remain true to your religion, most virtually require sacrifice of the latter for the former. It is better to never put them at odds, and they don't have to be.

Of course, those who believe those voting for Democrats are going to hell are not going to change their minds. Ever.

However, there are central tenants to all of religions, such as how we treat our families or how we treat our neighbors or whether or not we have a duty to each other. Progressive thought is virtually mandated by those core beliefs, and that is the common ground upon which we must stand and build coalitions.

Once we get into the weeds of specific religious practices, we can get tangled, and once tangled, it may take another election cycle for some to see things differently.

It may, in fact, be better for Obama to remind everyone how his community service was rooted in the Christian belief of caring for your neighbors, and that the true honor, no, righteousness of a civilization is tied to how it treats its old, its the young, and the less favored.

Indeed, Obama's life has been in total sync with the basics of all religions practiced in America today. That's a large part of why he has earned and deserves our support, and could, with the right tactics, get even more.

But we cannot drive them away.

By the way, that's no drag on atheists. In fact, if atheists ever pray, it is probably that those who believe in a God or many gods would actually behave like they do.

Michael Gerson was Republican Bush's speechwriter. Gerson's just moved to the WashingtonPost to expand the Republican message by using the relatively credible Washingtonpost while avoiding using the largely discredited Republican Bush for whom he'd previously been writing speeches for.

If you must mention Gerson please preface it with, "Republican Bush's former speechwriter, Michael Gerson...."