Never let it be said that the editors of the Columbia Political Review's blog suffer from a surplus of idealism. Their spin on the Mary Cheney controversy?

[I] think it's pretty clear that Kerry meant to do what he did for a specific reason, and it wasn't because he was particularly concerned about Mary Cheney. It was a "cheap...political trick," but it's working perfectly. Every time someone complains about Kerry invoking Mary Cheney, everyone is reminded that the Cheneys have a gay daughter. And every time that happens, maybe one less evangelical Christian goes out to vote. Kerry might take a hit on his likeability, but in a very real way, he might also win electoral votes. It might just be a good trade.

I have to wonder where these guys get their view of evangelical Christianity. You know those doctrines that get quoted all the time, things like "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Well, in a very real sense, a great number of evangelicals actually believe them. I know, I know, to enlightened secularists this kind of contradiction seems impossible, but then such contradictions are the very stuff of religion. [1]. In other words, many Christians act out their beliefs in real life, and vote accordingly.

So let's sort out what has to happen on the margin for Mr. Rolfe's gambit here to be a profitable manuever. We can ignore anyone for whom the issue is irrelevant, which means we're balancing essentially two groups. First, there are those who are so reflexively hateful of homosexuality that they are (a) willing to judge a parent for the sins of the child, and (b) believe that the mere existence of homosexual progeny disqualify a politician from office. (Kerry hasn't suggested, after all, that Mary Cheney actually holds substantive opinions contrary to her father's, or even George Bush's. She may, but he's certainly not gone to the length of putting words in her mouth.)

But then there's also the other group of evangelicals: those who will look at Mr. Rolfe's interpretation of Kerry's gambit and say, "Wait a second: even by our own Christian views, there's no good reason not to vote for Bush here. If Kerry is doing this to influence the evangelical vote and get us to stay home, he must be estimating that many of us are so hateful we don't understand our own religious convictions. Well, if I weren't going to the polls for Bush, I am now. And here's an extra $20 to the campaign." For Rolfe's strategy to have any positive effect for Kerry, the first group has to be larger and more influential than the second.

You know how people like to talk about "code words" in the discussion of race, gender and sexuality? Well here's a code word for you: so often when someone on the liberal side of the equation says "evangelical," they're not talking about religion. It's a code word for "hater." And given the number of evangelicals I've been fortunate to know who are anything but haters, I'm never upset when that coded usage comes back to bite the speaker on the ass.

Allawi's still alive. Tony Blair's prime minister. Let's look at evangelical turnout in November, and see if the Columbia Political Review can pull off a hat trick.

[1] See, e.g., G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Ignatius Press Ed. 1995). For those uneasy about a Christian bias and searching for comparative religion, just about anything Taoist, Buddhist (particularly Zen) or Hinduism might easily suffice as support here.