Take, for example, this piece by CNN's Tom Foreman:

For decades, evangelicals have been seen as solid supporters of the Republican Party. That could be changing.

The religious right, a cornerstone of the so-called Reagan revolution -- the battle over abortion law, and gay marriage -- wants a change.

At least some evangelicals do.

A group of influential Christian leaders are declaring they are tired of divisive politics, tired of watching fights over some issues trump all the good they could be doing.

"Our proposal in [our] manifesto is to join forces with all those who support a civil public square. ... a vision of public life in which people of all faiths -- which, of course, means no faith -- are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith," said evangelical leader Os Guinness.

This is a reference to the Evangelical Manifesto released last week. It's also a subtle misinterpretation of it. True, the Manifesto calls for voting on more than one or two hot-button issues. But read what it has to say about politics for yourself:

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.  

The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: ―The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.

The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price.

That's not a call for political moderation, not even a signal to centrist Evangelicals that they are free to vote their consciences. It's an argument for stepping away from partisan politics altogether. At least as a movement; the Manifesto is circumspect when it comes to the political duty of individuals. But the main thrust of the document is to get Evangelicals to use spiritual, not political, means to influence society at large.

So much wouldn't be a major cause for concern. But Foreman continues:

For Democrats, the timing is good. The party has been pushing to overcome the "faith gap," that many feel has hurt them with church-going voters.

Candidates are appearing in more religious settings, and conversations.

"What I try to do is as best I can be an instrument of His will," Sen. Barack Obama has said.

"I obviously was fortunate to be able to rely on and be grounded in my faith which has been anchor for me throughout my entire life," Sen. Hillary Clinton has said.

Plainly, he thinks Democrats are going to be able to capitalize on Evangelicals breaking away from Republicans by talking more about their faith. You have to wonder how stupid he thinks Evangelicals are that they couldn't see a pander coming a mile away.

You also have to wonder if he thinks Obama or Clinton's faith so shallow that it would only appear as a come-on to those same voters. Whatever else you want to say about Obama and Clinton, they are both authentically and deeply religious people. It's not a surprise that they would appear in "more religious settings and conversations": that's who they are, and what they're comfortable with.

Even assuming a pander-bear routine on the Democratic side - again, not a good assumption - such a strategy would be highly unlikely to work. Take a look at the reaction the Manifesto received from the conservative wing of Evangelicaldom:

Janice Shaw Crouse, director of the Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, said the manifesto was "blurring the distinctions between liberal and conservative" and would confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Jerry Newcombe, a senior producer of the conservative Christian TV show "The Coral Ridge Hour," said the manifesto creates a "straw man" by portraying some evangelicals as intolerant and seeking to create a theocracy.

"Part of the whole point they were making was that we need to be more civil in our dialogue. I agree. But I guess the question is who is being uncivil here?" Newcombe said. He said atheists "really want to shut down voices on the other side."

It's pretty funny to hear somebody from D. James Kennedy's outfit grumbling about being depicted as a theocrat. Who does he think they're talking about?

The CWA spokeswoman's pretty rich, too. It just so happens that Christians hold exactly the positions Beverly and Tim LaHaye do. Who do they think the Manifesto's authors trying to push to the margins?

But this is absolutely the best:

James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, reviewed the document and was invited to sign it, but did not, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Dobson. Dobson consulted the group's board of directors — a common practice — and the board agreed he shouldn't sign "due to myriad concerns about the effort," Schneeberger said.

"One of the things that disappointed Dr. Dobson was that when the manifesto was initially circulated, no African-American pastors or theologians were on the invite list," Schneeberger said. "His thinking was, 'How can this purport to represent the voice of evangelicals when people so vital to who we are as a movement are excluded from involvement?'"

Since when does James Dobson give a rat's ass about racial justice?

In any case, the important point here is that these are not the same people as the authors of the Evangelical Manifesto. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see that many of them weren't even asked to sign the document.

There's a reason for that. We are witnessing a power struggle going on within the Evangelical movement. The authors of the Manifesto want to wrest control of the movement from the old guard, whose reactions are above. To the extent that they can delegitimize those folks, they succeed in legitimizing themselves as the voice of Evangelicals.

Think about the political implications of that for a moment. Do you really think that the centrist Evangelicals are hardline Republican voters? No, probably not. Os Guinness, Richard Mouw, David Gushee, Jim Wallis, and the rest of them speak to brothers and sisters within the movement already inclined to swing voting. The real hard-core GOP voters are those represented by Dobson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, etc. The dead-enders aren't going anywhere.

Foreman's article reflects a certain agenda:

Mara Vanderslice of Common Good Strategies is part of that effort.

"I think the biggest thing that we've done wrong is sort of say that we just want a separation of church and state and only speak about religion in terms of separation," Vanderslice said.

Evangelicals are now leading public support for many issues dear to Democrats: global campaigns against AIDS, hunger and poverty.  

Even Congressional Democrats can see the power of a partnership, according to the Ethics and Public Policy Center's Michael Cromartie.

"I think there are genuinely religious people, obviously in the Democratic Party, who've said, you know, 'we need to stop toning down how our faith relates to public policy issues,' whether it's the environment or whether it's questions of the economy or war and peace," he said.

"And we need to start framing our concerns in religious language so that it might appeal to religious believers in America."

Shorter Vanderslice-Cromartie plan:

1. Make it safe for Democrats to be Republicans

2. Success!

We've been over this so many times it hardly makes sense to hit it again. But in brief: the opposition to faithful Democrats has been often overstated, and faithful progressives have a responsibility to fight for our positions just like any other group within the party. We don't get a trump card just because we're believers. And selling out core principles is not okay:

And if Democrats want a share of their support, some political analysts say the Democrats will have to give something in return -- a hotly-debated issue like abortion.

Who do you suppose those "political analysts" could be? Mara Vanderslice? Michael Cromartie? Karl Rove? I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not willing to cede an issue like abortion just because an anonymous expert thinks it might bring in some swing Evangelicals.

Because for every vote that moves to Obama, there's likely to be one (or more) that sticks with the Republicans:

Tyler Braun, 23, a Portland seminary student who opposes abortion and gay rights, said he'll probably vote for Obama because, since he'd would like to see U.S. troops leave Iraq.

Anika Smith, 23, who works for a think tank in Seattle, said she's concerned with the same issues, but she plans to vote for McCain:

"I'm worried about the war and the economy and social-justice issues. But, the abortion issue is still nonnegotiable."

Nathan Johnson, the executive director of the King County Republican Party, says he is skeptical that young, socially conservative Christians will desert the GOP this fall.

He agrees young Christians appear to be looking beyond the two or three issues — abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research — that have made Christian voters loyal in the past. "But that doesn't mean they're no longer Republican.
"Once the primary is over, and we get into a head-to-head contest, Obama's voting record will come to light," said Johnson, 24. "Then there will be a lot of young conservative voters who won't be able to tolerate what he's stood for in terms of abortion and other socially conservative values."

So best-case scenario, a few people who might have voted for Obama anyway go ahead and do so. Worst-case, a bunch of people join the Democratic party and try to push it to the right on abortion and other social issues. That's politics, but it's hardly a good deal for progressives, and hardly something we'd want to welcome with open arms.

Even a few Evangelicals moving blue could swing a tight election, goes the typical counter-argument. Fair enough, but again probably overstated. Here's why: take a look at the expected swing-states for 2008. Now look at their religious makeup. Notice anything?

Right: only three of them: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia have an Evangelical population worth mentioning. Two of them - Florida and Ohio - have far more Catholics than Evangelicals. The third has a sizeable African-American population. As we know, Catholic voters tend to vote on the economy, and Obama does very well in the black community. So where, pray tell, would you expect him to put his resources?

Right: in attracting socially conservative white voters who tend to cluster in Southern states that aren't likely to go for him on a bet or a dare. Sigh. It's going to be a long campaign, isn't it?

I should say again that it's okay to be excited about Obama's prospects. More important, nothing I've said here should be used to argue that Obama should simply ignore Evangelical voters, or that he shouldn't run a 50-state campaign. Quite the contrary. If Evangelical outreach solidifies Ohio and Florida and puts Texas and Missouri into play, then by all means, go for it.

But let's not forget who the Democratic base is, or where the money shots are. Above all, let's not forget what the core Democratic principles are. Don't believe the people who would lead you astray on those points. We've got quite enough Republicans in this country, and so far, neither their policies nor their political chances look very good this year.

*This is probably unfair of me, and a bit ironic, considering that most scholars think 2 Peter is probably pseudonymous. Oh, well.