OK, now I'm really confused

A quick recap.

The recent brouhaha over Kerry and religion started with a David Brooks piece for the New York Times (now tucked behind their archives shield) in which he offered that a candidate "...doesn't have to be a saint, but he does have to be a pilgrim. He does have to be engaged...in a personal voyage toward God."

Of course, anyone passing familiar with John Kerry's biography would know that he is, in his own words, "a believing and practicing Catholic," which would seem to satisfy the pilgrim test.

Then Amy Sullivan chimed in at The Gadflyer, confirming Brooks' essential points, but assuring us that "A candidate doesn't have to hit people over the head with "Jesus talk" to do this. He doesn't have to use exclusive language and he doesn't have to parade his piety. What he can do is frame his message in moral terms."

Hard on her heels was Steven Waldman, writing for Slate, with a similar endorsement of Brooks (his "favorite conservative") and an admonishment that "...he needs to talk about his faith because it would strengthen him on the most important issue of the campaign-terrorism." (I admit to being impressed by the, dare I say, moral certainty Waldman has about which issue reigns supreme in the coming election.)

OK then, in order to reach out to religious voters, doubtless an important constituency for either party, Kerry needs to talk about his faith, which he has and does, and needs to do so by speaking out in "moral terms." I get it. Or I thought I did. And I found several examples that assured me that Kerry gets it, too.

Now Jody Wilgoren offers a twist that's got me scratching my head again. Conceding that Kerry "occasionally invokes God" (and the occasions are quite regular, as I've documented here and here), she offers that

"Senator Kerry is increasingly adopting a traditionally Republican refrain to give his campaign - and himself - grounding and context in broad moral terms."

Whether Republicans have a partisan claim on morality is a point worthy of considerable debate, but Wilgoren seems quite clear on the point of all this talk about values and morality. Kerry's "focus on values," she asserts, is evidence of "...outreach to what Democratic strategists call 'secular values voters' - people concerned about balancing work and family, opportunities for their children, and America's leadership in the world." She documents his invocation of values pretty thoroughly, including eight instances in a recent 36 minute speech.

So if I've got this straight, John Kerry needs to make a greater effort to reach out to voters who value religion by including a moral emphasis in his message, which he has already done in an effort to appeal to voters with secular values.

OK, then.

Tell you what, let's let Kerry be Kerry (he's better at it than any of us, really), and focus our attention on constructive ways we can help him let America be America again.