Atrios is engaged in a debate over the role of religion in politics. He's chaffing at the notion that the religious left can be the conscience and soul of the Democratic Party, and he's right.

Here's the deal -- Republicans have claimed god as their own and perverted religious texts to justify some of the most divisive and hateful policies and discourse in our politics today. And while Corporate Cons, Neocons, and Paleocons have tolerated the Theocons in order to tap into their activist network (none of those other conservative factions have significant boots to help them win elections), fact is it's created an ugly party that is unelectable in entire regions of the country. No one likes to have their morality dictated by others. And that doesn't just mean the Religious Right, but those on our side as well.

Morality and ethics don't have to come from religion. Yes, there's a whole cottage industry of consultants, media pundits, and establishment figures who think that's the case. Witness last year's Senate battle. The DC punditry and party establishment were in love with Harold Ford. His campaign proudly sent me an advance look at Ford's ad filmed inside a church. I guess I was supposed to get excited at Ford's cheap manipulation of religion for political ends.

But the DC set was in love. Ford made the cover of Time Magazine. He was on every cable show as an example of a new breed of Democrat willing to wrap himself up in a cross for electoral gain. It doesn't matter that it's ugly when Republicans do it, here was one of our own willing to debase religion just the same!

The Ford love was so crazy, that James Carville attempted a coup post-November at the DNC, demanding Ford replace Howard Dean. When that got nowhere fast, Ford landed as head of the DLC. And this was a guy who didn't just lose his race, but did so in an open seat -- always the best pickup opportunities for challengers.

But you know what was interesting? Two Democrats defeated entrenched Republican incumbents in states just as Red, if not more so -- Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana. Bush got 57 percent in Tennessee, while he got 59 percent in Montana (and 54 percent in Virginia). And, they did so without cheap pandering to the religious set. They didn't shoot commercials in churches, embrace hatred of gays, or demand school prayer (all of which Harold Ford did). They didn't prattle on about "god" at every campaign stop. Yet somehow they were able to win.

But did the DC establishment celebrate those victories as a new model of Democrat able to win in tough Red states? Nope. Because they didn't follow the established narrative. Ford did, and was hailed for it even though he lost.

Did I mention Ford lost, while Tester and Webb won?

So what lessons should we have learned?

Democrats and liberals have been too willing in the past to make their electoral appeals based on the intellect -- offering a laundry list of 10-point plans and programs they will create and/or support. We're trying to appeal to the brain, while Republicans have learned to appeal to the heart.

So we bore and confuse voters, giving them little sense in what makes our candidates tick. They are busy. They have two jobs, kids to shuffle between soccer practice and camp, myriad problems to deal with. Political blog readers may be obsessed with politics, but it's mostly a hobby. Most people have other hobbies. Politics is background noise. They don't want to deal with the details or learn about the issues. That's why we have a representative democracy -- so we can elect people to worry about the details.

What voters want is a sense of what makes a candidate tick. When confronted with a decision, what values will the official draw upon to inform his or her decision.

And while many people -- thanks to the good branding work of the Religious Right -- think that "values" equals "religion", fact is that values can come from any number of places.

For Jon Tester, his values were drawn from being part of a long line of Montana farmers. All a Montana voter had to hear about Tester is that he was a third generation farmer and rancher to get a sense for what made him tick -- rugged individuality meshed with small-town sensibilities and community, someone who has had to work hard for a living, tilling his land, fixing his machines, scraping by year after year.

For Jim Webb, his values were drawn from a deep commitment to national service, coming from a long line of military professionals. Voters could immediately get a sense for what makes Webb tick -- a deep sense of commitment to his country, honor, and duty.

Voters want to know what makes a candidate tick. What are the values that inform his decision making process? Fairness? Opportunity? Paul Hackett was able to diffuse the gay marriage issue in his OH-02 2005 special election by turning into a discussion about values, in this case, fairness:

Gay marriage—who the hell cares? If you're gay you're gay—more power to you. What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American.

And where do those values come from? If a candidate sincerely gets his or her values from religion, then that's fine. The Bible is a wonderfully liberal text. And when it's sincere it doesn't come across so grating, so imposing. Compare Obama's talking about religion to Bush's "favorite philosopher" b.s.

But religious values are no more superior than the values I learned from my abuelita (and most Latinos will get a good sense of what my value system looks like just by referencing the word "abuelita"). They are no more superior than the values Tester learned on the farm from his farmer father and grandfather. Or the values that Webb learned while proudly wearing his uniform. Or the values someone might learn by contemplating the great philosophers. Or whatever.

Values are important, and Democrats must be comfortable talking about them. Voters will respond to those better than any laundry list of issues.

But that doesn't equal "talking about religion". We have Democrats who proved their ability to win in tough districts based on values-heavy campaigns. So stop looking at Ford's losing campaign as a model for the future.