You and Wright both have your own respective resentments, and the real question that maybe you should ask, is why you both have your asses planted, so firmly in the past.

Snore.

I'm sure we'll have to deal with this endless -- and ultimately pointless, since the man isn't running for elective anything -- discussion of Rev. Wright's views, but that doesn't mean it's any less disappointing to see Ms. Walsh dredging through the muck again.

What Wright said was wrong. What Wright thinks is wrong. And Barack Obama, to his credit, already stood up and said so in no uncertain terms. He also said urged us to discuss the broader implications of Wright's words and thoughts in order to better our understanding of this country, its people and the wounds it has left untreated.

So... why aren't we doing that? Why are we -- and by we, I mean Joan Walsh, et al -- still rooting around in the mud for fresh sludge to toss?

But, then, Barack Obama already saw this coming:

We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein are arguing about whether Jeremiah Wright's statements are comparable to those of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee's. To argue that they're not comparable, Douthat -- like most people commenting on this raging controversy -- conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:

(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,

(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?

Even if the answer to (1) is "yes," that doesn't change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding "no."

The statement of Wright's which seems to be causing the most upset -- and it's one of two singled out by Douthat -- is his suggestion that there is a causal link between (a) America's constant bombings of and other interference with Middle Eastern countries and (b) the willingness of some Middle Eastern fanatics to attack the U.S. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we've been told that positing any such causal connection is a sign of vicious anti-Americanism and that all decent people find such questions despicable. This week we learned that no respectable person would subject his children to a pastor who espouses such hateful ideas.

But the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe -- who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator -- blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.

The phrases "anti-American" and "America-haters" are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never -- because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. Does Douthat believe that those individuals are anti-American radicals and that people who allow their children to belong to their churches are exercising grave errors of judgment?

Those advancing the argument of Douthat's are also wildly understating the magnitude of the association between "anti-American" white evangelicals and Republican leaders. By all accounts, George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters as weighty as whether to invade Iraq. Isn't that a big scandal -- that the President is consulting with an American-hating minister -- someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country -- about vital foreign policy decisions? No, it wasn't controversial at all.

John Hagee privately visits with the highest level Middle East officials in the White House and afterwards pronounces that they're in agreement. John McCain shares a stage with Hagee and lavishes him with praise, as Rudy Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. James Inhofe remains a member in good standing in the GOP Senate Caucus. The Republican Party has tied itself at the hip to a whole slew of "anti-American extremists" -- people who believe that the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks because God wants to punish us for the evil, wicked nation we've become -- and yet there is virtual silence about these associations.

Nor have the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers," received a fraction of the attention generated by Wright. As both David Corn and Alan Colmes, among others, have documented, Parsley espouses views at least as extreme and radical as Wright, including his proclamation that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." Unlike Wright and Obama -- for whom the former's controversial views are found nowhere near the latter's public or private conduct -- both George Bush and John McCain's Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent.

The Republican Party long ago adopted as a central strategy aligning itself with, and granting great influence to, the most radical, "America-hating" white evangelical Christian ministers in the country. They're given a complete pass on that because political orthodoxy mandates that white evangelical Christian ministers are inherently worthy of respect, no matter how extreme and noxious are their views. That orthodoxy stands in stark contrast to the universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black Christian Minister. What accounts for that glaring disparity?