One of the things that I've noticed about the 24/7 media universe in the past few years is how often a mistaken idea or cleverly spun story will capture the media's attention until they are unable to talk, write or discuss anything else. Like a raven fixated on a bright, shiny bobble, the media seem unable to understand that it's not a real diamond, it's cubic zirconia. It just looks so darn pretty and fascinating.

Not to mention the fact that it's a lot easier to get your hands on cubic zirconia than real diamonds.

Examples of the cubic zirconia phenomena in the American media include WMD in Iraq, the Saddam Hussein-Osama bin Laden connection, President Bush's military record, to name just a few. The most recent example, however, is the widely held belief that the religious right is almost exclusively responsible for the re-election of Mr. Bush, and thus has every right to "set the agenda" for the foreseeable future.

Mainstream media have fallen all over themselves profiling the leaders of the religious right. Progressive web sites offer manuals on how to protect yourself from the religious right. And the religious right itself, never one to hide its light under a bushel, has been pumping the idea of its supremacy like a superagent trying to inflate the paycheck of his star client.

Only one problem. It's not true. While perception may be nine-tenths of the law in Washington, the numbers just do not bear out this observation; the religious-right is no more of a power now than it's been in the past. The only real difference is that the religious right is just getting better PR this time.

In the just-completed election, exit polls show that 22 percent of Americans said moral values were their most important issue. Sounds like a lot, right?

Actually, it's a drop of 13 percent from the 2000 election, when 35 percent of Americans named moral issues as their most important ones.

Remember that election? When George W. Bush was going to go to Washington and clean up after the Clinton sex scandals. Back then in 2000, 57 percent of the country said the moral condition of the country was on the wrong track.

In an article entitled "The triumph of the religious right: it may look like that but liberals should think again before despairing," The Economist (not exactly a left-wing publication) puts the numbers in an even more glaring spotlight:

Moreover, that 22% share is much lower than it was in the two previous presidential elections, in 2000 and 1996. Then, 35% and 40%, respectively, put moral or ethical issues top, and a further 14% and 9% put abortion first, an option that was not given in 2004. Thus, in those two elections, about half the electorate said they voted on moral matters; this time, only a fifth did.

And if you look at the other numbers, it's easy to see that "moral values" were really only third or fourth on the list of voter concerns. For instance, "economy" was at 20 percent and "taxes" at five percent. Let's be honest, those two are kinda joined at the hip.

Meanwhile "terrorism" was 19 percent and "Iraq" was 15 percent - and President Bush has long championed the connection between those two. The same survey showed that almost 60 percent overall of those asked said the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, and that number shot up to 81 percent among Bush supporters. So they certainly didn't see much difference.

And the main qualities that people want in a president? "Religious faith" was chosen by 8 percent of those asked. But "Will bring change" (24 percent), "Clear stand on issue" (17 percent), "Strong Leader" (17 percent), "Honest, trustworthy" (11 percent), and "Cares about people" (9 percent) were all named by people as more important qualities.

Only one, "Intelligent" (7 percent) finished lower. More on that in another column.

Meanwhile, people who identified themselves as "evangelical" comprised 23 percent of those who voted - exactly the same as 2000.

Which brings me back to the core of my argument - Americans did not elect President Bush because of his religious values or some mythical notion of a religious agenda. They elected him because they saw him as a strong leader in a time of war, and they were hesitant about "changing horses midstream."

But our friends on the religious right don't want to hear this. They really want to push the idea that America wants creationism in every classroom, that single pregnant women or homosexuals should not be teaching in public schools, and that abortion doctors should be executed.

All these positions, by the way, come from three new GOP Senators from so-called "red states" - which could lead one to believe that the leadership of the religious right in the US and the ayatollahs of Iran have a lot more in common with each other than it might appear at first glance.

(Tom Coburn, the new Senator from Oklahoma who advocated the "death to abortion doctors" position, was also opposed to showing "Schindler's List" on TV because of "vile language, nudity and irresponsible sexual behavior." As Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald observed, Mr. Coburn seems to have confused the Holocaust with spring break in Fort Lauderdale.)

What Democrats, and even the Republican leadership, need to understand, is that many of the Christians, Jews and Muslims who voted for President Bush, are not wild-eyed fanatics. They are much more like the friend that PittsburghLive.com columnist Tom Purcell talks about in his column "Religious-right straw men."

If you had to guess, you'd think he voted for Clinton. And he did. You'd think he is a spirited, fun-loving fellow who is tolerant of the way people live. And he is. He has friends from every political ideology, friends from different religions, friends from the inner city, friends who are gay.

He'll be the first to tell you that Republicans have some extremist fringes in their party, some of them religious. He cringes when Jerry Falwell talks and says most Christians feel the same way. But despite what the left believes, this fringe is just that -- a fringe.

He'll also tell you there are extremist elements in the Democratic Party, and right now they are running the show. The image of Whoopi Goldberg cussing up a storm while John Kerry and his wife laughed was profound. The image of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter during the Democrat convention was also telling.

This kind of Republican voter would find the musings of Bob Jones, president of the far-right Bob Jones University, in his much publicized letter calling for President Bush to "ignore the pagans" who didn't vote for him, offensive and silly. Ditto the demands for ideological purity (there's that connection with the Iranian ayatollahs again) from Republican senators - which have escalated to such a degree that the religious-right no longer seems able to tell friend from foe.

With more seats in the House and Senate, President Bush can move on a conservative agenda - it's his right to do so. But a conservative agenda does not mean a religious-right agenda. After all, there is a reason that the Republicans don't give the religious right lots of air time during their conventions - they know how this would scare off a lot of center, center-right supporters.

I also find myself bolstered by the words of Republican Senator John McCain to during his bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

We embrace the fine members of the religious conservative community, but that does not mean that we will pander to their self-appointed leaders.

We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson.

We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones.

Amen, brother.

Oh Canada!

Some Democrats, it seems, are turning their eyes towards our northern neighbors as they yearn for life, liberty, and the pursuit of a land without Republicans. Overwhelmed by Tuesday's tsunami of red states, and the destruction of their hopes for a Bush-free world, many American Democrats have talked openly of pulling up stakes and heading to the Great White North.

This has become such a recurrent theme in the last 48 hours that the Canadian government felt it was necessary to issue a press release reminding people that moving to Canada was not like moving to Buffalo (even if it looks somewhat similar) - it's another country and that means you have to do it the old-fashioned way. You have to earn it.

Always eager to help my new fellow citizens learn more about my old fellow citizens, I've decided to write "The Democrats' Guide to Canada" to help them brush up on their Canadiana before the big move.

Pay close attention. There will be a quiz at the end.

1) If you plan to move to Canada, above all DO NOT move to Southern Alberta. Southern Alberta is full of oil men, cowboys, cattle ranchers, etc. You'll think you never left Texas.  It would be like deja vu all over again.

2) Learning the words to the Canadian national anthem is pretty tricky. So, after the "Oh Canada" at the beginning, just remember these key phrases: "Stand on guard for thee," "True north strong and free." Repeat them a lot and you'll be fine.

3) Canada is in mourning right now because the National Hockey League is taking the year off for labor reasons. (People do get too religious in Canada, but only about hockey.) Be sure to dress in black, but wear a Toronto Maple Leafs toque.

4) OK, Canadian words. A "toque"is like a watch cap, but with a pom-pom on top. "Pogie" is not a Russian meat pastry - it's a slang word for unemployment insurance. You don't sit on a couch, you sit on a "chesterfield." You don't chow down on a gyro, you gobble  a "donair." You don't say President Bush, you say "that moron." (Actually said outloud by the top press assistant to the former PM Jean Chretien two years ago. She "resigned" after the remark.)

5) If you want to live in a place near the ocean, move to Nova Scotia. If you cherish flat land, try Saskatchewan. If you want urban industrialization, go to Ontario. If you want a certain joie de vivre, Quebec is calling you. If you want someplace warm ... well ... there's always ... or maybe ... how about ... on second thought, just stay in the US.

6) In Canada, if you call someone a "policy wonk," people will think you're talking about a slightly deranged life insurance salesman. The idea that someone may know too much about something important is an idea that is foreign to most Canadians.

7) You can say nice things about the United Nations and not one stone will be thrown at you. By anyone.

8) Buy a snow shovel. In fact, buy a six pack.

9) In Canada, a New Democrat has nothing to do with the south or any kind of moderation. New Democrats in Canada are the on the far left. And a liberal may not be a liberal, because he or she may be Liberal. And a Liberal may be a conservative. But that doesn't mean he or she is a Conservative. In Canada, a Liberal may be a liberal, a conservative or even a moderate. Got it straight?

You see, in Canada, you can completely change your political stance just by capitalizing a letter.

10) Don't forget to add "eh" to the end of every sentence, eh?

11) Learn everything you can about curling ... and I'm not talking about hair dressing, OK.

12) If somebody bumps into you, you need to say excuse me. It just works that way.

13) In Saskatechewan, all conversations start with "So..." In Nova Scotia, everything is "right some good."

14) Toronto is the New York of Canada. Say bad things about Toronto anywhere else in Canada and you will be welcomed with open arms.

15) A real key to being a good Canadian is that while you are in Canada, you never talk about what a great country it is, but the moment you go outside its borders (especially to the US) you never shut up about it.

(I was only kidding about the quiz. The last thing Canadians like to do is embarrass people.)

Okay, you Dems. Wagons, ho! North we go. And don't forget your toques.