Religion in Politics

In his article, from the LA Times website, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story?track=rss, Neal Gabler argues that religious conservatives are beating the liberals in every single way.
According to Gabler, conservatives are crazy unrational beings who can't be negotiated with. He goes on to say that they are zealous fanatics,comparing them to jihadis. He later argues that the media is even too afraid of these conservatives to put them in a bad light.
I think the purpose of this article is to scare liberals to fight against the conservatives who are coming together to voice their unhappiness with the current administration, because he uses certain scare tactics saying that [the conservatives] are "winning many battles" and "nothing will work". Even though he says that the conservatives have been winning many battles, he didn't cite any. I can't think of anything that conservatives have won recently. We have a Democrat President, and an overwhelming Democrat Senate and House of Representatives. I think he's trying to turn the tea baggers' protests (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/) into some kind of a victory for conservatives even though nothing concerning the tax or the healthcare has changed towards their liking. He also claims that these conservatives have always been loud and zealous, but I have only seen them pop up when they were arguing against tax increases in April and again in September. He makes them seem like these crazy people who are always complaining and protesting, but many of these conservative protestors(at least the ones on tv) have said that it was their first time protesting anything and that they just thought the administration were accumulating to much debt for future generations. Also, many of these original tea baggers were also mad at the Bush administration because they felt that he also contributed to the the deficit problem, so it's not as if they're only mad at the Obama administration. Protesting was also done by many liberals during Bush's administration, because they were against the wars, but I don't remember anyone comparing them to crazy jihadis. Also, he claims that the media are intimidated by these conservatives; I admit that I didn't hear any negative things about the protests in September, but I remember negative comments made about the teabaggers in April like that they were a bunch of rednecks, extremists, lousy losers, etc. I think Gabler's purpose in writing this article in a tone of defeat is enrage liberals, making them bind together against the emergence of these conservatives.