Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
McCain's comment about the Constitution establishing a Christian nation is drawing both praise and criticism. The praise comes from the Christian Coalition, which put out a press release saying:
"Comments like 'America was founded on Christian principles' by Senator John McCain just might make him president. In an interview last Saturday with a Christian-oriented webset called Beliefnet, Senator McCain stated that "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I would prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith." The fact that the left-wing Muslim groups vociferously reacted against McCain's remarks, just added validity to his comments, and indeed value for his presidential nomination hopes.
That last statement is utterly irrational, of course. McCain's statement was false and the fact that "left wing Muslim groups" disagreed with it does not magically transform that false statement into a true one. This is the sort of argument that is convincing only to the terminally illogical. It's also amusing that the Christian Coalition, which has long been a staunch critic of McCain (remember when he called Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance"?), is swayed so completely by a single sentence.
His comments are not being greeted with such praise by non-Christians. The Anti-Defamation League is none too happy about being declared outsiders in their own country:
"We urge you to reconsider and withdraw your statements describing the United States as a 'Christian nation' and a 'nation founded on Christian principles,'" the national director of the Jewish advocacy group, Abraham Foxman, wrote in a letter to Mr. McCain yesterday. "Not only were your assertions inaccurate, they were also ill-advised for any candidate seeking to lead a nation as religiously diverse and pluralistic as ours."
McCain, Mr. Straight Talk himself, is frantically trying to signal that he didn't really mean it to one side while simultaneously signaling that he really did mean it to the other.
Comments
In related news, 55% of Americans admit to drinking the bong water.
Posted by: Doug | October 5, 2007 9:54 AM
Wait a minute! I though they were Islamofascists, not Islamocommies?
Posted by: Dunc | October 5, 2007 9:57 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | October 5, 2007 10:10 AM
And the fact that McCain has become such a spineless toad after what they did to him in SC in 2000.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 5, 2007 10:15 AM
Left-wing muslim groups. Are those the ones that hold that women should only be flogged for allowing their ankles to show, rather than being stoned to death?
Posted by: Chuck C | October 5, 2007 11:20 AM
You know, most days I'm fine with letting my mild and ineffectual pedantry release my tension and rage at the stupidity that is displayed by the vast majority of humans, but this:
followed by this:
makes the pain from pounding my head against my desk seem like sweet manna from heaven. The stupid, it burns. I don't know how Ed willingly seeks it out to comment on it.
Posted by: Jonathan | October 5, 2007 11:33 AM
The Straight Talk Express, the whole "free-thinking maverick who'll fight for the little guy" schtick, is one of the most successful snow jobs in the history of American politics. It's the biggest load of bullshit since... well, since everything the Bush administration has ever done, but that's not important right now. The guy's talk is as straight as a corkscrew.
My personal favorite was when he was asked whether the U.S. should fund condom distribution in Africa and elsewhere around the world to help prevent AIDS, and he said, "You've stumped me... I've never gotten into these issues before." He's been in national politics since 1982, and he's never thought about the global AIDS pandemic before? Either he's a liar, or he's grotesquely unqualified to be in national politics. Or both.
Posted by: Greta Christina | October 5, 2007 12:43 PM
Not that successful Greta. For all the talk over the past few years, McCain really has very little to show for it resultwise. Buzz is one thing, but results another. Just ask Ross Perot. Hence his desperation now to coddle the sanctimonious right. At this point, what does he have to lose?
Posted by: Dave S. | October 5, 2007 12:56 PM
Well, I'll be. McCain's pandered, and it actually worked. Is that a first?
Posted by: Coin | October 5, 2007 2:50 PM
Once he loses the primaries, that's it, right? We don't have to hear him anymore?
Posted by: Dan Cardinale | October 5, 2007 3:07 PM
Once he loses the primaries, that's it, right? We don't have to hear him anymore?
I believe his current Senatorial term lasts until 2010.
Though goodness knows what he's going to do in the Senate once it becomes clear he can't use it as a platform to the Presidency. Does he remember, anymore, why he went in there in the first place?
Posted by: Coin | October 5, 2007 3:24 PM
Well, I'll probably get flamed, but I'm going to defend McCain. Not his stupid "Christian nation" comment. I agree that's pathetic.
But...as a political scientist, I regularly remind my students (and friends, on the rare occasions they'll listen) that the president's job is foreign policy, not domestic policy. Consider both Clinton and Bush: both wanted to focus on domestic issus, but were forced to spend most of their time on foreign policy. That's just the nature of the office.
So when John Edwards or Mitt Romney talk about the domestic policies they'll push as president, I tune out and decide not to vote for them.
But who in this presidential field does have foreign policy experience? McCain and Clinton. Personally I hope they're the two nominees. And if you think a stupid (very stupid, we all agree) "christian nation" statement is more important than foreign policy experience in selecting a president, you're not quite as smart about politics as you'd like to think.
Now, if you dislike his foreign policy views, by all means vote against him. But let's stop selecting presidents for the wrong reasons.
Posted by: JamesH | October 5, 2007 7:25 PM
"But...as a political scientist, I regularly remind my students (and friends, on the rare occasions they'll listen) that the president's job is foreign policy, not domestic policy."
You know, I'm pretty sure that they are *both* the president's job. The president being the Chief Executive and therefore head of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, etc, all of which have a very strong influence on domestic policy. Perhaps you are confusing the president with the Secretary of State?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | October 5, 2007 7:34 PM
Me, I refuse to vote for any of 'em. A pox on all their houses I say!!
Posted by: Dave S. | October 5, 2007 7:42 PM
JamesH: Foreign policy is more important than the Bush tax cuts? Than the rule of law? Because Bush chose to fight two wars in bumf*ck Egypt?
Yeah, I have a degree in political science, too, and your thesis just floors me.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 5, 2007 8:10 PM
If domestic policy isn't the president's job, then whose is it?
Posted by: Carlie | October 5, 2007 8:47 PM
Not that he would have ever said this, but it would have been refreshing if he'd instead stated that the country was based on principals that are, for the most part, common to all of the majors.
Posted by: Andrea | October 6, 2007 12:45 AM
Color me dense, but what does the term "Christian principles" even mean?
Posted by: daniel rotter | October 6, 2007 5:18 AM
Daniel, what's fooling you is that it should be "Christian Principles(TM). A common mistake.
Posted by: jufulu, FCD | October 6, 2007 10:47 PM
Searching for the phrase "Christian principles" on the 'net finds thousands of hits, but no obvious definitions or even examples in the first 100 or so (all the results that I skimmed). I guess most people don't want to know, else (whatever the definitions are) some would be ranked higher?
I did find an (alleged) investment advisor, an (alleged) travel agency, blog(?) posting "rules", and a lot of arguing about both McCain and whether or not the USA was founded on(? with? using? as?) these mysterious things. None of the sites I looked at had an obvious list or definition of these things, nor a pointer (link) to a list or definition of these things. (A few sites did cite numerous--and different--quotations from various bibles. It wasn't clear if those were the principles, or fictional examples of their non-use?)
Nor could I find the trademarked version. ;-)
Posted by: blf | October 7, 2007 1:43 PM
Once he loses the primaries, I could see McCain running as a third party candidate endorsed by evangelicals.
Posted by: tourettist | October 7, 2007 10:47 PM