Another NYT Hit Piece on McCain

Last week the New York Times continued to damage its reputation with a blatant smear of Senator John McCain.

This week the New York Times is raising questions about whether Senator McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone may disqualify him from being President, as although his parents were American citizens -- and he was born on a U.S. military installation, to boot -- he might not fit the Constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen."

Carl Hulse of The Times starts his article: "The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president?"

Oh really? And how did Hulse arrive at this conclusion? Any evidence this has been on many parents' minds?

He later writes: "...whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence."

Who are the "some" who declare him ineligible? What are the names of the sites where this debate has taken place? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I sure haven't come across such a discussion, and he makes a pretty sweeping generalization.

The paper does note that previous Presidential candidates have been born to American citizens living outside the United States, either in Arizona Territory (Barry Goldwater) or Mexico (George Romney).

This may be a question of passing interest as a matter of Presidential trivia, but this hardly seems likely to be a true Constitutional question which would prevent Senator McCain from becoming President. "Natural-born" does not mean "native-born."

The way Hulse and the Times breathlessly lay out the story, framing it with the kinds of generalizations noted above, makes it appear that the paper is continuing to look for any way possible to raise questions about a candidate who, ironically, was endorsed by the paper.

Update: Rick Moore at Holy Coast asks a couple good questions: "...how long have they had this story and why have they waited until now to release it? Surely they've known for many years where McCain was born..."

Patterico notes "...the New York Times can’t muster a single expert who really thinks McCain is likely to lose the issue in court."

Patterico also links to this funny comment at Hot Air: "Good thing McCain wasn’t born on February 29th, they’d be debating whether or not he is over 35."

A fellow fan of THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE?

Thursday Update: Bench Memos further demonstrates the frivolity of the Times article, and also makes note of the article's silly introduction.