The next issue of WORLD Magazine is on its way to the printer ... and will be posted at WORLDmag.com on Friday morning.
Click to Print
Include Comments
The NYT on McCain: Week 2
Last week was the non-story on John McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and now this week The New York Times tosses out the question of whether McCain’s eligible to be president:
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Just who is reviving this “musty debate”? The article’s writer only refers to vague “Internet buzz” as the culprit. I can’t wait to see what the Times comes up with next week.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top33 Comments to “The NYT on McCain: Week 2”
If nothing else, you have to admire the sheer brazen chutzpah of the NY Times in its shameless prostituting of itself to the far left-wing these days. Used to be, they sort of tried to put on some rag of journalistic ethics/impartiality over the nastier parts in their news-reporting. Now they just sort of obediently squelch along behind the DNC press releases in a dismal and predictable parody of a slinking dog following after its master.
I also particularly look forward to the usual frantic bobbing and weaving of the usual left-wing posters here on this; it is always quite amusing to watch the various left-wing goons enthusiastically falling all over themselves and clamoring about how beautiful the emperor’s robe is, even as he parades around with his nose stuck up in the air – and without a stitch to cover him.
Not sure which is funnier to watch. The emperor. Or his stooges. But whatever. Theatre-lovers: Sit back and enjoy the show.
Regards the NY Times. I have recently been reading an interesting book about the Hayes-Tilden presidential election in 1876. Apparently, the NY Times has a long and unillustrious history of partisan attempts to influence elections in its ‘news reporting’. In that election, they (the Times) was directly responsible for the election being stolen by Hayes; that from historians of the era.
I guess some things never change . . .
Report comment to moderator
I have no problem with Hulse’s article, which raises an interesting question. Clearly in all fairness McCain should be regarded as a natural U.S. citizen and the Supreme Court would so find, probably by extending the concept of “natural” born citizen to the sons and daughters of military personnel born abroad. In fact these people have never had to formally apply for naturalized status.
Last week’s Times article was a hatchet job; this one is rasonable.
Report comment to moderator
Well that doesn’t sound so bad. If anything it’s an interesting topic, and McCain’s own staff commissioned a legal report!
Report comment to moderator
The issue is crazy, but we have never had a President born outside of a state before, unless you count those born before the Revolution (they got a constitutional exemption).
Lincoln was born before Illinois was a state, but he was born in Kentucky, not Illinois. Obama was born a year after Hawaii statehood.
Surely natural born would include someone born in a US territory with both parents citizens.
Report comment to moderator
I will have to ask my friend Ken, who is a canal zone baby. His daddy was in the US military and his momma was a Panamanian national. We’ve always razzed him that he’s not a true US citizen. He tells us stories of swimming in both oceans on the same day.
Report comment to moderator
I always thought “Natural-Born” meant they can’t have been delivered by C-section.
However, by that logic, JFK would have been disqualified. Too bad someone didn’t think of it sooner.
Report comment to moderator
It is not even a viable LEGAL issue. Such children are viewed by law as ‘natural born’, same as if they were born in St Louis. Any attempt to make this an issue (as the Times seems to be yet again doing) is, as Senator Graham says in so many words, beneath contempt.
We should be focusing on the positions of the candidates on the issues. Instead we get this from the NYTimes.
I can see the headlines now “MCCAIN DISCOVERED NAKED IN BED WITH WOMAN IN PANAMA! HOWARD DEAN DEMANDS INVESTIGATION!”
Report comment to moderator
“MCCAIN ADMITS SERVICMAN’S WIFE IN PANAMA SPANKED HIM NUMEROUS TIMES!”
Report comment to moderator
What can I say after what Drill said?
Wait till they swift boat him. You know they will. I’ve already heard the stories, but they are waiting for the national election.
Report comment to moderator
Wait till they swift boat him.
What do you mean wait? The Free Republic and others have already done so, publishing “reports” that McCain is a Manchurian Candidate for the Vietnamese. That’s more despicable than anything the Times has “reported.”
Report comment to moderator
I doubt either Hillary or Obama would contest McCain’s right to run for President. Some of their spineless minions might though.
A constitutional amendment might be helpful. I would think that anyone who was a citizen of the US for a sufficient length of time should be eligible. Perhaps 35 years since that is the legal age required for presidency. If I was 50 years old and had been a US citizen for 45 years, I think I should be as eligible as someone who was 42 and born a citizen in the US.
Report comment to moderator
“Apparently, the NY Times has a long and unillustrious history of partisan attempts to influence elections in its ‘news reporting’.”
Oh. Is that what journalism students and journalists mean when they say they “want to make a difference in the world?” Seems a bit unethical to say the least….
“Last week’s Times article was a hatchet job; this one is rasonable.[sic]“
Are you sure you didn’t mean risable, and your fingers tried to tell you so?
Report comment to moderator
I think the gist of the intent was of course, that the president would not be a foreign sympathizer, but would be a representative of the citizens, and one way to ensure that would be to enact a rule that they be “natural born” citizens. Too bad that was so vaguely worded, but I would think it would extend to children born to servicemen and women who were on duty in a foreign country. It would seem to be a rude slap in the face of those who served their country to be denied this as well.
Report comment to moderator
“…but I would think it would extend to children born to servicemen and women who were on duty in a foreign country.”
Especially given the world’s high state of mobility these days. I’m sure our forbears didn’t envision the huge network of roads, high tech cars, high speed trains, huge safe ocean liners, not to mention high speed jets or… rockets.
Report comment to moderator
McClean on The NYT: Week 2
Just who is reviving this “musty debate”? The article’s writer only refers to vague “Internet buzz” as the culprit.
Report comment to moderator
Headsup: Was just looking at ABCNews.com. They are running a story that Canadian television reported that Obama called an Canadian ambassador to tell him that Obama’s comments on NAFTA was campaign rhetoric only so don’t worry. The ambassador has denied this call. Has the NYT mentioned this one?
Odd how the NYT couldn’t get a story from 2000 right last week, and now they find another one that was brought up and dismissed then, too.
I have always been under the impression that if you were born outside of the country if your parents registered you with the embassy, you were considered a natural-born citizen. I know a fellow who was born in Germany because his parents worked for the Red Cross and he is considered a citizen for that reason. I suspect children of service personnel enjoy a similar “benefit.”
Report comment to moderator
My daughter has a certificate of birth abroad that was issued by the US embassy where she was born. Because my wife and I are US citizens, she is too, and I believe she is considered natural-born, since she did not have to be naturalized.
Our adopted son, however, was born overseas to non-American parents. He is a naturalized citizen and could never be president under the current Constitution.
In the case of McCain, the Panama Canal Zone was U.S. territory, wasn’t it? That settles the question, as far as I know–two American parents and born on American “soil.”
Report comment to moderator
This theater lover did enjoy the show, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Seems that McCain was born a citizen. Not sure what the controversy would be.
A child born overseas to American parents is an American citizen.
I think anyone who is a citizen for 35 years should be given the right to be president.
Report comment to moderator
Since accusing the Times of conspiracy is in vogue these days, I’ll posit that the story was purposely written to pave the way for Ahhnolds 2012 run. The “Panama McCain” story will make the slope just slippery enough for the Governator to attempt to take on President Obama in four years.
You heard it hear first.
Bowing, I close with a topical palindrome.
A man, a plan, a canal. Panama!
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: if your parents registered you with the embassy, you were considered a natural-born citizen.
In that event, the State Department issues a “Notice of a child born abroad of American parents” in the form of a certificate. This document states that an American consul examined the birth records in the country of birth and found the birth there recorded. Observe carefully. The certificate doesn’t say “citizen.” More importantly, the certificate comes from the State Department, but citizenship is determined by the Justice Department. Curiously, the Justice Department doesn’t recognize the State Department’s “Notice” as proof of citizenship for the purpose of issuing a “Certificate of Citizenship” but can demand the complete rigamarole of live interviews and documentation of the citizenship and legal marriage of the parents. Reporters should find out if McCain ever got a “Certificate of Citizenship” from the Justice Department.
The State Department occasionally has refused to issue a passport to someone who presents a “Notice of Child Born Abroad to American Parents”, demanding a “Certificate of Citizenship.” However, intervention by a member of Congress can overcome that as well as many other citizenship obstacles.
The point is, bureaucrats in the State Department and Justice Department have wide scope to deny citizenship to anybody not born on US soil and routinely say no to folks like McCain.
Report comment to moderator
As the mother of a child born in Germany in an American military hospital – Berlin, before the Wall came down, I inquired about my child being eligible for dual citizenship at the time.
I was told that my daughter is an American citizen. American military installations in foreign countries are considered American soil as is the case with embassies and consulates. We were issued a certificate of American Birth Abroad for her, an American Birth Certificate and an American Passport. That makes her an American citizen.
Had my daughter been born somewhere en route to the hospital dual citizenship might have been a possibility.
Sounds to me like the Times is pole vaulting over mouse turds.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #16: Was just looking at ABCNews.com. They are running a story that Canadian television reported that Obama called an Canadian ambassador to tell him that Obama’s comments on NAFTA was campaign rhetoric only so don’t worry. The ambassador has denied this call. Has the NYT mentioned this one?
In one of the earlier threads on McCain and the NYT, you commented several times that the anonymity of the source made the story suspect to you. The fact that they wrote of multiple corroborating sources didn’t seem to impress you.
This Obama story is based on a single anonymous source and denied both by Obama’s campaign and by the ambassador who supposedly spoke to the source.
Is it suspect?
Report comment to moderator
#9 Adios,
By definition, they can’t swift boat McCain unless they tell the truth. Truth is very far from them.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Scroopy,
So, you are saying that people like McCain, whose father and grandfather were at the highest rank as Admirals in the US Navy, both highly decorated war heros (as John was), whose parents were in Panama, a US territory, at the order of the US government – are routinely denied natural born citizren status.
Who are you trying to kid?
Report comment to moderator
From what I’ve seen here on this blog, the Swiftboating has already begun.
McCain has been called “Hanoi Hilton John” on a couple occasions. Maybe by the same poster.
Report comment to moderator
(btw, I didn’t mean “on this blog” generally — I meant by at least one specific poster, but maybe two or three)
Report comment to moderator
Of more interest to me was the story about the conservative radio guy (I can’t remember his name) that introduced McCain the other night and made some personal insults against Obama and Clinton. McCain flat out repudiated the guys comments and said that he wanted no part of personal insults against his opponents. The radio guy was furious at McCain for putting him down. Now he says he hates McCain so much that he’s gonna vote for Hillary. (Where have we heard that before?)
I think the Republicans are going to be too divided to get it together this time. There’s still a not insignificant number of conservatives who absolutely detest McCain. I think they’ll sit this one out.
Report comment to moderator
LLAMA: no.
Report comment to moderator
Last week’s story discussion alleged ties to lobbyists is more important and relevant than this rather limited story which has very little speculative value as the answer is obvious. He’s an American.
The more interesting debate is a change of requirements to be a candidate. In this case, I don’t see why a “naturalized” citizen couldn’t run.
Report comment to moderator
#18 JJF: Pimping for the Gray Prostitute of the Left again, are you?
I rave and foam at the mouth, you are right – and sometimes I bite, too. Especially the slow and ungifted ones, so you (particularly) better be careful.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I found out today that CTV is standing behind its story, that there’s more to it — the Clinton team is denying that they contacted the Canadians, though there are those who say they have. I just find it very odd that this has not been mentioned here in the US. Nafta is a big part of the debate going on with the Dems. You’d think people would want to know what’s what. If it’s true, then there’s something rotten in Democratland if they are saying one thing to Americans and another to the Canadians. I just want to know the truth, and I would think you would want to know it, too.
Report comment to moderator
Of course I’d want to know. This is the latest story I’ve found and it’s a couple of days old.
Another one.
Still looks fishy to me. Based on one unnamed source, denied by everyone alleged to be involved.
I’m sure CTV will stand behind it unless it’s so totally proven untrue that they have no choice. News organizations hate to retract things.
Look at what you’re doing though. The NYT story had multiple corroborating sources on the lobbyist story, and followups elsewhere quickly got a named one on the record, but you were sure it was liberal persecution in the media.
This one has one completely anonymous source and no supporting evidence, and unequivocal denials by all concerned, but you insist there must be something there worth continuing to investigate.
Do you honestly think you’re weighing the two by equal measure?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!