Smearing John McCain

The New York Times certainly is doing its best to help John McCain’s credentials and fundraising among hard-line conservatives with its second bogus attack against the senator in less than a week. We would expect this yellow journalism from a third-rate newspaper or partisan blog or web site that circulates propaganda and smear tactics instead of facts or bona fide news. But seeing The New York Times wallow in the mud with these anti-stories is making it increasingly difficult to defend.

Today’s smear questions whether John McCain can run for president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (and you thought smearing Barack Obama for living in Indonesia for a year was low). According to the Constitution, anyone running for president must be 35 and a “natural-born” citizen. The latter point is generally accepted as someone who was born in the 50 states and was not born outside the country, although this is not officially declared in any laws or bylines.

When McCain was born in 1936, the United States still owned the Panama Canal and the entire Panama Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory. That alone should squash any left-wing claims to the contrary, although we’ll doubtless see reports trying to determine whether the hospital where McCain was born was in the zone or not.

The Times also lists several other candidates who were born abroad who ran for president without controversy, although none were successful. These include Mitt Romney’s father (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and Barry Goldwater (born in the Arizona territory before it became a state). Interestingly, if you want to take the constitution’s language literally, then none of our first seven presidents would qualify to run for office because they were all born before July 4, 1776, meaning they were born in the British colonies and not in the true United States of America. Martin Van Buren would then be the first “natural born” president since he was born in 1782. This also may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran for president, as he was born on the island of Nevis – while other founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson were born on what was to be U.S. soil.

Personally, I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president. I believe that new U.S. citizens are much more appreciative and understanding of the freedoms that too many of us “natural born” folks take for granted. In studying for their citizenship tests, they probably learn more about our history than most of the masses. I’ll bet they’re also more likely to vote, start a business, speak freely and work hard because many of them come from countries where none of those things were possible. They try to accomplish the American Dream so their children will have a better life, just as my great-grandparents did when they immigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia over a century ago.

Besides naturalized individuals, the Times tempest in a drop of tea also brings up other questions. What about people born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam? Can they run for president? It’s bad enough that people who live in Washington, D.C. still have taxation without representation.

Nobody would ever question McCain’s patriotism, service to his country or ability to serve as president and commander-in-chief. It’s disgraceful that The New York Times is resorting to foul methods to discredit him. Just as Michael Moore helped Bush get re-elected, the NY Times could accomplish the same feat for McCain if it keeps this up.