To be fair, I don’t think anyone is seriously questioning McCain’s eligibility for the Presidency.
If there were any “skeptics” in the article in today’s Times, they basically were of the opinion that the issue has never been tested in the courts.
Additionally, this is old news anyway. The Washington Times had a story on 3 February 2024, “McCain a ‘natural’ for president, scholars say”. The NY Times story today is basically a re-write of that older story.
I think we can chalk it up to the fact that the Republican race is basically over, Carl Hulse–the Times beat reporter for the McCain campaign–needed an idea for a story, and the Times editors didn’t want to be accused of ignoring Republicans given the real drama in the Democratic race.
It is important to note that the article itself was buried in the paper (page 18) with all of their other “cutesy” political coverage.
If anything what is interesting about the story is how all of the (mostly) right-ish blogs picked it up and felt the need to “defend” McCain from these “charges.” [I am not accusing you, Steven, of doing that, by the way]
The left blogs I read seemed to ignore the story.
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, February 28, 2024 @ 7:20 pm
Here’s an example of someone who argues that McCain is ineligible.
That guy is hardly mainstream–he seems to be a poor G. Gordon Liddy imitator.
It is also interesting that this example of a McCain detractor is from the radical right.
Comment by Ratoe — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 7:59 am
True–he is hardly mainstream (a Constitution Party type, I believe), but it was just one I cam across last night, so appended it for reference.
but yes, it is radical right opposition.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 8:37 am
FYI, I didn’t note your first comment and didn’t actually post the update as a response.
I agree that it is ultimately a cutesy story. It was just one that led me down the rabbit hole of looking up the statutes and whatnot, which led to further posting. I did mean to do some more looking at to whom was arguing what, but didn’t have the time.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 9:56 am
To be fair, I don’t think anyone is seriously questioning McCain’s eligibility for the Presidency.
If there were any “skeptics” in the article in today’s Times, they basically were of the opinion that the issue has never been tested in the courts.
Additionally, this is old news anyway. The Washington Times had a story on 3 February 2024, “McCain a ‘natural’ for president, scholars say”. The NY Times story today is basically a re-write of that older story.
I think we can chalk it up to the fact that the Republican race is basically over, Carl Hulse–the Times beat reporter for the McCain campaign–needed an idea for a story, and the Times editors didn’t want to be accused of ignoring Republicans given the real drama in the Democratic race.
It is important to note that the article itself was buried in the paper (page 18) with all of their other “cutesy” political coverage.
If anything what is interesting about the story is how all of the (mostly) right-ish blogs picked it up and felt the need to “defend” McCain from these “charges.” [I am not accusing you, Steven, of doing that, by the way]
The left blogs I read seemed to ignore the story.
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, February 28, 2024 @ 7:20 pm
Here’s an example of someone who argues that McCain is ineligible.
That guy is hardly mainstream–he seems to be a poor G. Gordon Liddy imitator.
It is also interesting that this example of a McCain detractor is from the radical right.
Comment by Ratoe — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 7:59 am
True–he is hardly mainstream (a Constitution Party type, I believe), but it was just one I cam across last night, so appended it for reference.
but yes, it is radical right opposition.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 8:37 am
FYI, I didn’t note your first comment and didn’t actually post the update as a response.
I agree that it is ultimately a cutesy story. It was just one that led me down the rabbit hole of looking up the statutes and whatnot, which led to further posting. I did mean to do some more looking at to whom was arguing what, but didn’t have the time.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, February 29, 2024 @ 9:56 am