Which is light years away from McCain’s assertion that Romney “suggested secret timetables” and was thus one of the people who “were hedging their bets on Iraq, positioning themselves politically by being deliberately vague on their support for General Petraeus’ new strategy.”
At the very least, McCain was muddling the record. Which has been clear for some time: when the whole Iraq-timetable back-and-forth began last week (on Saturday, as far as I can tell, when the Senator trotted out the accusation against his chief rival at a campaign stop in Orlando), several media organizations went out of their way to clarify the untruth of the claim. “A Misleading Low Blow,” TIME’s Michael Scherer called it. “McCain Stretches Romney’s Words,” The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder wrote. The National Review’s Mark Levin researched Romney’s initial statement and other statements he’d made about timetables, concluding that they “do not support McCain’s accusation.” Even the quotes McCain’s own campaign circulated, the AP noted, “didn’t show Romney making that exact comment—nor did aides back up McCain’s earlier comment that suggested that Romney ‘wanted to set a date for withdrawal.’”
No wonder Romney seemed testy last night. From the looks of things, McCain has been playing him—not to mention much of the political press.
And that latter fact, at least, seems to be a trend. As The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait reported last week, The New York Times let Mac off the hook when it re-printed a prior assertion of his—“Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes. Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues”—without refuting it. “The amazing thing,” Chait wrote, is that the Times “made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the truth of his point. Just the typical, ‘McCain says earth is flat, and meanwhile in other news…’ stuff.” As Matt Yglesias put it this morning:
Mac was not only Back last night, but appears to have made his patently false accusation that Mitt Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of his argument at last night’s debate. Shocking stuff. McCain’s made this claim before, everyone who’s looked at it concluded that it wasn’t true, and so McCain … just did it again in a higher-profile forum.
Naturally, Jonathan Martin’s Politico article on the subject was given the headline “Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq” rather than, say, “McCain Lies His Ass Off.”
The line between spinning and lying, it seems, is one that we in the media haven’t marked clearly enough for ourselves; some discussion and clarification may be in order. Because whatever McCain did—whether he spun or he lied—he seems to have been spared from accountability. And he seems to know it. Real World politics strikes again.
- 1
- 2





Dear Editor:
Senator John McCain is apparently not eligible to be elected President of the United States under the clear provisions of the Constitution. McCain is not a natural born citizen inasmuch as he was born in the U. S. Navy Hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, which was never part of the United States.
The Constitution states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible for the Office of President.” The 14th Amendment did not alter this provision.
The status of the U. S. Navy Hospital in the Panama Canal Zone is described by the U. S. Department of State in its Foreign Affairs Manual (7FAM1116.1-4(c)): “Despite widespread popular belief, U. S. military installations abroad and U. S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U. S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
This issue should be addressed as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Carl Olson
Chairman
State Department Watch
P. O. Box 6102
Woodland Hills, California 91365
818-223-8080
Posted by Carl Olson
on Fri 1 Feb 2008 at 07:12 PM
Despite the State Department manual, the issue is not McCain's the place of birth, but his status at birth. He was a citizen of the United States, under our laws, at the moment of his birth. Natural-born does not mean born inside the territory of the U.S. -- but excluded citizens who are "naturalized" -- made citizens at sometime after their birth by legal processes which convert their citizenship from that of another country.
Posted by fredricwilliams
on Mon 7 Apr 2008 at 02:47 AM