Birtherism isn't all that bad to the liberal media when a rising conservative star may be the target. Just ask the Washington Post and the New York Times, two liberal papers that devoted serious attention to the question of whether Cruz might be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.
Post staffers Ed O’Keefe and Aaron Blake devoted an article to the matter in the May 7 paper's Style section: the question of Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency. He was born in Canada, but had an American mother, thus making him eligible for 2016, but O'Keefe and Blake glommed on to the fact that the hypothetical objection that one must be born on American soil to be "natural born" has never been definitively adjudicated. This isn't isolated to the Washington Post.
Last February, the New York Times described Cruz as “Canadian-born lawyer.” A month prior to that, Politico asked Ted Cruz draws presidential buzz, but is he eligible? It detailed the “natural-born citizen” clause in the Constitution, but every law professor interviewed in the piece was supportive of Cruz’s credentials.
In both the Post and Politico piece, the writers detailed other questions about eligibility concerning Barry Goldwater, Chester A. Arthur, George Romney, and John McCain. Yes, there’s a history, but it doesn’t mean the people making the argument are right. In fact, they’re unspooled.
If only the press suspended their affection for the 44th president, and wrote these articles affirming Obama’s eligibility – and he is eligible – then perhaps we would’ve been spared the idiocy of Orly Taitz, Joesph Farah, and others, who gave some in the media to label the conservative movement as racist.
Sadly, it seems that when a Republican’s eligibility is questioned, it’s more newsworthy, and in the process – keeps the birther community saying “a-ha.”
