New York Times getting ragged

Apparently the NYT is raising McCain's birth in Panama as some kind of possible impediment to being president under some theory that it somehow means he's not a "natural born" citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the office of president.
This nonsense says a lot more about the declining news judgment of the NY Times than it does about McCain. The issue is really a stupid one, the kind of thing whispered by the same sort of person who tortures the language worse than a Gitmo detainee in order to argue things like the 16th amendment didn't actually establish an income taxing power.
The very first Congress, in 1790, which included quite a few Founders, made it clear that people who happened to be born overseas or at sea to a U.S. citizen couple were "natural born" citizens. Thinking otherwise results in the bizarre result that the child of some illegal immigrants who happens to be born in Texas has a better claim on being president someday than the child of two decorated U.S. military wartime veterans stationed in Germany who happens to be born on a U.S. military base. Come on. Does anyone think that's likely?
This "story" doesn't pass the smell test. It's a nonstory. It's something any decent reporter on a small-town daily would dump after a few minutes of research. It simply doesn't check out.