To their objection we chime in: A man has no say-so over when he is born. This is a matter rightly left up to his parents. From time immemorial it has ever been such, and, despite political caviling, we feel that we can state with confidence and clarity it shall ever be!
We wish to state our own opinion today, that there is nothing wrong with John McCain's age. We declare, also with confidence, that he can still be a fine president -- a great president -- no matter when he was born. And history proves our case.
I believe we can all agree on this one fact, that John McCain was born in 1936. In our everyday way of thinking, that's quite a ways back. The car had been invented by then but not much else.
1936! They say, "How in the world can anyone serve as president who was born in 1936?" I've heard it over and over, and as one who is sick and tired of hearing it, I feel I can speak for others who would say they also are sick and tired of hearing it.
Let's turn to the book. What does history teach us? Our first president, George Washington, was born in 17321. Our second president, John Adams, was born in 17352. In fact, the first twelve presidents were all born in the 1700s3. Right on the face of it you can see that if they were all born that long ago, there should be no problem with McCain's relatively recent birth year of 1936.
There have been numerous great presidents. Our history is a proud one, whether it has been a time of peace and plenty or of war and bloodshed. Troubles have at time run rampant over our land and the world, but it was at those times that presidents have stood the test and have brought us through. But were they not "too old" to get the job done? Not at all. Abraham Lincoln, one of our better-known presidents, was born in 18094. He wasn't too old, was he?
Lincoln was preceded by Fillmore and Pierce, both born in the 1800s5, and they were followed by numerous others, including two born in the same year, Grant and Hayes in 18226. (This coincidence was apparently not a problem.) So, being born in the 1800s was not an automatic disqualifier back then and it should not be now.
When we come to the 20th century, we might assume that every "modern" president was born in the 1900s. But that would be an assumption that should not make rashly, for the very simple reason that it would be wrong. In fact, several of our presidents in the 20th century were also born in the 1800s7. These include Theodore Roosevelt, born as far back as 18588! The great Democratic president who led us in World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt himself, was born in the 1800s, in 18829. To us, that is aged, and factoring in his handicap, he had some strikes against him. But FDR declared his generation the Greatest Generation, then set out to prove it so.
That brings us to the 1900s. We had presidents born in the 1900s starting with John F. Kennedy. He was born in 191710. Ronald Reagan in 191111. Up through President George H.W. Bush (192412), all of our presidents were born before John McCain.
The case has been made. The facts have been gleaned, sorted through, and presented. The year a man was born has never been a disqualifier for the highest office in the land, and it should not be now. John McCain, born as we said in 1936, could still make an excellent president. We say this based primarily on his merits, a matter of opinion. But we say it also based on the inarguable principle of precedent. Others -- many others -- born earlier than John McCain -- have served as president with great distinction. Now -- today -- this is no time to declare it otherwise.
1 Borgna Brunner, editor-in chief, Time Almanac 2004, Needham, MA, 2003, p. 112.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
