Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns

[HAL 9000 96]

If they keep their finances separate whats the difference? She isn't on the ballot.

you'd think...but c'mon you KNOW the lives of every single member of a candidates family are well scrutinized. Each side is looking for something to hold against the other and family become "fair game" I didn't say it was right, but how much was Hillary's life scrutinized when Bill was running?

I mean, if some are willing to make a big hoopla out of a candidate's pastor, you'd figure they'd be willing to scrutinize the person a candidate sleeps with.

Ah, so if she releases her tax returns then your fine with linking Obama to Wright?

Well Gary, for that to make sense Wright would have to have given birth to Obama's daughters.

I love the way you people can look at things. People are judged by the company they keep because like minded people tend to associate with each other. You set a pretty low standard for your preference. If Obama can sit in the pews and listen to Wright for 20 years then it stands to reason he agrees with what he was saying. The special interest groups on our side are going to tear him up over Wright and Ayers. It may not make any difference to you but I bet it does with anyone that isn't on the far left.

How low is sitting on any given Sunday to one man, publicly disavowed, and another man, known infrequently, versus refusing to have a candid and logical thought as to one person literally physically linked to a potential President that feels the need to keep her finances private.

I don't know about what people that aren't on the left or right, as you polarize the issue yourself, think about Wright et al, other than what the tabloids and their smear mongers have told them to think, but usually when one that is clearly in the public spotlight publicly refuses to divulge something it usually inspires a feeling of hiding something... if you want to go there...

What you consider a low standard more logical thinkers equate with comparing apples to apples.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's relevant in the sense that it'll be used against him, whether it's proper to do so or not.

If they really have separate finances, then yes - it shouldn't be relevant. But if there's a chance (and there is) of this being made into an issue, she should just release it and be done with it. Plenty of other candidates have, without ill effect.

[HAL 9000 96]

Cindy McCain will have to release her tax returns if she doesn't want to be clubbed over the head with it at every turn. Unlike the Clinton years, there is now a massive left-wing machine on the Internet that will make sure that is so.

I'm guessing there's nothing incriminating in there. She's probably better off if she just releases them now.

I agree. She'll have to, even though there most likely is nothing bad in there at all. This election season there is no room for skeletons in any closet, even falsely implied ones like we've seen in Obama's case.

As for assigning left wing/ right wing names to it all... you have to move beyond simple black and white politics and move into more complicated and thought provoking things like... the actual issues at hand for this election.

[Sister Fracas 5]

If they keep their finances separate whats the difference? She isn't on the ballot.

you'd think...but c'mon you KNOW the lives of every single member of a candidates family are well scrutinized. Each side is looking for something to hold against the other and family become "fair game" I didn't say it was right, but how much was Hillary's life scrutinized when Bill was running?

I mean, if some are willing to make a big hoopla out of a candidate's pastor, you'd figure they'd be willing to scrutinize the person a candidate sleeps with.

Ah, so if she releases her tax returns then your fine with linking Obama to Wright?

Well Gary, for that to make sense Wright would have to have given birth to Obama's daughters.

I love the way you people can look at things. People are judged by the company they keep because like minded people tend to associate with each other. You set a pretty low standard for your preference. If Obama can sit in the pews and listen to Wright for 20 years then it stands to reason he agrees with what he was saying. The special interest groups on our side are going to tear him up over Wright and Ayers. It may not make any difference to you but I bet it does with anyone that isn't on the far left.

you lose any credibility when you use the phrase "you people". If you read more carefully I said I don't agree that this is the way things should be and I could care less with what's in her tax returns. My point is that IS the way it is and it's not like this is anything new. And I repeat, what was the justification for peering into Hillary's life when she was the wife of a presidential candidate? Any idea?

[HAL 9000 96]

If they keep their finances separate whats the difference? She isn't on the ballot.

you'd think...but c'mon you KNOW the lives of every single member of a candidates family are well scrutinized. Each side is looking for something to hold against the other and family become "fair game" I didn't say it was right, but how much was Hillary's life scrutinized when Bill was running?

I mean, if some are willing to make a big hoopla out of a candidate's pastor, you'd figure they'd be willing to scrutinize the person a candidate sleeps with.

Ah, so if she releases her tax returns then your fine with linking Obama to Wright?

Well Gary, for that to make sense Wright would have to have given birth to Obama's daughters.

I love the way you people can look at things. People are judged by the company they keep because like minded people tend to associate with each other. You set a pretty low standard for your preference. If Obama can sit in the pews and listen to Wright for 20 years then it stands to reason he agrees with what he was saying. The special interest groups on our side are going to tear him up over Wright and Ayers. It may not make any difference to you but I bet it does with anyone that isn't on the far left.

you lose any credibility when you use the phrase "you people". If you read more carefully I said I don't agree that this is the way things should be and I could care less with what's in her tax returns. My point is that IS the way it is and it's not like this is anything new. And I repeat, what was the justification for peering into Hillary's life when she was the wife of a presidential candidate? Any idea?

That's called having a very short political memory. Since it looks like Operation Chaos will not succeed in creating all that much chaos in the Democratic Party, and Democratic voters will not be as negatively impacted by these ongoing smear campaigns, people of all walks of creed will have to come to grips that come November most voters will go on the issues that have shaped their notions of what has been and what should be.

[Jenn! 918]

It's relevant in the sense that it'll be used against him, whether it's proper to do so or not.

If they really have separate finances, then yes - it shouldn't be relevant. But if there's a chance (and there is) of this being made into an issue, she should just release it and be done with it. Plenty of other candidates have, without ill effect.

Used against him as in Cindy McCain has a lot of money, you rich #######! or Cindy McCain is doing some creative accounting to evade paying taxes? Is it an "issue" simply because people are nosy? Or do they think that one's tax returns are directly related to their capacity to serve as president?

[GaryC 7]

If they keep their finances separate whats the difference? She isn't on the ballot.

you'd think...but c'mon you KNOW the lives of every single member of a candidates family are well scrutinized. Each side is looking for something to hold against the other and family become "fair game" I didn't say it was right, but how much was Hillary's life scrutinized when Bill was running?

I mean, if some are willing to make a big hoopla out of a candidate's pastor, you'd figure they'd be willing to scrutinize the person a candidate sleeps with.

Ah, so if she releases her tax returns then your fine with linking Obama to Wright?

Well Gary, for that to make sense Wright would have to have given birth to Obama's daughters.

I love the way you people can look at things. People are judged by the company they keep because like minded people tend to associate with each other. You set a pretty low standard for your preference. If Obama can sit in the pews and listen to Wright for 20 years then it stands to reason he agrees with what he was saying. The special interest groups on our side are going to tear him up over Wright and Ayers. It may not make any difference to you but I bet it does with anyone that isn't on the far left.

you lose any credibility when you use the phrase "you people". If you read more carefully I said I don't agree that this is the way things should be and I could care less with what's in her tax returns. My point is that IS the way it is and it's not like this is anything new. And I repeat, what was the justification for peering into Hillary's life when she was the wife of a presidential candidate? Any idea?

Sorry but the "you people" is just laziness on my part. Next time I will pick a different group identifier. And when Bill was president I didn't care a bit about Hillary. But the Wright and Ayers things are directly related to the subject at hand. It shows who he would align himself to and as I said, people that think alike tend to gravitate to each other. It's a direct look into his personality. The fact Obama's own wife says she wasn't proud of her country until her husband ran for the president also says volumes about Obama's own views. If McCains wife had said something like that those that are for Obama would be all over it. It isn't only about issues, it's also about how our next president views the world and our place in it. So far Obama has made me really wonder about his character.

[HAL 9000 96]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

[GaryC 7]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

[Jenn! 918]

"character" is not an objective term

[Eric-Pris 1,606]

If they keep their finances separate whats the difference? She isn't on the ballot.

Then she shouldn't be the first lady if he wins either. Hell, once he's President he should just replace her with a hotter younger woman anyway, and Cindy won't need to worry about her privacy anymore because nobody will care.

[HAL 9000 96]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

[GaryC 7]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

[Marc and Olga 0]

You know there was an article in the paper about a cash strapped, failing campaign and if they should drop from the race.

So where did McCain find the cash to continue on?

edit: yes it was quite awhile ago.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Marc and Olga

[HAL 9000 96]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

Yes, they are aren't they Gary?

Somehow, I think the majority are more interested in having a President that is more interested in real issues rather than in those only people that beat dead horses would rather focus on... but then that must just be my rational mind at work again. Shame on me. So where do I stand along this apparently biased viewpoint? I prefer to refer to it as focusing on real issues...