digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns

news.yahoo.com — What is she trying to hide? The TradMed harped on John Kerry until his wife released hers. Besides, why should Bill Clinton release his, under his theory. He's no longer running for office. Is it because McCain doesn't want anyone to know exactly how rich they are?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MajorDamage, on 05/08/2008, -43/+25Will you release yours? What are you trying to hide?
    • motogoat, on 05/08/2008, -13/+39Me? I'm not running for president and neither is my significant other. So that's why I won't release mine.
      • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -7/+20Where in the constitution does it state that spouses of candidates must do anything like release their tax returns?
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/08/2008, -6/+14Nowhere of course.

          However, voters can infer that someone who does not release their returns may have sources of income, and thus relationships, with people that they'd rather the voters didn't know about.
          • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -9/+14Guilty until proven innocent? Your thinking applied to the Fourth Amendment is exactly why we have the current warrantless wiretapping mess. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person claiming "X exists" or "X happened". Go march in lockstep in someone else's country.
          • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/08/2008, -10/+5Dude, you're seriously confused. The fourth amendment applies to the government, not to private entities.

            And shove your lock step up your ass...
          • MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -8/+2I assume InspectorGadget is a Republican. That means I hate the 4th Amendment.
          • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5I didn't SAY the Fourth Amendment prevented disclosure to private entities, I offered it up as an example of the problem with "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. It is wrong in ALL contexts, not just government searches.
            MWeather, I assume you're a troll. Not only am I not a Republican, but that would have no bearing on the validity of my argument anyway. It's a worthless ad-hominem attack.
          • MWeather, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Prove it. Release your voter registration.
        • ITFeed, on 05/09/2008, -3/+0I have yet to see any clean, responsible, honest kind of Politics. Inherently politics is always dirty, full of spin, smoke and mirrors, lies and promises and eventually ended up with the statements "I did not recall" or "I never said" or "I have never seen such document" or "I was not aware of"
          So in the strong tradition of dirty politics why would you show the dirty laundry?
      • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -12/+15Your logic still fails. Just because her husband's running for president doesn't mean she must forfeit her right to keep her financial data private. I mean, you liberals are all about "right to privacy", right?
        • lostarchitect, on 05/08/2008, -6/+5"must" and "should" are very different things.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/08/2008, -3/+14She has a right to privacy, the government isn't forcing her to make her tax returns public.

          Keeping her tax records private is her choice. Just as it may be a choice for a voter to not vote for her husband because of possible financial relationships that they don't want the public to know about.
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -5/+15Where was Kerry's wife's "right to privacy" when you conservatives demanded that she release HER info?

          It's funny how much conservatives whine when liberals insist that they play by the same rules.
        • MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5She has every right to damage her husband's campaign by making the voters think they have something to hide. Nobody has suggested she doesn't.
        • kreneskyp, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3right to privacy for ordinary citizens. openness for our elected officials who are also known as public servants. They chose politics, they will have to deal with the double standard because its the publics trust they have to EARN.
          • locojones, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Except that Cindy McCain isn't an elected official nor is she running for an elected position. So you logic fails.
          • WasabiBomb, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1There is no way that a potential First Lady isn't considered to be elected. Especially for the Presidential office, the First Lady is considered to be running alongside her husband, and will actually be considered part and parcel of her spouse's administration. It may not be official, but it's traditional. That's why we can all remember the names of past First Ladies, and why their actions reflect positively and negatively on their husband's tenure.

            You have no logic. Fail.
    • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -10/+20I wouldn't release them if I was running. All the public needs to know is that I've obeyed the law. I don't like McCain but this whole fishing for tax returns thing is just more political *****. I'm sure McCain has done everything he could to avoid paying taxes JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. What I care about is that he followed the law, and if the IRS hasn't caught him cheating, then thats good enough for me.
      • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8I agree in general, though certainly plenty of people get away with questionable accounting practices without being caught.
        • MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Or without violating the law. Immoral acts are not always illegal.
      • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5Sure, but lets cut to the quick. We either want McCain to incriminate himself without due process. OR, we want to see how much money he has so we can be mad at him and make a case he's out of touch. The first is not the way we do things. If you want to write it into law that all politicians must make tax returns public, thats fine, but there is no such law. As it is, its his personal privacy and fifth ammendment rights are what we want to take away so we can make a better case for his opponents... some how.

        And ALL the candidates have a lot more money than I do. Which one has the least personal wealth is hardly a matter of concern. McCain has had a lot of time to accumualte it, Obama has had less. I'm not sure I am willing to distinguish them on the basis of current worth.
        • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6I don't think candidates or even elected officials should be required to make their tax returns public, but if a candidate does choose to do that, then I appreciate the transparency (not so that I can see how much money he makes, but so I can look at things like charitable donations and questionable accounting practices if I decide those things are relevant to me in evaluating the candidate). Essentially, if a candidate wants to make his tax returns available to the public and they don't reveal illegal activity, that's a positive statement. Failing to do so is neither positive nor negative. Unfortunately, as in pretty much every other case I can think of, people interpret silence as guilt.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6Sure, but its being used as an attack. They say "Look, I made my returns public, why can't you. What are you hiding?"

          If it were me, I would be thinking, look at my career, look at my record. How I spend money I earned is none of anyone's business, as long as I followed the law, and I'm not required to incriminate myself without an indictment. Donations to charity shouldn't influence whether or not he's best for the job, since for all we know we could elect an absolutely wrong person for the job but then find out that secretly they were funding a hundred orphanages. Would we have changed our mind? If Bush were secretly the worlds largest humanitarian, would it change his awful Presidency?
          • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I should have been more clear about the donations to charity thing. I might care about that in a situation in which a candidate's position is that we should rely more heavily on private charities to help those in need. In that case, looking at a candidate's donation records would tell me whether he practices what he preaches.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Yeah, thats a good point, and at that point he should just volunteer to disclose his charitable contributions, but then I don't vote for people like that in the first place. If "optional" charity is required to help people in need - in that if they don't get help through charity then too bad, we did all we could -, then I think we're doing something wrong.
          • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3But it would be his charitable contributions in proportion to his income that tells the full story. I probably wouldn't vote for someone who wanted to rely too heavily on private charities to help the needy, but if there's any hypocrisy in that position, then I'd want it exposed to those who might vote for such a candidate. Not by force, of course, but I don't think some pressure to make the disclosure in that case is entirely unwarranted.
          • MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1"If "optional" charity is required to help people in need - in that if they don't get help through charity then too bad, we did all we could -, then I think we're doing something wrong."

            No, we're doing something wrong when it requires the threat of force to get people to help the needy.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Actually, we're doing something wrong when people don't help the needy. Period. Which is the way its always been. The whole taxes are force thing is libertarian ***** for people who don't think they have any obligations to the society that made their cushy libertarian lives possible.
          • MWeather, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1So if I don't pay my taxes, men with guns won't put me in jail?
          • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//arti ...

            No one is forcing you to stay here, among this society that you think is so unjust.
        • thirdcoastborn, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8it's not ***** when McCain demands accountability and transparency of everyone else but himself. Who the ***** does he think he is.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Fine, he's a hypocrite. But you determined that without seeing his wife's Tax Return.
          • MajorDamage, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3He thinks he is a private citizen (yes, even a presidential candidate is a private citizen) talking about accountably and transparency of a government entity which is beholden to the people of the US.
            If the McCain's MUST reveal their tax returns then so should you and everyone else. But as it turns out, no one has too. Privacy is pretty much protected by the Bill of Rights. Or do you and everyone in favor of this think it is Ok to trample their rights just because you don't like him?
            That was the point to my original comment. But it appears to have whizzed past at 40,000 ft though.
      • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -5/+6I further fail to realize why we care how rich his wife is, why she has to incriminate herself if she's done anything wrong. I was being somewhat ambiguous above, because I think this has become a "holier than thou" contest to see who can release more of their private information first.

        John McCain released his. I don't see why it matters, unless you are fishing for malfeasance.
        • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -2/+12I suppose one reason s that releasing tax returns is supposed to score McCain political points. But, his wife's tax returns aren't about just her money; they're about shared finances. If McCain had done something questionable, he could just hide it on his wife's tax returns. They have every right to keep them private if they want, but disclosing only one tax return isn't exactly being transparent. He wants political points for his disclosure, but the disclosure isn't really complete without his wife's data.
          • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5The the IRS should audit her, then. Transparency does not require public "outing" of a person's finances.
          • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8They're not required to be transparent. I'm just saying that if McCain's goal in voluntarily releasing his tax returns is to be transparent (i.e. to score political points with the voters), it's reasonable to say that he hasn't achieved that goal given that he could have hidden pretty much anything on his wife's returns.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1One of the rules of warfare is not to force your opponent to strengthen his position; don't inform him of his weaknesses by revealing them through a clumsy attack.
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6Well, the interesting thing is that McCain's tax returns shows that he only made $50k last year. We all know that's not the case- so that means that he's hiding some of his income in his wife's return. There's only one reason to do that- to hide something you don't want the public to find out about.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Suppose that Cindy McCain owned a significant stakes in various defense contractors and had sold stock in them for a healthy profit. That might make some people look at McCain's support for the war in Iraq in a different light.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4McCain scores no political points. Thats fine with me. I only take issue with the "what are you hiding" tack. What I'm hiding is none of your business.

          Its stuff like this that keeps good people from going into politics.

          He's already compelled as a senator and someone with a security clearance to reveal conflicts of interest. If he lied, then he's broken the law, and you need a special prosecutor. Not to cajole him into incriminating himself.
          • eir574, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't be wondering if McCain is hiding anything if he hadn't released his tax return. It's going only halfway that starts to make me a little suspicious. It's not even so much that I think he's hiding something on his wife's returns, but that I think revealing only one return and not the other is a little disingenuous. It's kind of like when my husband cleans by moving the mess from one room to another.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Yes, but you also don't know anything about their relationship. If she will not allow him to release her return, why would she allow him to manipulate it? If he's living off of retirement earnings, I can understand why he might only have an income of $50k / yr. He doesn't need to take a larger disbursement from his holdings.
          • eir574, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"If she will not allow him to release her return, why would she allow him to manipulate it?"

            Do we know that's necessarily the case? Maybe she wants to help McCain hide whatever's on her returns. We have only her word and McCain's word that the reason they're not releasing her returns is that she won't allow it.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3No, all we have is speculation. And thats fine with me. If McCain wants to eliminate speculation, he should do so. Its not my problem and I'd rather he doesn't, because I don't think there's anything in it and this way he loses points. We have only speculation that if the return is revealed it will show malfeasance. The point is we don't know. I think she has every right to keep her return private and you have every right not to vote for McCain.
    • whiterice0, on 05/08/2008, -12/+8How DARE you make a negative comment toward a story cutting down McCain, his wife or anyone he remotely knows and/or Clinton. Don't you know this is DIGG!!! No more than one opinion is allowed. Your mother was a father was a hampster and your mother smelled of elderberries. Now go away or we'll have to taunt you a second time!
      • lik3n, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3For the record, there's no "p" in hamster.
    • Calcularius, on 05/08/2008, -2/+11Yes. I would release mine. I don't have anything to hide.
      • FrancisHC, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't release my tax returns. I don't have anything to hide, I'm not embarrassed by how much or how little I make. I was just raised to believe that it's crass to tell people how much money you make. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment.
    • lik3n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9What tax return?
    • jabberwolf, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Yes... release your tax returns too.
      What crimes are you trying to hide?
      What are you afraid of?
      What are YOU hiding?!

      Kinda sounds like Scientology attacks doesnt it?!!
    • 11b1p, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I want to see Obamas last tax return, Oh wait he didn't release that either.
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2You are a ***** retard, you know that?
        Like some kind of asshole you'll give beef at the guy who released his stuff, and try to defend the scumbags who keep it secret?
        What a good little rightard you are. No ethical complications to get in the way of being a rightard mouthpiece.
        • 11b1p, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1he released one from awhile back its not the same dude

  • motogoat, on 05/08/2008, -28/+30Why so private, Cindy? You DO realize that your husband is running for president of the United States, right?
    • bigot, on 05/08/2008, -17/+3Right on bra he's running not her. Her finances are no-ones business. On the other hand, the Clintons are runninig for co-presidents. Both of them half to disclose. It's only fair.
      • ShemDaimwood, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6Except that John's been using her corporate jets to fly around for campaign events.
        • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2Corporate, meaning they don't show up on HER tax returns.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -16/+10YEAH AND HIS CHILDREN SHOULD RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS TOO!!!!

      Oh? your outrage doesn't extend that far? Why bother his wife then? She's not running for office - he is.
      • ShemDaimwood, on 05/08/2008, -3/+10If his children are also providing him corporate jets, sure, why not?
        • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Her tax returns wouldn't reflect the use of a jet owned by a separate entity (the corporation in question) anyway.
    • aznhomig, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11FYI, there's nothing in the law saying that a presidential candidate even has to release their tax returns to begin with. It's just good form and tradition at this point, but it's not like it's illegal.
      • jabberwolf, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1Good but now their wives have to? And their children? Then maybe their second cousins ?
        • pintomp3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1most of us don't marry our second cousins, so our finances wouldn't really be tied together.
    • JoeHague, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3I don't think she gives a ***** that her husband is running for president. .
    • jabberwolf, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Why the ***** should any of us release our tax returns if we are not running for president?!
    • Andysan, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1I don't recall many tantrums about John Kerry's wife not releasing her tax returns. You know -- Heinz and all that.
    • Sogui, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2The best quote from the article from the lady herself:

      "You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate"
  • ZenMasterMojo, on 05/08/2008, -56/+58What is she hiding? Must be something PRETTY BIG to take such a risk that might cost her husband the presidency! How does she expect to be able to keep her tax returns secret? Does she think that the American public don't have a right to know what their president's financial conflicts of interest might be? Get real, Cindy McCain! TALK ABOUT 'ELITISM'!!! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the race!
    Voters will NOT accept this for long. Continued secrecy will open McCain up to all sorts of rumors! Cindy McCain is an heiress to a multi-billion dollar fortune! No way will voters accept not knowing who might be pulling the strings in the future of Pres. McCain.
    Rightwing talk radio had a field day with Teresa Heinz Kerry (who inherited all her wealth from her dead husband, former Sen. John Heinz). They made repeated smears against Sen. Kerry and his alleged ties to the ketchup fortune. They made those claims even though they made no sense. (Even Teresa Kerry's former husband's family no longer controlled the company, let alone her new husband). Teresa Kerry was forced to release her returns - revealing nothing of interest, just her financial ties to the huge non-profit charity The Heinz Foundation, which she chairs, and their investments.
    Cindy McCain, on the other hand, was born an heiress. Her family still runs the big conglomerate from which she gets her great wealth. But, she expects voters to vote for husband without even knowing where the money came from for her and her husband's homes? Doesn't matter if she files a separate return (and always has in the past) or not. Financial ties of close family (i.e. wife, son, daughter, etc.) members to a candidate are legitimate potential conflicts of interest that MUST be revealed.
    Fox News has been denouncing Hillary for months for not releasing the records of contributors to her husband's presidential library foundation and all of her national archives records from their 2 terms in office.
    I can't wait until Hannity and others start their hypocritical defense Cindy McCain's "right to privacy". LOL
    • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -26/+16Why doesn't she release tapes of herself using the bathroom, too? I mean, as long as she's only taking a crap in there, and not doing anything illegal, she's got nothing to hide, right?
      • jaxcs, on 05/08/2008, -4/+14the spin begins
        • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -9/+3Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that's what pointing out logical fallacies is called now.
        • ZenMasterMojo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The LOGICAL FALLACY is in your lame attempted analogy. "Taking a crap" has no logical relationship to "running for office". Declaring who you earn money from and who your immediate family has financial ties with is called "disclosing potential conflicts of interest". This, unlike "taking a crap", is intimately related to public disclosure necessary to be a top government official. Even judges and FBI agents and other high ranking non-elected officials are required to disclose this.

          Plus, the public has a right to know who they are electing and who the candidates are financially connected to. In this case, the relationship is a very close one, since McCain directly benefits from her wife's great wealth she owns the homes he lives in and pays for other things that he benefits from.

          You'd think it would be no big deal. People know what her family business does in general. The company is primarily a beverage distributor. SO, WHY THE NEED FOR SECRECY? No one is asking for her family's company records, just where she gets her income from. So, she must be hiding other investments or business relationships from which she and her husband benefit!

          Because he benefits directly from her wealth, keeping her finances secret provides an all too convenient way for those seeking to influence Sen. McCain to funnel money to him. If someone wanted to give McCain a million dollar gift, they could just give it to her or buy her a luxury yacht or a new home and no one would know. That is why ethics laws for elected officials exist.

          Sure, she doesn't have to disclose her finances! And, HE doesn't have to run for president either, if he wants that level of privacy. Sorry, that's the trade off. If you want to run for public office or receive a top government appointment, then you have to disclose your income & who is providing incomes & benefits to all your immediate family members!
      • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I'm sure you'd like to see her take a crap in the john but most people with at least half a brain or more are just interested in seeing if the other John is hiding something (you can be a weasel all you want at the state level but you can't expect to carry on your shenanigans at the federal level).
        • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, our last two presidents haven't gotten away with any shenanigans at the federal level...
    • Buckeye70, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5Since you are so concerned with tax returns, please demand Al Franken quit running for Senate. I mean, he did not bother to pay taxes. You want the definition of elitism. Demanding the government pay for everything and not bothering to pay your own taxes and not carrying workers comp for your workers. But, hey he is ACTUALLY running for something, Cindy McCain is not.
      • allengeer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Pretty sure thats not elitism... A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: ... if he cant pay his taxes im pretty sure thats not superior social, economic, or intellectual status.
        • Buckeye70, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2"Elitism may also refer to situations in which an elite individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities" Not paying taxes sounds like a special privilege to me.
          • allengeer, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2and Al Franken is an elite individual because he is a ***** comedian?
        • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"can't pay taxes" and "doesn't pay taxes" are two different things. I'd say thinking you're entitled to not pay taxes might count for that economic status requirement.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2IS the Poor Elite a new term like Islamofascist?

        Standing on your head -- for an hour or two, and these things might make sense.
        • Buckeye70, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0Typical, no substance, just attacks.
      • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2Another useful idiot.. Instead of just following a party like a regular useful idiot, why can't you just see people for what they are?? What are you, a lion or a sheep?? Can you make your mind up or do you need someone to make your mind up for you??
      • jaxcs, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2According to reports I've read. Al Franken paid his taxes, but they were wrongly distributed. The problem is that traveling entertainers need to pay taxes for every state in which they earn income, that is have a gig. In his case, that can be a lot of states. The total value of unpaid taxes once redistribution is done is actually only about 4000. But you knew that right?
        http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senat ...
      • ZenMasterMojo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Al Franken DID pay his taxes! In fact it turned our he OVERPAID his taxes in his home states of New York and Minnesota. See link to article above. Nice attempt at spin and deflection of blame! I believe the topic being discussed here is Sen. McCain and his wife though!
    • monkey302, on 05/08/2008, -7/+5Cindy McCain filed separate returns from her husband. Bill Clinton filed with Hillary. Separate accounts, end of story. Deal With it. The real truth is would you have voted for him if she shared her filings?
    • DellDrEvil, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5Please explain what new information you think will be uncovered? She is known to have a fortune in the 100 million dollar range. How would this be any different if her taxes records were released?
      • bjornski, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Because of some of that $100 million is invested in defense contractors and the like, then maybe it would be worth looking into. Especially contractors that do things like get no-bid contracts.

        You're right. Having the wife of a sitting President as a major investor wouldn't get you any influence at all. I think the scrutiny of her tax and income records is legitimate.
        • Troy64, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Are specific investments even listed on the tax return? I know you have to report gains and losses, but I don't believe it is by specific stock. Even if you do that is only for stocks you sold.
          • Schda, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Well I can't answer for people who are rich, but as a poor guy with some stocks and a 401k and such my tax returns show which companies I use to buy/sell stocks/mutual funds but not which companies I own stock/mutual funds in.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I'm sure LOTS of it is. I'M invested in defense contractors and I'm against the war. Big deal. I'd be stupid not to be, and with more money than God, you're invested in everything. You already know McCain is for the war. And with all the neocons who own stock in defense contractors, its not like thats stopped anyone from voting for them in '04.
      • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4She definitely married down didn't she?? At 25 she marries this 43 year old who divorced his spouse in the same year they got married. No.. nothing going on here.. John's previous marriage lasted 15 years, so after 28 years of marriage why hasn't she dumped him yet if indeed all that money is HERS?? You can't be that much of an ignorant moron, can you?? I'm guessing your a party person, another useful idiot. You probably have special financial interests with the republican party yourself. Leave your ignorant comments for another website, digg.com was originally made for tech heads (people with at least half a brain). There's only one reason she refused to release her tax returns.. THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!!! You might be blind but don't try to show us what's going on when you can't even see yourself in the mirror!!!! God I love being an independent.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2And you deduced all this without seeing a tax return. Good on you.

          See? You really don't need to see it. You've already decided not to vote for him. Even if she released her return, it wouldn't change anything.
  • thirdcoastborn, on 05/08/2008, -17/+73John McCain demands accountability and transparency from everyone else but himself. It's complete BS. Cindy McCain needs to realize that her husband is running to be president. If they are so separate then why did he continuously use her corporate plane to make campaign stops illegaly.
    • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -9/+7It's not illegal if he pays for the usage.
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -3/+8It IS illegal, though, if someone else pays for his usage. And since Cindy McCain isn't going to show her tax return, we don't know whether some lobbyist paid for his travel experiences or not (which would, of course, be a backdoor bribe).
        • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -6/+5If he pays fair market price it is NOT illegal. You don't need to look at tax returns to find out if he paid for it not. You just need to look at his campaign filings!
          • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5The "Eats Babies" lobbyists pay his wife for usage of his jet to fly him around the country. He gets paid to fly around the country, and since they paid, say, $10k/flight, he's just received a completely invisible bribe.
            We don't KNOW that the airplane was rented using "fair market price" because Cindy McCain won't release her info. THAT'S the problem.
          • patpl22391, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Yes, all you do is look to see how much they paid, and then compare it to how much he would be paying if the plane was from another company. It would still be in the campaign paperwork/filings, it would NOT be in Cindy's filings.
        • zephyr42, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1...which would undermine his entire run for presidency!
        • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Regardless of whether she shows her tax return, he could always furnish a receipt showing that he paid her.....
        • locojones, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1And where in Cindy McCain's personal (i.e. not corporate) tax returns do you expect to find who paid for a corporate jet flight? Oh right, because that information isn't on there.
      • Dibou, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Or you could, you know, look at John McCain's expenses and see they match when he used the jet.
    • p4r4d0x, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6"Do as I say, not as I do."
      • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2So you guys are in the "men control their wives" school of thought now or what? In an ideal world she wouldn't file a tax return because she'd be making him sandwiches all day......
    • pintomp3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1it's ironic to hear the conservative in this thread scream "privacy" all of a sudden. they don't seem to have a problem with wiretapping all of america though.
    • markgl, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1weak arguement.
    • sugarhigh4242, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Exactly right. If she wasn't providing services to the McCain campaign, maybe she'd have a case.
  • bitfreak, on 05/08/2008, -15/+73I saw the video, and the way she said it. While I understand her right to privacy, she is going into an office that can invade my privacy at will, redefine the very meaning of 'privacy', has more or less total immunity to the common law, and can destroy entire countries at will. She's not applying at Walmart for God's sake, her and her husband are trying to into one of the most powerful offices on the planet. One more reason not to trust her or her husband. Maybe she could take all of that money and go buy some common sense.
    • StaticThunder, on 05/08/2008, -7/+16What do you really expect to find in her tax return that the IRS missed?
      • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -5/+7The IRS doesn't review every tax return manually. I'm sure they look for red flag in automated scans, but tax law is complex and good accountants can do some tricky things that can probably only be uncovered by a person.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I'm sure that on substantial returns like hers someone takes a personal interest. But again, we're asking for someone to incriminate themselves of whatever crime they might have committed with no evidence simply because we want to hold their feet to the fire and prove them a hypocrite by whatever means necessary, including forcing their S.O. to give up their rights to privacy.

          She should ask McCain not to run. THIS is why nobody nice is a politician. I wouldn't put up with this *****.
      • 5seconds, on 05/08/2008, -0/+15It's not about what the IRS has or hasn't missed. It's about accounting for where their money comes from and identifying potential conflicts of interest. For instance, it's not illegal to make money being an adviser to a pharmaceutical company, but that's the kind of thing that the voting public might be interested it.
      • Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7The IRS doesn't check for conflicts of interest such as owning huge stocks in company X that then gets a no-bid contract a week after he wins the election.
        • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Isn't congress supposed to look into that sort of thing though?
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Isn't he already supposed to report that sort of thing?

          If he lied about conflicts of interest, wouldn't he also have lied to the IRS?
    • Shawn4168, on 05/08/2008, -13/+8SHE is not going into that office. Her husband is.
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8... which is why Hillary's claim of experience was bogus.
        However, it would be very easy for John McCain to sanitize his income by hiding conceivably embarrassing items on Cindy's return. They didn't file jointly- so for all we know, he took massive bribes from the KKK and hid them in his wife's return. The only reason for them to file separately was to hide something, since he knew he'd be asked to show his income.
        • eir574, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6That's not the only reason to file separately, but it is a suspiciously good reason for revealing only his tax return's and not his wife's. I don't think either of them should have to reveal their tax returns if they don't want to, but McCain scores no political points for transparency by revealing only his returns.
        • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2She's in a way higher tax bracket than she is, which means his $400k would have been taxed at a way higher rate. They probably saved 10 or 20 grand by filing separately.

          (obviously we'd have to see her tax returns to know just how much they saved.....)
          • WasabiBomb, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, they probably would've saved quite a bit by filing jointly. The "Marriage Penalty" actually saves you money if one spouse makes significantly more than the other does. You only get penalized if you both make roughly the same amount.
          • DivisibleByZero, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1It was always my understanding that the "marriage penalty" comes from the fact that two people filing separately get a $5000 deduction each, but a married couple gets a combined $8000 deduction. So your statement would still be true if one spouse makes 100k and the other makes 30k.

            But when the "poor" one in the family is making 400k, the higher tax rate will make up for the $2000 discrepancy.

            I have no idea if my math is right about that though, so I'll look it up tonight after I'm done driving to the other end of Texas....
    • pyronik, on 05/08/2008, -9/+3ill say the same thing about obama and rev wright, no way in hell i trust those idiots
    • allengeer, on 05/08/2008, -5/+5I like how she has a right to privacy, but via patriot act everyday citizens dont.
    • dmadzak, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8I wasn't aware that the "First Lady office" had the power to invade your privacy at will.
  • Krisgi, on 05/08/2008, -22/+18As her husband seems to think, and said, she is a *****. A spoiled, plastic, stupid Stepford, drug-addict, ***** who has even committed a FELONY and got away with a handslap. It should be obligatory, not just advisable, for all people who run for public office, let alone POTUS, to let us know where they get their guizillions and what they do with them every year.
    • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Keep it up, keep this ***** flowing so people can see what Democrats are all about.
  • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -22/+27There is nothing democratic about demanding documents of people who are not running for office. It's intimidation.

    Filth like this would never come from the Obama campaign itself. Chill out people!
    • Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Marriage is a union. As such, YES, it is reasonable to scrutinize the spouse of a politician as well as the candidate themselves. It is inherent in the relationship between husband and wife that he could easily hide bribes or unsavory business relationships (Halliburton, big oil, etc.) in his wife's finances and keep his own squeaky clean for PR reasons. Filing separate taxes is EXACTLY the way he'd do it.

      For Christ's sake, he's a lifelong politician. We shouldn't be trusting him any further than we can throw him. For that same matter, we shouldn't be trusting any of the others either (Hillary, Obama, Al Franken). The rest of them have also taken heat, and rightfully so, when they played games with their tax info (Hillary with stall tactics and withholding the info from her husband's charity, Franken with just not paying them).
      • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1McCain is not a lifelong politician. He was a career Navy man until he was captured and tortured until his body body was broken. Only then did he turn to serving his government in another capacity - elected office.
        • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3What does that comment have to do with the subject at hand?? We all know at least one person who's been through hell so that his/her country can bitch about elections on digg.com.
      • Troy64, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3I think you believe there is more specific information on a tax return than actually exists.
      • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Thank God there's people like you still in the world. A person that uses their brain and doesn't follow a particular party like a useful idiot.
      • locojones, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2They've been filing taxes separately for the duration of their marriage. It's not some dog & pony show to avoid transparency in a campaign. She has a substantial separate property inheritance and income, and that necessarily requires a separate tax filing.

        It's people like Colecoman who obviously have never filed a tax return, because if they had, they'd realize that none of the information they're alleging is present in a filing. So grow up and quit with the conspiracy theories already.
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1You're an idiot.
  • swrostmore, on 05/08/2008, -6/+34Imagine the heat Hillary would have gotten if Bill had refused to release his tax returns this year. It would have been a bloodbath.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -16/+6Ah, but the Clintons didn't release their returns and the media gave them a pass for it.

      Besides, they were being sold as a "two for one". Bill Clinton would have been a much more involved first spouse than Cindy McCain might be. Thus, his transparency matters more.
      • djpants428, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Did you stop reading the article halfway through or something? The last sentence of the article: "Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses and publicly released those returns."
      • wrxpert, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1key work "might"
    • Dibou, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4The Clintons file together. The McCains file separately.
  • motogoat, on 05/08/2008, -5/+15I gots one on my car!



    Sorry, I thought this was the Bub Rub and Lil Sis thread.
  • oyflaaaayvin, on 05/08/2008, -14/+6I know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, blah, blah, blah... But I think she just looks evil. Cruella Deville-ish. Maybe a velociraptor. And McCain seems confused most of the time; I can't wait until he and Barack have debates together...
    • OpenYourEyes08, on 05/08/2008, -7/+3We can't either, Barack will be babbling like he does anytime he is asked a question that he can't pop out one of his salesman's answers. Go back and watch his answers on the economy in the ABC debate - inept. Great speeches from a monitor though
    • thepretext, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Dr. Grant?
  • dave122, on 05/08/2008, -17/+8she's kind of hot.
  • jstohler, on 05/08/2008, -11/+43What she should do instead is release her boobies from that bra. Am I right, fellas? Huh? I said: Am I right?
  • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -10/+14This might hurt her in her campaign for public office......oh wait.
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8Well, Reverend Wright's sermons really hurt his chances for public office... oh wait.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -6/+6Comparing these two situations = fail.
        • bxblox, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I know, it's not like he was married to the guy, right?
  • NSResponder, on 05/08/2008, -14/+11I couldn't care less about seeing Cindy McCain's tax returns. Being married to a candidate doesn't mean that your right to privacy is null and void. As long as McCain doesn't make a stink about anyone else's taxes, then this is a non-issue.

    -jcr
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Why did they file separately?
      • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Why do others file jointly?

        It's not uncommon you know.
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4You must admit, it's suspicious. McCain reveals his tax return (which, by the way, says that he only made $50k last year), but his wife, having filed separately, won't reveal hers.
        I'm not saying that he did, or didn't do, anything illegal. However, if he's going to maintain his "transparency", then his wife needs to reveal her tax return. It would be very easy for him to sanitize his tax return by having her claim income that he doesn't want the public to see.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4His wife isn't running for president.

          Again, it's not uncommon to file jointly you know. In certain situations it's actually much more advantageous for couples. Would you be as suspicious if Michelle Obama filed separately and refused to hand hers over? You shouldn't be, because she's not running for office either.
        • liquidpele, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Yes, we get that. However, he IS running for office, so it ***** matters. They are married, her income is his income too.
          There are TONS of tricks you can pull by hiding things in your wife's tax return. And he only made 50k??? Yea, I'll believe that when my ***** tastes like purple koolaid.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Is it his income to? I'm not too up to date on Arizona laws concerning married couples income. So until you can cite something legally on that, I'll just take that statement as a grain of salt. Then you might want to look back at all the presidential candidates where separate returns were filed, and see if there was a huge stink made about the wife's return. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any controversies or scandals stemming from that.

            As for his 50k, that's net, not gross. If your wife is loaded, why not make charitable contributions with the majority of your income? You're not having to worry about your next meal, or paying your mortgage.
          • locojones, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Obviously Liquidpele has no legal training, nor any experience in a community property state. In Arizona, there is a notion of separate and community income. If the wife has a substantial inheritence or income that is generated by her separate property, then that income remains separate property and does not become part of the marital estate. It only makes sense for her to file a separate income, especially given the nature of her substantial separate assets.
          • liquidpele, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1@locojones,
            That is interesting, I was not aware of that law in Arizona. However, I do still think it matters. I'm not saying the HAS to do it, as a voter I would just feel more comfortable with him as a president if I knew he wasn't hiding anything there.
      • NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3"Why did they file separately?"

        What business is it of anyone else?

        -jcr
  • patpl22391, on 05/08/2008, -6/+17How does releasing your tax returns = automatic accountability. That's the worst measure of accountability, ever.
    • liquidpele, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0releasing tax returns = some accountability
      As opposed to:
      not releasing tax returns = no accountability

      What about that is so hard for you guys to understand? He doesn't have to do it, but until he does I'm going to assume he actually made more than 50k (which is less than tech support guys I know make) and that he's hiding things.
      • patpl22391, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2He released his returns (he and his wife file separately, and they do have a prenup) and he made about 400k and paid about 90k in taxes. Tadaaaa
  • parkhead, on 05/08/2008, -19/+2i'd do cindy mccain


































    if she was 30 years younger
  • radiofrequency, on 05/08/2008, -10/+12Personal tax returns are nobody's business.
  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/08/2008, -4/+20I don't know why they release their tax returns anyway. What does that have to do with how they will run the country?

    What we really need is real time updates of contributors to campaigns and to our Senators and Assembly people.
    • JoeHague, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Would you vote for someone if they made all their money as say a "consultant" for and oil company.
      • WhiteRaven, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1It wouldn't affect my decision. Why would it? It has so little to do with the job they are running for.
        • abortionsforall, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Did you forget to type the "/sarcasm" ?
          • WhiteRaven, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1No. Did you forget what the President's job is? It has very little to do with oil companies.
          • abortionsforall, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I personally like to know if the president has a vested interest in helping/protecting/etc certain industries.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3@abortionsforall

            Yes, things like tax returns and reverends are much more important than their positions and voting records on important issues.

            **Looking over a candidate's resume** Hmm, pro diplomacy, pro balanced budget, pro deficit reduction, anti interference in foreign countries politcs, anti Patriot Act, and a record to back it all up.....wait, he worked for the B.O.D. of Cheveron 10 years ago? ***** him and his big-oil friends.
          • abortionsforall, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0When a company is paying your pension, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Haliburton, anyone? Unfortunately many people think just like you.
    • Startemus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah because how they spend the money they have access to has nothing to do w/spending our money that they'll have access to.
    • liquidpele, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Because if they made $5 million in shares of company X, and they pushed for company X to get some crazy good gov't contract, that's bad.
      Because if they took consulting jobs for 3 days at $100k a day for company Y that is a bad company, that's fishy.
      etc etc.
      Why WOULDN'T you want to know what a potential president had been up to?
  • peticsu, on 05/08/2008, -2/+12lets be fair guys, Teresa Heinz (Kerrys wife) didnt disclose her tax records either...


    But I would like to see McCains medical records...
    • Calcularius, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6No, you're wrong. You made a mistake. She did release her tax records.
    • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Medical records, if anything, are and ought to be more private than financial records.
      • peticsu, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7not when your 71 years old running for the presidency...
        • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2What a load of *****.

          Thanks for nothing.
      • allengeer, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6yea i mean you need to be able to tell if your president is going to survive his term in office or if his ***** vp is going to take over.
        • InspectorGadget, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2The have the Surgeon General certify him as healthy. Problem solved. No need to invade his privacy further than that.
          • pintomp3, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3you mean the surgeon general appointed by bush?
          • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2No the one appointed by Teddy Roosevelt.

            ***** moron.
          • InspectorGadget, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1And what exactly would be the interest of a political party in getting a candidate who would die in office elected? The VP would be on the ticket as well, so there would be no sneak candidates.
          • allengeer, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1The Surgeon General is appointed by the current president and is therefor extremely biased. Secondly, as a voter, if you are voting for a 47 year old president you arn't reasonably expecting the vice president to hold the office of president... if however your president is approaching his expected life span... then there is a much more realistic chance his VP could become president and as such you must hold the VP candidate to a stricter standard then normal.
          • PolishLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2@allengeer

            Yes, just ask Kennedy about the life expectancy of young presidents. Then ask Reagan about old presidents making it through a term or two.

            Bottom line, it doesn't matter the age. There's always a chance of a sitting president dying while in office.
          • chokeaduck, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1We can't because they are both dead and anyhow, even if the Gipper was alive, Reagan didn't remember his second term.
          • allengeer, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2There has never been a president as old as McCain upon their election to President. Of the 5 oldest president's elected, 2 have died in office due to health related issues. No president younger than 55 has died of health related issues (all assassinated).
            So yes, given the past presidents.... McCains health and age is an issue.
            There is always a chance of dying.. but there is a greater chance when you are 72 years old. Ask William Henry Harrison about surviving a month. Ask Zachary Taylor about surviving a year. Bottom line, age matters.

            Look at it this way, since they are both going to be president... they both are subject to the possibility of assassination. So that being equal.. If you look at Obama and you look at McCain as just regular people, who would you bet on to survive the next 4 years?

            Bottom line, age matters.
    • VicHislop, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3It is really amusing how short the collective memory is regarding these issues. Merely 4 years ago, Heinz Kerry was generally skewered by the media for her unwillingness to release her tax records. I don't know why it's different now, but when your husband is running for President and you are a huge part of his financial support, you should release your tax records whether you're running or not.

      Since it seems some have a short memory, here is an article from 2004 about Kerry and his wife's tax records. Where is the outrage among the media now? Where are the same conservative commentators who were so outspoken then, now? By the way, this is from the Weekly Standard:

      http://tinyurl.com/63duyj

      • PolishLogic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2In all fairness, her tax record issue was rather minor. Much like this one. Only the controversy-finders will be pushing this story, but then again, that's their job.
  • dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5Well there are two possibilities. Either she's hiding some sort of horrible secret... Or she's honoring the publicized wishes of her children from her first marriage who don't want financial information tied to them being made public.
  • digitallysick, on 05/08/2008, -7/+14I guess we shouldn't worry, because McCain will never become president.
    • ExRe, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I think you severely underestimate the neocons.

      They don't care if they have to cheat to win, they've done so the last 2 times already.
    • Tweekster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0who is going to beat him? hillary? obama?
      I am going to vote for obama, but honestly, i don't see him as winning.

      You can be hopeful and not delusional
  • ltomson, on 05/08/2008, -8/+1She's in the Money!
  • Calcularius, on 05/08/2008, -6/+14He's not going to win, anyway.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2The Rev. Jesse Jackson is calling for a Obamalamadingdong/HRC ticket. McCain just might win if that happens.
      • abortionsforall, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3The Rev. Jesse Jackson is irrelevant. There was a time where people cared what he had to say, but not any more. He is just a media whore.
      • Tweekster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Mccain will win if hillary is anywhere close to the ticket.
        Against obama it will be tough and close
  • spiritd, on 05/08/2008, -16/+5***** McCain

    ***** CLINTON

    ***** RIAA

    ***** MPA
    ----------------------


    IT'S OBAMA TIME!
  • HelloooNurse, on 05/08/2008, -6/+5What does she have to hide? Why does anyone give two *****? It's nobody's damn business anyway!
  • ieure, on 05/08/2008, -9/+3Obama FTW.
  • exegesisClique, on 05/08/2008, -7/+11She's a *****!

    ...McCain said it, not me!
    • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1She's pretty hot for her age, rich too, whats your problem?
  • siktath, on 05/08/2008, -3/+8Good for her. Too bad for her, Clinton/Obama will crush her sacrificial lamb husband.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Some Dems are calling for an Obama/Clinton ticket. How many people will leave Obama if that happens?
      • siktath, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The only way for certain victory is for them to run together. Now, all they're doing is fighting for the top spot.
      • Tweekster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I will not vote for him if she is involved. I am not alone in that concept
  • tomis, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Maybe she'd like a little bit of privacy, considering it's John McCain running for president, and not her? Should all of a candidates children and relatives release their tax returns too? Maybe the IRS should just publish everyone's tax returns! Hell, the whole planet should be forced too! We shouldn't do business with nations that don't publish the tax returns of all of their citizens! What do THEY have to hide? Clearly they're all terrorists for not publishing their tax returns!!!

    Lighten up people. Make your decision by looking at a politicians voting record. That's the only thing that truly affects us. Everything else is fodder for "24 hour news" channels.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Since they are following on the heels of Bush's "innocent until proven guilty plan" -- I think that they should prove they are innocent BEFORE they ascend the throne, and can basically say; "Executive Privilege" and sprinkle fariy dust on things to make them go away.
  • Stegura, on 05/08/2008, -7/+3She shouldn't have to release her returns. It's not "What does she have to hide???" it's called privacy, you jerks.
  • Cattywampus, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1If she's not going to release her returns, she should at least give every adult American a case of Bud* if her husband wins.

    *Or preferably a higher-quality AB beverage.
  • MrDaBomb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7The faulty premise here is that wanting privacy is about hiding a wrong. Check out Professor Daniel Solove's paper on the subject, "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ...

    There are plenty of other reasons to keep McCain out of the Whitehouse. Now, if we had reason to suspect Mrs. McCain of profiting from organized crime or some such, then its a big deal. But until we have that, her privacy should be held.
    • PHiZ187, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Dugg up for the link to Prof. Solove's excellent paper. However, these candidates put themselves into the public spotlight, and it is a pretty entrenched tradition that you release your financial and medical records.
      • locojones, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Tradition does not equal obligation.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Yes, but in this case -- I'd say they have much to hide.
      Otherwise, good point.
    • pintomp3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1mccain should read that the next time he justifies the warrentless wiretapping program.
  • skellener, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4Anything to prevent four more years of McBush is worthwhile.
  • PHiZ187, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2My favorite part is how he left the loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that allows him to use his wife's private jumbo jet w/o reimbursing for costs.
  • jamesLankford, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2"Besides, why should Bill Clinton release his, under his theory"

    wrong dumbass,
    he could be recieving payments for all the pardons he gave out, or payments for all the "favors" he did while in office
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3And McCain's wife could be getting money from Al Qaeda.

      In fact -- you probably are as well. Please post your returns -- if you have nothing to hide, that is.
    • ZenMasterMojo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1And, McCain could be receiving kickbacks for his votes in the form of expensive "gifts" of houses and yachts to his wife as far as you or anyone knows! That's why she must disclose! He lives in the house SHE OWNS!
  • WhiteRaven, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Look, this is very, very simple. She has every right to refuse and everyone else has a right to make a judgment on what that means and how the feel about it. This isn't a controversy, this is just a point of data. Include the data in your thinking and move on.
  • killahron, on 05/08/2008, -4/+7who gives a *****. like she said, they've been filing separately for 28 years. wonder why? maybe because her money is her money and his money is his money. they're not filing jointly, as in, one entity, like obama and clinton. all 3 of the candidates are richer than the avg american and have very comfortable lives. moving on
    • Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Or, maybe he's a lifelong politician and makes sure to keep his taxes squeaky clean while putting anything dirty/controversial on his wife's financials. I guess we'll ever know. If I'm going to vote someone into a positions like the presidency, with all that power to abuse conflicts of interest (as Bush Co. has proven) or even nuke the planet if he chooses, I expect to know all potential conflicts of interest.
      • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1Shes ***** LOADED, get over it.

        Jealous?
  • Dignan666, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4In her defense, doesn't she have a prenup with McCain anyway? I mean, really, she isn't running for president, and financially she is not joined to McCain. We all know she's rich. Every time you pop a beer west of the Mississippi you're giving her a penny.

    Plus, did anyone see that HRC listed some of Clinton's income inaccurately anyway? Who really cares about this stuff. Rich people run for president. Obama is the poorest of the lot and he's rich as hell. Sure he's not truly wealthy like his opponents, but you know, once you get past 4 or 5 hundred thousand a year in income, you're all the same in my book.
  • jontalisman, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2This news won't help McCain's candidacy which is fine by me, but the question in the description (What is she trying to hide?) sounds like something written by a Scientology goon.
  • NelsonR, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0The Clinton's are similar to the McCain's but I have one question that bothers me.
    What is up about the power grab some have regardless of cost? Is there some deviant anomaly within the brain of some that equates power to life? In my long life one truism stands out, the Clinton phobia for power, as with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc, hides a dark and sinister side of human nature. Please let her and Bill dwindle into the twilight before they not only destroy Obama, but America.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I'd say she has a real problem because hiring a hitman to take out a DC madam is not allowable under "Business Expense" -- but might be under Office Expense -- but only up to $4,000. The remaining $26,000 might get 50% deduction under "advertising" because it could conceivably be Public Relations to silence a whistleblower.

    Other than that, she'd probably be OK with everything but the exemption for Dues and Memberships in the "Addicted to Lobbyists Club" -- a total red flag as it is not an official non-profit, and the thorny investment income from "Military Pundit Kickbacks" -- it was listed under Miscellaneous income but it really should be under Schedule 1040E as Rents & Royalties as long as McCain is considered as a property and that allows additional medical expense for "upkeep" or, if you are smart, under Investments and you get to take the Depletion Allowance, because you can assume as the body count goes up, there is less "war" to profit from the investment.

    These things can be tricky -- I understand Mrs. McCain's issue -- it's so hard to find good tax advice these days.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Ah, so she killed the hooker.

      Amazingly, I still don't care about her death. Hookers die every day.
    • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2*****.
  • abortionsforall, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3It is only a matter of time before 'ol John McCain starts pooping his pants. He is too old to safely drive a car, let alone head a county.
  • junkin07, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdHcZB3L3uA
  • cjnkns, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2She just looks like a stuck up bitch to me. I realize I shouldn't judge a book by the cover, but I just can't help it.
    I get the feeling she's a sneaky gold digging bitch.
    • abortionsforall, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3She has much more money than John. She actually married down.
    • pableaux, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1She married down on many levels (wealth, looks, & age [much older people = "down"].
  • evilbob333, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4The cops are at your door and want to take a look around. They have no warrant. What have you got to hide? The NSA is looking for terrorist and randomly tap your phone, just to check. What have you got to hide? I gotta agree with Cindy McCain. She has no right to see my tax returns and I have no right to see her's. The whole concept of releasing tax returns for seeking public office always seemed kind of stupid to me. Kudos for standing up for privacy.
    • Tweekster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0but but but that is someone else and not me.
      That is the digg mentality. as long as it is someone elses privacy being invaded they dont give a *****, but if it is their own, all hell breaks loose
  • sbritner, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3She's not the candidate and not required to release them. If Obama can't do better than this he's going to be beat worse than expected in November.
    • jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Trust me...Obama does NOT approve of 99% of the ***** that people do in his "name". He thinks the people at huffingtonpost are all ***** just like everyone else. He HATES the fact that they are on his side.
      • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1How do you know? Seriously Im curious, my respect for the guy may go up a few notches if you could prove to me that he disagreed with a lot of the ***** that goes on over at huffpost.

        Huffpost and Obamas supporters are what turn one of the reasons I turn away from Obama.

  • d03boy, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Since when is it America's right to see their ***** tax returns? You don't need to see them to realize that McCain is a dickwad.
  • jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Who cares how much money he or she has?
  • roho76, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Who cares. Hopefully McCain loses his seat in the senate next term too. Another loser the world can do with out. Then they can go back to doing what they do best. Delivering beer to the Nascar fans of the world.

    *pictures John McCain driving a delivery truck*
    • blackbamboo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1sorry he wont lose his seat or the presidency and there will be some drunk and happy nascar fans too while Cindy gets rich and you will never see her returns!
      • roho76, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Denial. It must be hard for you. You know with life and all.
  • attercob, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0What a ***** article. They have separate finances, why should we see her tax return? I'm not even sure we should get to see his.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.