Politics – "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,"
NOT JOKES ARE LAME!!! Can we please stop using them? What's next N2N, you gonna tell me that something is "hip", or "radical"?
No tang, jokes are a release of frustration of seeing a double standard, If a man can go to church and be branded by what his pastor says, then another man can be branded by what his wife does or does not do
HB, i pay no attention to tang, i pay for my internet, and if i want to say NOT, on every post it's none of his business. He is full of himself, nothing more, nothing less.
and while I do not agree with tang on many things, i am able to state my views without being put down or labeled,just a difference of opinion, and he is entitled to his
Republicans made an issue out of John Kerry's wife not releasing her tax returns in 2004, even when she did at least release part of that information.
But, I fully expect the hypocritical Republicans to fully defend Cindy McCain's decision to release NONE of her tax information, and I expect the media to basically ignore it or defend it subsequent to this 'official' announcement.
Behold the double-standard ...
IMO, she's a tax evader! Otherwise, why not do everything she can to help her husband.
What kind of marriage can people have when the right hand doesn't EVER know what the left hand's doing?
The presidential candidate should be married to a partner that accepts the responsiblility to the nation, as well.
Their cooperation to share important information like tax returns should be imperative to even run for office. The people have the right to know exactly who the President is married to; otherwise he should not run for office.
McCain's wife insists that she is not the candidate; then what is she doing campaigning for him? You can't have it both ways and expect the public to trust them.
The only reason that she refuses to submit her tax returns is that she has something to hide and knows that technically she can get away with it. "Their" decision to conceal her financial records was carefully thought out.
Yet, Obama is held completely responsible for things his pastor said... This goes way beyond double standards.
Heh, yeah. At least Obama was only listening to Wright 1 day a week for an hour or so...LOL!
Obama is the candidate, not his wife, or did you get it mixed up?
Haven't you and your ilk held Obama accountable for things his pastor said, didn't you all also demand tax returns for Hillary, which subsequently provided you with Bill's information? Why shouldn't McCain be held accountable for his wife, he's been married to her for 28 years, share children, sleep together, and she will be living in the WH if he's elected, SO I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HER, just as you judged Michelle Obama.
Yet again, you expect and demand a free pass for the McCains, HELLS BELLS, even the article says it's hypocritical.
LOL
You can't understand the difference between listening to a pastor for 20 years and is your close friend and mentor and the financial records of the wife. I'm more interested in what she says. Just like I have become disgusted with what Obama's wife says.
Perhaps she does have something to hide, I don't know or care but would hope that she would be audited if suspected of tax evasion.
Spadecaller I really don't understand why you think that the spouse has a responsibility to the nation as well.
Our last PM, Chretian had a wife that other than at the high-points of a campaign, was pretty well out of sight, and that was completely acceptable in my country. The assumption that it should be otherwise is really quite foreign. I guess I really don't see the basis for the position so perhaps some of you could expound on it. Cheers!
humemacdonald
The reason that I say that about the spouse is for national security. If the wife has an issue or is vulnerable in any way it can compromise the ability of the President to make decisions that are in the best interests of the nation.
(Aren't you glad to know that Laura did not head up a committe for sticter penalties against drunk driving?)
I see the need for disclosure when a conflict of interest might be present. For example Paul Martin, a former PM , millionaire and shipping "tycoon" was required to disclose his financial holdings( and immediate family members), for transparency purposes, and to ensure that a conflict of interest between personal financial gains and public policy was not present.
Beyond this, I guess I still don't understand the imperative.
I forgot to add, Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Great to see you back HM: In 1994 I started my own business, and P. Martin was minister of finance, he raised my taxes while he registered his ships off - shore to escape taxes, only this came out later, he also sold out to his son whem he became PM.
In this regard I and all other people have a right to know who is the most crooked, and if looking at income tax returns do it as it is part of the job, just like all the perks they get.
Hi HB-yes I agree. If it wasn't disclosed until later than that is a fault of the system in practice because in principle financial conflict of interest is supposed to be transparent.
I still believe that the traditional view of a first lady's role has to be amended to reflect modern society. Right now it seem like the standards set are practically Victorian. It will not be until we see "first husbands" that I think this attitude will change.
For us, I don't think the "first lady" role was quite so significant or visible so it probably made the split between public and private a bit more of an easy transition.
As always, just an unsubstantiated opinion-lol Cheers!
I don't think Cindy gets it. In a campaign where a flag lapel pin can become a major issue, she's just asking for trouble. There is no such thing as privacy in a 21st century presidential compaign. Plus, this issue is wide open for exploitation. I can see the MoveOn YouTube commercial in my mind now.
lol, you got that right.
I don't think i can find the gray area with this. If she supports and loves her husband and really wants to see him win, then this should be a cake walk for her.
I don't have 100 million dollars, but out of love, respect and support for my husband, it wouldn't be an issue for me at all.
If she supports and loves her husband and really wants to see him win, then this should be a cake walk for her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, I think THAT is the real issue. I DON'T think she wants him to win. I don't think she WANTS him to be President and I DON'T think she wants the 'microscope' that goes along with being in the White House (doesn't hold a CANDLE to being in the Senate-from a small state).
I think she's doing JUST enough to make it LOOK like she's helping and not getting CAUGHT trying to under mind the campaign.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MacBookForMe
romeohoover1968
MaryLynn_
SouthernLadyX
darwinm701977
harleyb761960
sterlingburt19681962
popperous
2jojoyo
Chuck The Canuck
adamhowe1980
dreamme9669
1basque1
doggammit
Lurch
inplacenews.
loupdargent
SwampFox-82nd
Pilgrimage1
JOEY EVANS
ericember
LumFan
alexander1380
alseo
djn3nunez3
Mdiar
SonOfTheMask
kwilco
Grrr
robbob78
mrsolutions
TechnologyExpert
cosmogenium
ssingano
joeeddie
mmrhe
mwendt86
nickjones321
tomboy501
wonkydonkey
Soccerman
RickyDawkins
juvel
sleepingbeauty2
bendyplank
juliastone
Chrisjohn
simonsez
BillSmythe
k21bl
478)
he also gets a navy pension for disabiltiy..
The poor guy has to get by on a measley $400,000 annually.
That was his reported income according to faux.