Yep . . . John McCain really ought to be pressured to release his tax returns, just like Hillary Clinton is getting pressure. And for that matter, Clinton ought to actually release her tax returns rather than just get criticized for not doing so, and McCain, too, ought to release his returns.
« Gilbertology | Main | The Good News »
McCain's Returns
16 Mar 2008 02:09 pm
Comments (15)
I think the press will fudge McCain marrying for money.
Note this Reuters story about McCain sneaking into Baghdad like Spitzer's love muffin:
"There has been a spike in violence since January…"
and Yahoo's barfing it out as:
"There has been a fall in violence since January..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080316/ts_nm/iraq_mccain_dc
John McCain should also be pressured to announce his visits to the Iraq Green Zone up front otherwise everyone will think he is a wuss like the Decider-in-chief.
@AKBY: I think you're probably going to turn out to be right on all those marks. It's really dismaying that she's getting such a free ride on it. Andrew Sullivan has gone a bit overboard with his criticisms of her of late (obv -- although I confess I find it cathartic, just not necessarily helpful to his case against her), but he's on the mark on this one. She can't say she's the candidate who's been vetted when this stuff (plus the other records) hasn't been made public yet. I'm not going to take her word that there's nothing in there that could get used against her in a big way in the general election.
She was originally going to release them only after she secured the nomination. I can't imagine there's anything earth shattering in them other than a story of an immense amount of wealth acquired quickly by renting Bill's prestige to business interests around the world.
It will be interesting to see how Joe Sixpack will respond to the Clintons' foray into crony crapitalism.
I can't imagine there's anything earth shattering in them other than a story of an immense amount of wealth acquired quickly by renting Bill's prestige to business interests around the world.
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
I guess I am skeptical because I don't understand why she won't release them if there's nothing to hide.
The bizarro thing with Hillary is that initially she said she'd only release them if she were the nominee, and then only after the convention. I just don't understand why that makes any sense, and then how you pivot off that to say you'll release them mid-April. It just seems sloppy.
On other transparency issue, how about the earmarks? Obama's released all of his.
The idea that Clinton would release them only after she secured the nomination is silly. How, exactly, is that being "vetted"?
Whoever said the bit about the taxes being released on the 15th - you've got a good point. A week is just about enough time for the press and blogosphere to go over her taxes (if she releases them in full) and work it all up into a frenzy. For the record, though, I think she and her husband have released their taxes in the past on the 15th or so. Still, you have to ask yourself, "Why this arbitrary date?" I understand that's when taxes are due, but... so?
Anyway, if she's unwilling to release her earmarks, I'm sure she's capable of not releasing her taxes and standing in front of crowds with a straight-face.
Could McCain release his records but at an off-the-record BBQ somewhere where only special journalists are invited?
Moff: Right on.
I've been saying for some time now that the storyline about "Clinton has been vetted" while "Obama has been treated with kid gloves" is false.
False in the sense that Obama hasn't been vetted any more or less than she has.
And BTW...Clinton was the one who created this storyline; it was in New Hampshire. Now it's considered a mainstream "fact"
Please...
No matter what is in them, the Clinton haters will make a to do. Why would you subject yourself to that if your GE opponent hasn't. Why don't they do it like an arbitration. Everyone in the race picks 3 neutral CPA/auditor types to go over the returns, release them to the one that all agree on, and the CPA/auditor releases a report concluding clean or not clean. I would trust that conclusion more than bloggers and reporters and the like anyway.
ally's gift - Are you that naive? First, there's no way the three would devote the resources to finding a CPA that they could all agree on, and then entrust this ONE person to interpret their tax returns without releasing the raw data.
Secondly, it goes against the idea of transparency. If they put all the raw information out there, people can go over it and see where the dots connect to other information we know about the candidates.
To a politically-inept CPA, a $10,000 donation from a drug company to a candidate's charity means virtually nothing, so he can just write it off as "nothing to see here!" But if that information is released to the public, bloggers and the like can pour over it and realize that it could have been something more sinister than that.
And finally, the "why would you subject yourself to that if your GE opponnent hasn't" is silly. If both sides take that stance, no one will ever release their taxes!
The concern over Clinton's tax returns is not that they will reveal any cheating or illegality. The conern is that they will reveal things that are politically damaging - ties to shady businesses, ties to shady Middle Eastern autocrats, patterns of making millions by selling influence, etc. The CPA would be entirely beside the point.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Did her campaign realize when they made this commitment that date is one week before the Pennsylvania Primary? Probably not.
This seems incredible, and yet so many things the Clinton campaign does seem incredible: Bill won the primacaucus twice, yet they didn't know about it until after they staked everything on Texas. She dissed the various small, red, caucus, and Iowan states, and then did worse at the Iowa county conventions. So while I first thought "Whoa, one week before PA; guess they're sort of confident," it is tempered by the fact that even Penn probably realizes popping in to say "whoopsie, we really meant the day after PA. Or possibly the day after IN" is more damaging.
I have two theories: One is that there's something in the returns that will be politically inconvenient. The whole "after I'm the nominee, I'll show you the papers behind my back" seemed to scream that.
The second is that they would rather create the appearance of a scandal than just come clean. And a lot of things in the first Clinton administration, especially Whitewater, but Rose law firm and other cases as well--there was nothing there, but they spent so much time not disclosing that it looked like something must be. Kind of like I think her "as far as I know" may have been automatic hedging--always leave a back door that you didn't really say what you just said. Neither of these--knee-jerk concealment or knee-jerk obfuscation--is very desirable, imo.
And, yes, McCain needs to pony up too. But since he has no earmarks, he is ahead of Clinton in the whole disclosure thing. This just seems more evidence that Clinton learned the rules in the 90s, and has a very hard time adapting to new rules. Again, not desirable.
Comments closed March 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think McCain will, once the pressure really mounts.
Clinton has said on several occasions that she will release the tax returns "on or around" the 15th of April.
Did her campaign realize when they made this commitment that date is one week before the Pennsylvania Primary? Probably not.
My prediction is she will not release the tax returns until after the PA primary, and may only release part of the return.
Will she receive HEAVY critiscm for not living up to her word? Based on recent history, I'd say no.
Posted by AKBY | March 16, 2008 2:25 PM