So either 1) there is some principled way to say that financial records should be available for the public for a candidate's spouse while the others are not; 2) there is no principled way to distinguish financial from medical records and therefore the public should see them all; or 3) there is no principled way to distinguish and therefore the public does not have access to financial records.

I know that Chris is half-joking, but I will take him to support #2. I would guess runasim thinks #1 is possible. And I am inclined towards #3.

In the end, I would prefer stockboy's method. Does McCain have any history of steering funds to his, his wife's, or his friends benefit? What has the actual candidate done?

The problem with politics is that so many candidates make campaign promises that they don't keep. That's politics everyone says, but it's also horrible because the candidates (essentially) campaign and are elected on false pretenses. That's why I favor looking at past actions/votes as a way of determining the future actions of a candidate. In my mind Obama has been the most consistent, McCain says one thing one day and another thing a month later. Who knows where he truly stands? If a candidate truly shows “growth” and changes their mind over tie on a certain issue, I'm fine with that. However any candidate who suddenly comes out with different views on the campaign trail is immediately suspect in my book.

Does anyone think we also have a right to record Cindy and John's conversations at dinner time?

pacatrue,
Nope. But phone conversations are definitely on the table.

When one member of a family assumes a position of high power, his family is going to join him in the spotlight. It can't be avoided. II needs to be a family decision, then, whether to go there or not. The public can't play family counselor.

For a democracy to function well, the electorate needs to trust the governement, from the president on down. For the sake of trust, appearances are very important, even if a specific act or postition to the contrary is perfectly defensible in other circumstances.

Cindy has to pay the price tag on being married to a candidate, i.e. being scrutinized in a way she wouldn't be otherwise for the sake of appearances, if nothing else. What she does will, through her husband, affect the level of trust.

A parallel situation concerns relatives appointed to high government positions or working as lobbyists. There is no reason why these relationships couldn't be innocent of wrong doing, but general perceptions trump individual cases..

Have we also forgotten Cheney's belief that energy conservation is a virtue?

I'm not blaming the Bush administration for the high oil prices, but the Bush administration does have policies which encourage energy consumption which do contribute to higher prices. His policies benefits the energy industry and contributes to environmental problems.

So I think it's important for the American public to know the finances of the McCain family and what conflicts of interests exists (or not). I really don't want a president whose wife has financial interests in hotspots in the world. If McCain needs to pressure the governments to clean up their human rights records (or whatever) does anyone really think he would place the USA's interests ahead of his own? If he did truly place the country's interests ahead of his own, then he would insist that his family not benefit from investments in the countries he negotiates with.

At any rate, given his closeness (or his advisors' closeness) with some of the world's nastiest regimes and his wife's investment in Sudan, I think there is definitely cause for concern about how his family benefits from their investments.

It's just not enough for the McCains to say, “It's none of your business.” If the McCains truly want to lead the government then they need to show that they place the interests of the USA above their own. I'm very suspicious of someone who says, “Vote for me for president, give me the most powerful position on earth, and trust me when I say I won't abuse your trust. Oh, and we won't release our family's financial records because we don't think they're any of your business.” Don't we already have a person in the White House who said “Trust me”? And we've seen how well that's worked out.

However, I think she has both a legal and a moral right to say, “no thanks,” no matter how much legislation her husband writes taking away the privacy rights of others.

Legal maybe. Moral no. Our honorable politicians and their financial backers should have to live in the America they've created for the rest of us. And in this case, that means no right to privacy.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why attending Columbia as an art major is idiotic.

Thank you for any information you can provide on this.

Sincerely,

Kathy K. (whose daughter is an English lit major at Barnard College, and is definitely not an idiot)

In a world where only honorable people are elected, I would agree with that abstraction.
In the world as it is, I can easily envision the president's assets being transferred to the spouses 'private' portfolio..

When it's a couple in the WH, it's also a couple planning theri financial future.

And, since McCain's political career was built on his wife's fortune, it seems like her financial records are especially relevant.

This is entirely a political matter. If people feel more secure about McCain knowing his spouse's financial matters, then they can ask to see the records. His wife can refuse if she wishes and take the small political damage. There can't be more than a handful of people who might have voted for McCain but just don't trust him anymore because they can't see his wife's tax return.

I'm having fun today! This is my third comment pseudo-defending McCain and I have absolutely no plans to vote for the man.

Okay, that makes sense. As does the likelihood she has far more such 'embarrassments' to hide.

Halliburton, Enron, Blackwater, the mafia, plastic surgery write-offs? Who knows? And, no, she isn't a 'private citizen' anymore. She wants to be our First Lady without letting us know if she's a lady at all.

No, Chris, I'm talking about reality. People want to vote for someone who shares their values, which makes them comfortable and likable. You can't change that, as much as it doesn't fit into your idealistic utopian vision.

This is why Obama will be crushed in a general election. Because there is no way the broadside of the Democratic party (blue collar, middle class families) is going to vote for a guy who looks down on them. Forget about Independents.

You have acknowledged one of the reasons that the Republicans are going to stop being relevant in politics. Even Republicans hold their leaders to some level of standards. However, as far back as the 1970's the Democratic party stop insisiting that their leaders demonstrate any level of leadership. How else to explain liberal judges ordering destructive forced busing court orders while their own children attended all white private schools?

First rule of leadership, do not ask others to do something you would not do it yourself.

That pretty much invalidates the entire Republican platform on:
= War
= Sanctity of marriage
= Fiscal conservatism
= Health care