One big yawn.

Whatever it is Ms. McCain is nervous about revealing, it isn't mutual funds. Everybody with a 401k has mutual funds if they haven't bailed-out for IRAs.

Maybe there's direct investments in Chinese toy and pet food companies. Yikes!!!

Or direct investments in Halliburton. Raytheon. GE. That would be conflict of interest and could cause a political earthquake for Mister 100.

"That would be conflict of interest and could cause a political earthquake for Mister 100."

Yeah, it not like Cindy McCain is a Marxist like Diane Feinstien. If that were the case then the press would deem this not at all newsworhty, but since McCain is a Republican even wild conjecture like this moronic post by Lee is headline news.

So the Washington Times calls for Dirty Little Cindy to release her tax returns and you blame me because it's news?

It's a damn editorial in the nation's capital newspaper of record for conservative clowns like you, Bunyan. How many logs have to hit you in the head before you wake up?

But quick, blame it on Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. You bankrupt Republicans take ZERO responsibility for the mistake s your leaders make. Eight years of Bush and this clown is pointing fingers at Feinstein.. amazing.

Cindy McCain isnt running for public office, she and Senator McCain have never filed jointly. So whats the big deal? She has her money, he has his, He has made his tax info available. if she choses not to then that is her business.

If she has nothing to hide then she should disclose -- because not disclosing will hurt John McCain's chances for the presidency, as the Washington Times editorial points out.

Apparently, she's got something to hide...

I'm not blaming you for anything Lee. Just pointing out some simple facts. I know that the idea of "fact" is as foreign to many leftists as the meaning of the word "is", but if you really paid attention you'd notice some things.

You were starting to notice when the press turned against Hillary Clinton, but perhaps you've forgotten by now.

Let me repeat if for the bark-impaired...

The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, Bunyan. They're on your side -- you really should take off the blinders, put down the megaphone, and listen to them - but you are so stuck in your knee-jerk reactionary anti-Democrat mode you miss the obvious and just keep on digging deeper and deeper.

Be sure to send a letter to John McCain telling him you are steadfastly in support of Cindy right to nuke his chances for election in November. I'll pay the postage.

just because the times is making this arguement doesn't mean they are right. and btw, the fact that she sold those investments as soon as she found out the details is a good thing, right?

lee, you're just trying to gin up controversy and are using the times editorial to help you. if it was on any other subject you would probably be arguing that they are wrong. well, in this case they are.

personally i'm more interested in obama's professional relationships with reznik, ayers, and how his wife got a public posistion making over $300k with little qualifications right after her husband got elected than i am in what funds cindy mccain was invested in.

seriously, if you want to start comparing scandals, we can do that, but it won't be good for your (new) candidate.

I don't think conservates are right all the time. I just think Marxists are wrong most of the time.

If John McCain was smart enough to say "the Bush administration botched Iraq big-time and I intend to fix it" he just might win the election.

Fortunately for us Democrats he's a Republican. Republicans always blame someone else for their party's mistakes. Seeing you blaming the press is no surprise, but Americans know better.

"seriously, if you want to start comparing scandals, we can do that, but it won't be good for your (new) candidate."

Seriously? You mean Republicans are holding back and won't attack Obama unless provoked? lol!...

Feel free, ke - blast away.

You know Lee, never in this thread did I say that Cindy McCain should not relaease her tax records. She probably should and you and the Wash Times are right.

I just responded to BryanD's comment about a conflict of interest. And you proved my point:

Actual conflicts by Feinstien=no press coverage

Speculation, innuendo, and unfounded allegations by unnamed sources about Cindy McCain= lots of press coverage.

That's exactly what I wrote back on May 8th, one week before this latest brouhaha hit the fan:

Like it or not, Republicans, this will become a major issue in the race for the White House. What is Cindy hiding? That will become the question, and as the recent call and subsequent release of the Clinton's tax returns demonstrates, the truth revealed by the release is typically less damaging than the calls and innuendo that follow any perceived efforts to hide information.

So what does Cindy do now? She sticks to her guns and continues to refuse to release her tax returns. Some might admire her for sticking to her principles, but look at the damage she's doing in the process...

And when you weigh the pluses and minuses, the only way that continuing to refuse to release the returns is a "plus" is if the release will reveal damaging information that is worse than the innuendo. Either that or she's just a stubborn fool...

I don't believe she's a fool, so let me ask again -- what is she hiding?