McCains fail to pay taxes on one of their many properties

Realistically, this isn’t necessarily a huge scandal, but it certainly is an embarrassing one.

When you’re poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you’re rich, it’s hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It’s a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain’s trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain’s lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: “The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due.”

Now, if there was any evidence at all that the McCains were deliberately trying to avoid paying their taxes, it would be a serious political problem for the Republican presidential candidate. But that doesn’t appear to be the case — this looks like a bureaucratic error, not a couple of tax-cheats. The McCains, thanks to Cindy McCain’s family fortune, are multi-millionaires. They simply wouldn’t have any reason to avoid an $8,000 bill.

Dan McAllister, treasurer- tax collector for San Diego County, told Newsweek, “Under the law, the property owner is responsible for keeping the address current.” True, on this the McCains were definitely wrong.

Which leads to the part of this that’s politically embarrassing: John McCain and his wife own seven properties?

First, as Mark Kleiman put it:

It must be nice to own so many houses you can’t remember which ones you’re four years in arrears on your real estate taxes.

It must be even nicer to own that many houses (and be married to a hundred million bucks) and be able, with laughing out loud or getting the horselaugh from your friends in the media, to call your political opponent an “elitist.”

Exactly. I very much doubt that the McCains deliberately avoided their tax bill, but their defense is kind of awkward. In effect, their argument is, “We own so many properties, it’s hard to keep track of how much we owe to whom.”

It’s not the kind of argument that screams, “Everyman.”

Second, embarrassing stories about McCain’s personal finances don’t exactly inspire confidence. It creates an interesting contrast — Barack Obama has no credit card debt and has set up college funds for his daughters; John McCain has a six-figure credit-card debt and hasn’t paid one of his property-tax bills. Which of these candidates sounds like the fiscally-responsible one?

And third, when a similar bureaucratic error forced Senate candidate Al Franken (D) to have to pay back taxes, Republicans were outraged, and pointed to the issue as an important reason not to vote for him.

If an inadvertent accounting problem constituted a “scandal” for Franken, should McCain be held to a different standard?

We all know by now that the Rethugs get a pass on everything they do, and the Dems have to live by convenient rules set by Rethugs and blessed by the media. Franken’s situation will be a scandal, but McSame’s will be understable: he’s a busy man, afterall. Lame explanations work for one side, but not the other.

  • Of course McCain should be held to a different standard – he’s a Republican! Don’t you understand anything?

    Seriously, we had a similar situation here in Oklahoma. Lance Cargill, a Republican state representative who became Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives in 2007, was forced to step down from that position in early 2008 when it was disclosed that he failed to file state and federal personal income taxes two years in a row. Cargill also was delinquent six straight years in filing property taxes owed on his law office.

    I was shocked (seriously! I was shocked!) when I first read of John and Cindy McCain’s credit card debt in excess of $100,000. I’m the kind of “deadbeat” who pays my cards every month, and it’s impossible for me to imagine anyone carrying large credit card balances when they have the money to pay them. To me, it implies demonstrates financial sloppiness.

    The property tax fiasco in California seems to have a reasonable explanation, but the question lingers: “It must be nice to own so many houses you can’t remember which ones are four years in arrears on their real estate taxes.”

    There are no “elitist” Republicans. Only “elitist” Democrats.

  • Franken and McCain are completely different issues. It was Franken who was responsible for paying his taxes. As we all know the McCains keep their finances separate and whatever has to do with Cindy McCain’s finances are none of our business and, obviously, not a problem for John. Right?

  • The “liberal media” (*cough*Newsweek*cough*) actually did McCain a favor by pointing out this unpaid debt. They could have simply sat on the story for another week or so, letting it go into default, and then blaming the McCains for getting some old lady kicked into the street when her home went onto the sheriff’s block.

    “Liberal?” Newsweek in is the ReThug’s hip pocket.

    And please—what kind of bank doesn’t notice that they’re not getting a tax bill for a trust they’re managing? They’ve got the damned thing on their books; they’ve got to keep those books balanced—it’s the freaking LAW. Any “real” bank wold have been on the phone to the taxation agency in a heartbeat.

    One might think that this particular “bank’ is operating on the old “Keating” plan.

    And—one might contemplate if a certain “absentee Senator” from Arizona is somehow connected to that bank….

  • Six figure credit card balance and a house about to go into tax default. This from a guy whose primary political message is fiscal conservatism. Combine this with his naivete about economics, his inability to explain how he is going to pay for tax cuts, gas tax and drilling plans that no economist can endorse, and an entourage of chum chasing lobbyists. What you have here is an international joke.

  • The condo is being lived in by an elderly aunt. What part of that is embarrassing? Is something wrong with the McCains using their millions to help out their relatives? I just don’t see why this was worthy of a post.

    If the bill went to the occupant of the condo instead of to the bank or the trust, and she is getting on in years, it is not unusual for an older person to fail to pay bills. That is often a clue that an elderly person is having difficulty living independently and needs help. Why is that somehow a scandal or any reflection on the McCains?

    You are trying to make this sound as if they have all those houses to live in themselves, but some people have their wealth invested in real estate. So what? It would be like saying “Does one person really need to own more than one stock?”

    Are there really no issues you could criticize McCain’s positions on? Is this really what our election campaigns have become about? Wasn’t McCain’s belly button doing any pointing this weekend?

  • Mary, it clearly says in both the article and Steve’s post that County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain’s trust, were returned by the post office.

  • I don’t see how this is relevant to anything, nor were Al Franken’s back taxes. We can leave fake outrage to the wingers who have developed it into an art-form.

  • I don’t see how this is relevant to anything,

    I can’t believe he spends $100,000 on his credit cards and pays them off monthly, and I find it even harder to believe that he has investments that consistenly pay better than the interest rate fees. This absolutely says something about his ability to manage. And while the president does get to hire experts to do things for him, the message here is that McCain isn’t even good enough to find able managers. Frankly that is consistent with much of how his campaign is run, too.

  • Everyone knows that people who own seven properties can’t possibly remember to pay all the taxes and upkeep on those “ordinary, every day person ” problems that become bothersome. I’d also like to have someone figure out, now that the cat’s out of the bag, how many of those properties have illegal aliens manicuring the properties and if so, who is also paying for the social security taxes on their paychecks. Elitist? Come on, give the guy a break. He’s crashed five airplanes for Christ’s sake. Well, four, if you don’t count the one that made him a master of security issues and forced him to leave his first, crippled wife, for an heiress blonde who can’t , for the life of her, manage all of those pesky condos swirling around her “every day common” life style. I don’t know about you, but my property taxes are due at the end of July. I manage to pay 1/2 of them now and the other half in December lest my own “elitist” life style finds itself in embarrassing arrears. Nauseating…

  • We can leave fake outrage to the wingers who have developed it into an art-form. — Shalimar

    Dems are in something of a dilemma with the outrage/distraction thing. The right kicks out a constant barrage of these distractions that put Dems on the defensive, or left unanswered have the cumulative effect of defining Dem character. Then uneven coverage by corporate media compounds the issue.

    So if you don’t play the game, you cede advantage to the other side. If you do, you let them set the rules — distraction vs real issues. I don’t know the answer except to try and expose the tactic to the public, which is what Obama has tried to do.

    That’s your cue, Mary.

  • We’re in the middle of a true crisis with scores of regular “hardworking” americans facing foreclosure on their modest, average homes. And here we have John McCain and his Money Bags wife who own multiple extravagant properties and to whom the concept of “property taxes” is something remote that’s taken care of unseen, unthought of for them. He admits to know nothing of economics, his economic policies are murky at best. This will resonate, not as a scandal, but on a more simmering level as someone out of touch with the average American and their problems.

  • How the fuck is Richie McMoneybags here going to handle the country’s finances properly if he can’t even handle his own?

  • I agree with Shalimar. No one fails to pay back taxes on purpose, so it is obviously some kind of snafu. I think it is admirable that the McCains are letting an elderly aunt live in LaJolla (a very nice place). Dulcie — you don’t know any more than I do what happened with their tax bills. But why is this anyone’s business and how is it relevant, by any stretch of imagination?

    McCain got booed during his immigration speech yesterday. He doesn’t know how much gas costs. He thinks Iraq is going well. These are all real issues. How much he puts on plastic each month is not. I also don’t want to know whether he sleeps with his socks on or how many pets he owns. Can’t you guys tell what is real and what is fake?

    Are you really suggesting that we should all adopt Republican tactics, no matter how sleazy? Wait, you’ve already done that during the primary. This kind of post makes the Dems look like a bunch of piranhas who are nothing but teeth and don’t know any better than to attack their own species, just because it moves. Wait for the real issue or go back and hammer on the ones that were there yesterday — they are still worth talking about about.

  • Can’t you guys tell what is real and what is fake?

    This is the kind of comment that inspires satirists.

  • $100,000 credit card debt. Four year overdue real estate taxes. Upon examination it is found to be held together by the binding properties of pancake makeup.

  • Mary,

    It might not be relevant to you BUT this is a campaign where almost everything is relevant. Like most campaigns, it all comes down to image and whether or not the other guy can poke holes in the other guy’s persona. McCain the tough guy maverick v.s. Obama the young idealistic visionary.

    McCain has made this relevant with his Obama-the-elitist attack, not to mention Rove’s arrogant-country-club smear attempt. It’s bizarre that someone as wealthy as McCain can do this with a straight face. Not to mention that McCain had to marry money wheras Obama’s (recent) wealth is entirely self-made.

    I’m looking forward to the debate where McCain calls Obama an elitist and Obama makes a reference to McCain’s 7 houses. McCain is trying to do the same thing as Bush, trying to pretend that he’s some kind of everyman and downplaying the enormous wealth.

  • Mary, your troll points from Mcphony’s campaign, must really be building up. I think everyone would agree that it is really cool that Cindy’s aunt is being allowed to live there…what is sad, is that she could have gotten evicted.

    ..I think SaintZak said it well..”This will resonate, not as a scandal, but on a more simmering level as someone out of touch with the average American and their problems.”

    Who’s elitist?

  • So, we are playing the Kevin Bacon game here? Cindy McCain’s aunt’s bank fails to pay taxes in La Jolla (where the McCains don’t live). First McCain is the candidate, not Cindy. Second, Cindy doesn’t live there, the aunt does. Third, the aunt apparently didn’t fail to pay the taxes, the bank did. Fourth, the letters were returned by the bank, perhaps because they were misaddressed or perhaps because the trust was set up wrong or changed to a different bank, or who knows what, but yet another party is involved. Fifth, the bank didn’t notify anyone this was happening and apparently neither did the aunt. Sixth, how does any of this reflect on McCain, the candidate, at all?

    I am not a troll. I am a reasonable, sane adult trying to keep some perspective in an election where all intelligence and rationality seems to have departed. Bite him, bite him. He is running for president, so bite him again. It doesn’t matter what he did — he is running isn’t he? Maybe he is responsible for all of the unpaid property taxes in LaJolla. Maybe his wife’s aunt is affiliated with Rezko. Maybe she is an illegal immigrant. Maybe she eats Wheaties instead of Cheerios. Bite them all.

  • 9. Danp said: I can’t believe he spends $100,000 on his credit cards and pays them off monthly, and I find it even harder to believe that he has investments that consistently pay better than the interest rate fees. This absolutely says something about his ability to manage. And while the president does get to hire experts to do things for him, the message here is that McCain isn’t even good enough to find able managers. Frankly that is consistent with much of how his campaign is run, too.

    As frightened as I am to be on the same side as Mary on any issue, I still don’t think this is relevant to anything. The property isn’t even his, it belongs to the 2nd Mrs. McCain. And no one with her wealth ever manages their own finances. There is a trust, so a bank trust department manages the property; and I’m sure the $100k is left on the credit card because it basically is a 0% loan, which sounds like excellent advice from an accountant. McCain’s sloppily run campaign managed by a coterie of lobbyists is a clear sign of what his management style would be in the White House. His wife’s personal finances aren’t, he most likely does nothing with them except spend some of the money.

  • Dear Steve Benen, could you possibly write just one column to please Mary?

    Please?

    Lookie. Here’s one right here. PUMA girls gone wild.

  • Mary, you’re the one who said the bill went to the home of “the elderly aunt”. I was simply stating that the article said where the bill went, which was to the McCain’s trust. I didn’t make it up – a McCain campaign aide is quoted in the article.

    You can turn on a dime, can’t you? I don’t post often, but I read this blog every day, and have for several years. I have never seen anyone try and cover their tracks as quickly as you attempt to. Oh, wait – John McCain does the same thing, doesn’t he?

  • The 7 houses, otoh, is entirely relevant if the McCain campaign wants to talk about elitism. I just don’t see how this story adds anything to the very simple response.

  • Dingbat Mary said: I am not a troll. I am a reasonable, sane adult

    … who believes there are 600,000 African-Americans in chicago, who are all out to get me….

  • Mary– aren’t you one of those PUMAs who has said they’ll vote for McCain to punish us all? Then you post comments defending McCain and attacking Obama?

    Hmmmm… and then you wonder why some people think the PUMAs are a GOP invention.

  • Mary, your post appears to concede that you believe McCain’s lack of knowledge of the price of gas is a legit issue. I see this issue as exactly the same. There are two reasons McCain’s ignorance on gas prices may be an issue (1) the atmospheric “can’t understand what average Americans are going through” aspect and (2) the substantive “how can you fix what you dont know/understand” issue.

    From your posts in this thread, I get the sense that you consider (2) to be fair game, but not (1). I disagree, but in this case I’m not sure it matters.

    The “7-homes, behind on taxes” clearly goes to (1), which I think is in fact legit. But just like gas prices and the policy issues that cluster around them are an issue the next President needs to get, so is the mortgage crisis, so are the home-ownership and tax policy issues surrounding home ownership, the impact on the economy etc. So if the McCain’s can afford 7 houses, and can get away with being sloppy about the taxes, they really cant understand the root of the mortgage problem any more than McCain can understand the root of the impact of gas prices on Americans. That is, issue type (2), which you seem to think is legit, applies here as well.

    sometimes i think you are contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
    i get the impression you dont like us very much. that hurts my feelings.

  • Shalimar (20): If his credit cards are really 0% loans, than that is even a bigger story, especially in light of the mortgages that Sens. Dodd and Conrad got from Countrywide. By the way, I have never even read how much of a good deal they got on their mortgages, but I bet it wasn’t 0%.

  • Mary,

    I think you’re being disingenuous with your posts, as you’ve been time and again. The CB’s post said from the beginning that the real issue isn’t the back taxes owed. The real issue is the political implication that the McCains has 7 houses that have to be maintained and paid for. This is not a typical problem for the average American.

  • Zoe, no I am not a PUMA and I have never said I would vote for McCain. I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for any Republican and never will. I have said I will write in Gore or vote Green or perhaps vote for Nader. I may write in Clinton, since that is pretty much the same as writing in Gore but conveys my disgust with the primary in addition. I despise McCain and truly hate Bush. I would have nothing much against Obama if he were working his way up the party as a Senator, building a track record and providing the service to the party and the country that politicians ALL do before they aspire to the top job.

    -daze, I think the gas price speaks to (2) more than (1), but both of your points are relevant because they are something McCain did, not something that happened to a distant relative of his wife as the result of a paperwork mixup or oversight. McCain should know what the price of gas is before proposing a gas tax holiday. Otherwise, it isn’t a relief measure but an attempt to buy votes. That is highly relevant, in my opinion. I don’t care if he “shares my pain at the pump” in an empathetic way by walking a mile in my shoes. I care that he has the facts needed to make decisions affecting my life. For that, he needs to not only know the price of gas, but what % it constitutes of the average person’s weekly expenses and what the length of an urban commute is these days, plus availability of public transit. Offering a cash prize for a better car battery makes no sense in the context of the timeline for global warming, for example (when 2015 is a likely tipping point). That bothers me a lot. Why can’t Steve Benen write about stuff like that? Why does he waste his time on this trivial crap that embarrasses us as Democrats more than it does McCain or his family?

  • “Why can’t Steve Benen write about stuff like that? @ 30”

    Because it’s HIS blog and he writes about whatever he feels is worth writing about. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.

  • Mary, various readers will like some of steve’s posts better than others. Some still miss the Friday cat blog, for example (I am not among them). Some of Steve’s posts are deadly serious; some lighter in weight and spirit – and I’m sure some prefer one kind to the other. the point is Steve offers a nice mix.

    if you think you could make better editorial choices, there is an easy way: do your own blog. but it seems rather bad form to come here to steve’s place and spend your time complaining about the fact that he expresses what strikes his fancy (which is, after all, really what any blog is ultimately about).

  • -daze, I don’t know enough about you or anyone else here to like or dislike you. I don’t take people like Tom Cleaver personally, but the personal remarks aimed at me do get a bit old. I suspect you weren’t here for the worst ones or you wouldn’t have asked about my feelings toward the commenters here.

    JT, as I said above, why is it an embarrassment for a millionaire to own 7 houses as opposed to a bunch of stocks or a company? Some people invest in property. The failure to pay the taxes looks like an oversight, not a habit or a pattern, especially since it would have negatively affected McCain’s wife’s elderly aunt. Unless you believe that property is a crime, why is this a problem?

    Most people who run for office are millionaires. That is a fact of our political system. Even Obama has a lot of money (from his book sales). I have never criticized him for being rich — only for pretending to be poor. The Clintons, paupers compared to many politicians, own at least 2 homes (one in NY and one in DC). Do they become bad guys if they also buy a vacation home? What if they help Chelsea buy a house (that would make 4)? What if they too support an elderly parent (now, they’d be up to 5 homes)? What if they have more than one elderly parent (that makes 6)? What if they keep the house they were young in for sentimental reasons when moving to a more convenient home (that would be 7)? Where would you draw the line? Flipping? Tenements? Investing in developments? That’s just a form of business. Your complaint just makes no sense to me.

  • When Steve gets tired of my remarks, he will send me an email and tell me so. I think he probably has as thick a skin about such things as I do about the various criticisms of my comments, in which I too have the right to express what I choose.

    I appreciate the effort that Steve has put into creating, publicizing and maintaining this blog. It is a lot of work — way too much for me. I am hoping that he will read the feedback and learn that you don’t have to imitate the worst of the wingnut websites in order to win an election. There is value in having integrity and being fair, not just in winning. All voices, even dissenting ones, have something worth listening to, if only because you find out what other people consider to be your weaknesses and thus can address them more effectively. (I learned this from the peer reviews of my papers submitted to journals.) If I make errors that frustrate you, just post a correction. Others will read it, even if I don’t make it back in time to see it.

  • I have read in several places that there is no reason for the McCains to pay off their credit card balance because they aren’t charged interest on the accounts. While this could be a scandal in and of itself, I’m also guessing it is normal for people of their wealth even when they don’t hold public office.

    http://blogs.creditcards.com/2008/06/obama-may-reform-mccains-credit-card-rate.php
    “The forms show ranges of figures rather than exact amounts, but they show that she carries a pair of American Express cards, on each of which she owes $100,001 to $250,000 — meaning she owes a minimum of $200,002 and a maximum of $500,000 on her two AmEx cards. But the forms also show why she would feel comfortable with those loans: She’s paying zero percent interest. American Express also has given a “dependent child” of the McCains a charge card, on which $15,001 to $50,000 is owed. That card also carries a zero percent rate.”

  • I am appalled at what has become of the comment threads on this blog.

    CB, made a very defensible point: The McCain campaign’s defense of their candidate’s tax delinquency undercuts their attack on Obama as an elitist. Yet, when I started typing this there were 33 comments. Why?

    I used to read the comments on every post and comment on regular basis. No longer, this stupidity has turned me away.

    My candidate, Edwards, lost. I’ve moved on. Clinton lost. Move on.

  • Mary:
    I hope I have never treated you as a troll, because I honestly don’t think you are one, merely someone who is, for whatever reason, close-minded on the subject of Obama, and unwilling to look at a little history. For example, you say “I would have nothing much against Obama if he were working his way up the party as a Senator, building a track record and providing the service to the party and the country that politicians ALL do before they aspire to the top job.”

    That “ALL” gets to me. In the first place, not all candidates take the time to work their way up the party. Hillary was running for President as soon as she was elected. Bill C. had no national experience, merely time as a state governor before he was nominated — as was true of Dukakis, Carter, Stevenson, Franklin Roosevelt — though he’d held a sub-cabinet office and had been a prominent figure — Al Smith, and Wilson — Alton B. Parker was simply a judge, and Bryan had served a couple of terms in Congress, just among Democratic Candidates since 1892.

    (If ‘governmental experience’ is all that matters, Dodd and Biden had been in the Senate longer than either Hillary or Obama, and Richardson’s resume includes Congressman, Governor, Cabinet Member and Ambassador to the U.N.)

    But the fact is that experience is only one factor. Again, Lincoln had one term as a Congressman, and succeeded Buchanan, who had maybe the best resume of any candidate in history, including having been named to the Supreme Court (he turned it down). Which was among the best, and which was among the worst of our Presidents?

    In fact, the three truly transformative Progressive Presidents, Lincoln and the Roosevelts, had among the least experience of any non-military Presidents. (On the other hand, both Kennedy and Johnson, who belong just below that category — for Johnson only in domestic policies — had the sort of experience you speak of.) Lincoln had one term as a Congressman — running on an ‘anti-war’ platform, some choice for “Commander in Chief” — TR was a sub-cabinet official and Governor for two years — and was only on the ticket to get him ‘out of the hair’ of the state bosses. He could never have come close to winning the nomination against the majority of his party. And FDR had been a Governor for four years, a state legislator, and a sub-Cabinet official — and a losing VP candidate in 1920.

    As for writing in a vote for Gore or Hillary, well I can’t condemn you for doing what I threatened to do — though I always stated that I only felt free to do so because if NY were even close for her, she’d have already lost the rest of the election. And I had two specific issues that drove me that way, Terry McAuliffee’s vile anti-immigrant speech in March 2007 which he was not fired for, and her praising McCain at the expense of Obama — which you just don’t do whoever the candidates are. What specific issues make you feel that strongly about Obama?

  • it is not unusual for an older person to fail to pay bills. That is often a clue that an elderly person is having difficulty living independently and needs help. – Mary @ 6

    OK, I know you said you won’t vote republican, ut you just made the PERFECT point for not voting for McSame…

  • Prup, this is such old ground. I stated very thoroughly my complaints against Obama over the past months — I doubt anyone wants to hear them again here.

    I also take issue with some of your history above, but if you don’t like the word “all,” substitute “most”. I think you unfairly minimize some experience, such as FDR’s experience (undersecretary of the Navy, NY state legislature, working for Teddy) and Bill Clinton’s (you ignore his working in Fulbright’s office, his leadership of the DLC and minimize his two terms as Governor). Unlike Obama, both FDR and Clinton worked on other people’s campaigns in small jobs, learned who people were, talked to constituents and learned the ropes on the ground. They both learned techniques that made them effective presidents. That’s part of paying dues. Obama joined in African American community activism and hooked up with the Chicago machine. Having lived in Chicago, and more importantly been involved in ground-level politics in Chicago, I know what that is about. There are dues there too, ones that Obama has not acknowledged. The learning is about power games not grassroots. It will affect how Obama governs.

    Yes, lots of people run for president with less experience than Obama, but my argument was that he was less qualified than Hillary, not that he had no right to run. He has no right to be our nominee, especially given Hillary’s strong support and equal performance in the primaries. He is the candidate due to quirks of the system, which he clearly worked to his advantage, not because he was preferred by more of the voters.

    Your remark about Hillary is off base. She has worked her entire life in politics, along with Bill. Her role and her influence, her experience, were all acknowledged in statements by people contemporary with her, not on her campaign, who were involved in the same initiatives, like those she pursued as first lady (e.g., peace in No. Ireland, diplomacy efforts in Bosnia and causes related to women and children). She was not permitted to hold an official position or be paid a salary as first lady (governor or president). It didn’t stop her from working. The issue of credit for accomplishments is a sore spot for women because it is part of the ongoing discrimination women face in both the workplace and in situations where volunteer work is ignored even when it is high level and essential to the community or society. But, even without that, Clinton’s experience was more substantial in the Senate than Obama’s, in terms of bills sponsored, bills passed, and committees served on or chaired. Obama’s voting “present” bothered me, as did his failure to hold any hearings of his subcommittee. Now his ads claim as accomplishments bills he merely voted in favor of. That’s dishonest but he has nothing of his own to point to because he has insufficient experience.

    As I have said here before, Clinton was not my original candidate. It would have been Kucinich based on issues, then Edwards, but Obama would have been at the end of my list, before Richardson (due to his attitudes toward women) and Gravel but after Biden and Dodd. I think Feingold is wonderful but he didn’t run. I also resent his playing the race card against Bill Clinton (via surrogates). Oprah’s endorsement offended me more than Wright, but Obama’s whole use of race in his campaign and his coyness about it put me off.

    Before the primaries ended I posted a list of the issues I feel Obama has been wrong on, where I have preferred Clinton’s statements. It was a lot of work to do so and afterward people here acknowledged that I had a basis for my views. I recognize that Obama has changed the details of some of his plans that I previously objected to (e.g., social security) but not others (health care). Now that he is the candidate, my concerns are that he is running to the center (which means right to me), is too religious, and has too little sense of urgency about climate change. I believe he has the wrong personality to be able to enact the large changes necessary, especially ones that require discipline in the congress. As a conciliatory person, he will try to avoid conflict. That is impossible if there is going to be change. I don’t believe he will stop the war, prosecute Republican wrongdoing, or fix the climate. I see too much macho posturing on defense and too much concern for his own image. I see him committing the Bush mistakes of avoiding whatever the Clintons did, just because they were Clintons, rewarding loyalty instead of competence, and using underhanded campaign tactics (e.g., the maneuvering on the Rules Committee). You may see that as hardball but I see it as unethical, with little respect for due process (in line with his lack of concern for civil liberties beyond those affecting African Americans). On the personal level, his plagiarism offended me, as did his claiming to be a professor when he was an adjunct lecturer and his convenient memory about Wright and Rezko, coupled with his remark about his grandmother’s bigotry and his distortions of his biography to appear more disadvantaged than he was.

    Clinton’s adultery never offended me. I don’t know why, but I suppose because it was personal and none of my business. Obama’s support for Wright offends me much less than his response to the public outcry about it. I agree with some of the PUMA people that the Supreme Court is a lost cause already and I don’t believe we need Obama to save the nation from the right. Republicans are in the process of rising up against their own party. I believe we need someone in office who is more committed to progressive ideals than to career — that was Clinton, as she is now demonstrating with her patently false but wholehearted support for Obama’s campaign.

    This primary was overheated because of the issues of racism and sexism. It didn’t have to be but Obama worked those issues to his advantage, while making sure that Clinton was accused of racism on the one hand if she addressed his tactics and was playing the “sex” card if she complained about the blatant sexism against her. That isn’t uniting, it is polarizing people. It is playing people. I will not forgive Obama for the ugliness of that campaign. (Don’t bother asking for Obama quotes — it was all done with surrogates and supporters, but it was clearly choreographed, as evidenced by the echo-chamber repetition of talking points, something learned well from the Republicans.) Clinton was repeatedly accused of being dirty, but in my opinion, she wasn’t dirty enough, something I still respect her for. I could vote for Obama on the issues, but I will not forgive him for the rest of this. You don’t reward that kind of behavior, so this is a matter of principle for me. All the people who think it is sharp to turn the despicable tactics of Karl Rove back on people in our party are now doing it to McCain. That is part of my objection in the recent series of posts here. Probably a lost cause, as our party seems to be increasingly dominated by people with the mentality of teenagers and a amorality that rivals that of the Nixon administration, and they claim to be progressives.

  • Can’t help piling on here – if Mary did not jump all over absolutely every bit of info – true or false doesn’t matter – that casts Senator Obama in a bad character light, I might take more seriously her attempts here to defend McCain from what she perceives to be the exact same behavior. But she does jump like a Pavlovian dog, and therefore I won”t take her seriously.

    In addition, she shows her yet again her amazing ability to completely ignore the point of the post – that owning 7 houses when you’re trying to cast your opponent at elitist is at best disingenuous. What I can’t figure out is why Mary’s endlessly repetitive behavior is more entertaining than tiresome to some of the rest of us.

  • Stephen1947, an elitist is not someone who owns a lot of stuff. An elitist is someone who thinks he is better than other people because he belongs to some elite group (such as people who own a lot of stuff). In Obama’s case, he appears elitist when he denigrates members of other groups (those who feel frustrated about the economy, for example, especially white folks who feel frustrated about the economy) by calling them bitter, clinging to guns, God and something else (was it beer?), no, it was actually religion (Obama’s supposed strength, but when Obama believes, it apparently isn’t clinging).

    To call McCain an elitist for owning houses, you have to point to him making some sort of negative statement about those who do not own homes, or making fun of the people who cannot pay their mortgages, or some such. Pointing to an elderly aunt and saying she almost got kicked out of her condo due to a paperwork foulup doesn’t do it.

    I don’t see McCain as an elitist person. He is too seasoned a campaigner to give off those vibes. He is many other negative things, but I won’t call him a name that doesn’t fit based on the evidence at hand.

  • Another lie.

    McCain doesn’t own the 7 properties. They have always had seperate finances since the time they were married.

    McCain’s wife owns those finances.

    The condo in dispute is giving a home to Cindy McCain’s great aunt. She is doing a good thing but leave it to the left to bash her.

    McCain gives all his book royalty to charities. Obama pockets it. Obama has made several millions off his books.

    McCain gives all his senate salary increases for the last 20 years to charities while Obama pockets it.

    Why don’t you talk about how Cindy McCain adopted a daughter from Bangladesh.

    Or how cindy mccain works on smile to help kids around the world.

    Or how cindy mccain has worked around the world to clear landmines.

    Or how cindy mccain has a 19 year old son that just came back from Iraq.

    All you do on the left is try to smear Cindy.

  • How about how Obama gave a million dollar earmark to the place his wife works.

    But we will not cover that here on carpetbegger report because this site doesn’t believe in being non partisan.

  • After berating Michelle Obama for making a six figure income, I cannot take Mary’s defense of McCain seriously.

    I can see how someone prefers Clinton or any other candidate to Obama–after all he does have flaws. I also believe in some ways HRC would have been better candidate for the general. I don’t, however, have the patience for that person using any anecdote involving Obama no matter how big or small to impugn his character. Over the past few months Mary has consistently done that. The most recent example is the story about Obama being asked for his id at a gym because the front desk person didn’t recognize him. Steve found the story funny. Mary interpret the story as an example of Obama’s”arrogance”. For my taste, that’s too much of a leap

  • To Micheline:

    Here is some Obama arrogance.

    Obama said the claws were coming out referring to Hillary.

    Obama referred to Clinton’s foreign policy experience as having tea with leaders.

    Obama said you are likable enough.

    Obama said get over it.

    Obama in the last days of the campaign dismissed Hillary as taking it to the convention as something Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson did.

    Obama won’t hand over his e-mail list to help her with her debt.

  • Obama is not going to hand his email list because his supporters would object to that.

  • I appreciate the effort that Steve has put into creating, publicizing and maintaining this blog. It is a lot of work — way too much for me.

    Mary can write ninety-two pages per day of blither yet she can’t figure out how to publish a blog.

    And she’s a professor? Of what, pray tell?

    And David, if John McCain gave all his salaries and proceeds to charity, then how’s the old fart eat? Cindy “Sugarmamma” McCain. Just because you keep your finances separate doesn’t mean they aren’t being shared. Hell I have a boat in my name but it’s still my husband’s. John McCain is filthy rich no matter which way you choose to slice it, son. When you marry “up” you usually choose to share the wealth. If Cindy McCain up and died, you think he’d give all THAT to charity? Puhleeze.

  • 42. On June 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, David said:
    Another lie.

    McCain doesn’t own the 7 properties. They have always had seperate finances since the time they were married.

    McCain’s wife owns those finances.

    Indeed. They keep the finances scupulously separate. Because it is a sham marriage. Cindy is a beard. John McCain is gay. And into some wicked BDSM stuff. Those close, and in the Arizona and DC gay communities have known it for years. Make sure and tell all your good family-values Christian friends the truth before they make their vote! Seriously – spread the word, quickly, as far as you can! Tell anyone who asks that David let the secret out to a liberal blog!

  • Micheline, you implied that Michelle was self-sacrificing because she works for a non-profit. I said she was earning six figures and pointed out that hospitals are generally non-profit but it doesn’t prevent doctors from being well-paid. That isn’t “berating” Michelle Obama or anyone else. It is correcting your falsehood.

    Feel free to disagree with what I say, but don’t lie about it. Since you seem to have trouble paraphrasing other people accurately, I suggest that you include quotes in your future comments.

  • There’s no contradiction between self-sacrificing and making a lot of money . You should recall that her positions prior to the one she currently has were also in the non-profit sector but not making a lot of money. The fact that Michelle works as a liaison between the community in Southside Chicago and the hospital, she has her pulse on the working class.

  • No one fails to pay back taxes on purpose Mary@14

    For your reading pleasure, Mary—since you’re doing such a bang-up job at defending the Republican Party’s nominee:

    http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/July/04_tax_500.htm

    Should we start calling you a full-blown McCainiac now—or just a back-alley Liebermanite?

    By the way—the word is that there was never a problem with that specific property’s real estate taxes being paid—until the McCains established that particular trust.

    And if her business skills are so slipshod as to not ride herd on the various trusts established by her, then she’d have never been allowed to put her name on that Anheuser Busch distributorship. I may not like their beer, but I do know a thing or two about that company—they are absolute freaks about accuracy.

  • Mary said “Feel free to disagree with what I say, but don’t lie about it. Since you seem to have trouble paraphrasing other people accurately, I suggest that you include quotes in your future comments.”

    Yet Mary’s very first post starts with “The condo is being lived in by an elderly aunt. What part of that is embarrassing? Is something wrong with the McCains using their millions to help out their relatives? I just don’t see why this was worthy of a post.”

    Of course, Steve never said keeping a house for an aunt is embarrassing (or “wrong”). He merely stated that not paying taxes on one of your seven houses while you are running for the top political office in the land is. He then he talked about how the fact that McCain has so many houses to take care of may interfere with his message that his opponent is “elitist” compared to him.

    All I can say is follow your own advice Mary.

  • I am appalled at what has become of the comment threads on this blog. — rege @ 36

    Pretty much sums things up.

  • My advice was to quote not paraphrase. Here is the part where Steve calls the situation embarrassing, from above:

    “Second, embarrassing stories about McCain’s personal finances don’t exactly inspire confidence”

    So, yes, CB did say that the story about the aunt was embarrassing. Then I asked what part was supposed to be the embarrassing part.

    I don’t need to ask what part of your comments are embarrassing for you.

    I know you love Obama, but why are you so hostile about it?

  • Obama got a sweetheart deal on his house from Tony Rezko.

    Obama bought land from Rezko while Rezko was under investigation.

    Obama saved 300 thousand on his sweetheart deal from Rezko while he was under investigation.

  • Does the left not care that Obama bought land from Rezko while Rezko was under investigation.

    Obama called Rezko the day of the deal and then lied to the media saying he never spoke to Rezko.

  • While I think it’s hilarious, I’m sure when you’re getting on in years, it’s easier to get many years in arrears of anything.

    Lastly, David: How do you avoid buying land from your neighbor, who happens to own a larger percentage of the city? That’s like saying there’s a connection between you and your local grocer who happened to be under investigation.

  • Does the David not care that did favors for Charles Keating while Keatings S&L was under investigation.

  • Does the left not care that Obama bought land from Rezko while Rezko was under investigation.

    Nope.

  • 56. On June 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm, Mary said:
    My advice was to quote not paraphrase. Here is the part where Steve calls the situation embarrassing, from above:

    “Second, embarrassing stories about McCain’s personal finances don’t exactly inspire confidence”

    So, yes, CB did say that the story about the aunt was embarrassing. Then I asked what part was supposed to be the embarrassing part.

    I don’t need to ask what part of your comments are embarrassing for you.

    I know you love Obama, but why are you so hostile about it?
    __________________________________________

    My God, you’re stupid. Read the quote again: “Second, embarrassing stories about McCain’s personal finances don’t exactly inspire confidence”

    Not that it didn’t say “Second, embarrassing stories about McCain’s WIFE’S AUNT don’t exactly inspire confidence”

    The “embarrassing story” is McCain not paying his taxes, period. Who, if anyone, is living in the house, and what trust is supposed to handle what responsibilities of the house are not germane to the “embarrassing” part. CINDY MCCAIN, on paper, owns the house. No matter what, it’s her (and one could assume, her partner in life’s) responsibility to pay for the taxes on that property. You see, I took your advice, and I quoted instead of paraphrasing: “Dan McAllister, treasurer- tax collector for San Diego County, told Newsweek, ‘Under the law, the property owner is responsible for keeping the address current.’” For once, you were right. As always, you look stupid.

    We know you love McCain; why continue to lie about it? Come on, the sooner you admit you’re voting for McCain, the better chance I have of winning the carpetbaggerreport betting pool. This might be the only time in your pathetic life someone’s ever rooted for you, don’t get all coy on me know, crankypants.

  • Mary,

    Thank you for making my point. Your disengeniousness and rationalizing abilities are on full display in your reply. I never mentioned anything about Millionaires or the Clintons. I would not classify millionaires or the Clintons as typical Americans. I don’t think it’s embrassing for a millionaire to own 7 homes. I never addressed that in my comment.

    The average American is lucky to own one home. That’s all that I grew up with. Maybe the above average American may have a summer home for vacations. I think the fact that McCain has 7 homes makes people pause and wonder how well off he really is, and if he can really relate to the average American’s problems. He’s displayed a pattern disdain for the issues important to the average American in the past, and this does not help him.

    The fact that you change the subject on my comment shows your disengeniousness. You are obviously intelligent and often write provacative comments. However you are unable to carry on an honest debate, which is sad….

  • Comments are closed.