A week or so ago there was a Team Obama graphic put out listing all sorts of offshore accounts and other kinds of financial assets that they wanted information about released. They weren't on Mitt Romney's tax returns, and the demand was that these things all needed to be made public.
Perhaps half of them belonged to Ann Romney.
My snarky take at the time was that Obama's advisors firmly believed that all of a woman's assets belonged to the husband.
In 2004 there was a bit of a scuffle over Kerry's wife's returns, which she refused to make public. (D) were vehemently outraged. (R) considered it to be fair game, since Kerry would make decisions that would impact his fortunes, if not his personal fortune. It's easy, apparently, for (R) to forget that a woman's assets can be held separate from the husband's, and that she can run her own affairs.
In 2008 there was a ruckus over McCain's wife's returns and property. McCain didn't know exactly how many houses "he" had or where they were or even that a relative was staying in one. They were his wife's (both the house as well as the relative). This outraged some (R). (D) considered it to be fair game. It's also apparently easy for (D) to forget that a woman's assets can be held separate from the husband's, and that she can run her own affairs. Go figure.
So now in 2012 there's the same ruckus, this time over Romney's wife's assets, but it's a bit more low-key. It's the same assumption--the wife is a mere appendage of the man.
There's a hint of truth to this. Obviously if you're going to make policy affecting businesses and your mate is in a business that would be affected. it's possible that the politician could be weak or corrupt and play things to his--or her--favor. (Let's not forget the same kind of thing with ... Was it Pelosi and her husband? No. Fein... Feinstein.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
