They may not agree on much, but this week the editors of the Washington Times and the Washington Post joined forces in demanding that Cindy McCain make public her tax returns. One day after the Post declared "it won't do," the reliably right-wing Times insisted "Mrs. McCain needs to end the 'privacy' charade and release her tax returns."
The Washington Post's call for the McCains to divulge their IRS filings on Tuesday came as no surprise. After all, four years ago the Post took Theresa Heinz Kerry to task for the same secrecy. In 1984, WaPo hounded Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro to produce the returns for her husband, a man whose dubious financial dealings had become a campaign issue. Ultimately, Mrs. Kerry released a two page summary of her tax return, while the Ferraro eventually published her husband's returns.
The stern position and dismissive tone of the Washington Times, however, is startling. Not merely because the Republican propaganda appendage is owned by the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Yung Moon, a close associate of McCain campaign consigliere Charlie Black. The real eye-opener is the Times' disgust with the McCains' secrecy regarding their riches:

As the chairman of the Anheuser-Busch distributorship Hensley & Co., which her father founded, Mrs. McCain is an heiress whose income and assets will directly benefit from the tax policies espoused by her husband. Mr. McCain would also benefit. Taxpayers and voters are entitled to know how much these benefits will be.
With a net worth estimated in the range of $100 million, Mrs. McCain would directly benefit from her husband's pledge to permanently extend the top income-tax rate of 35 percent (which was lowered from 39.6 percent in 2001), the top capital gains tax rate of 15 percent (which was lowered from 20 percent in 2003) and the top dividend tax rate of 15 percent (which was lowered from 38.6 percent in 2003). Mr. McCain opposed those cuts in 2001 and 2003, but now wants to make them permanent. The McCains may also derive great benefit from his promise to completely eliminate the individual alternative minimum tax. Until she releases her tax returns, voters cannot know for certain.
Moreover, during a crucial period of the Republican nomination contest - from last August (after Mr. McCain's campaign had collapsed financially) through February (when its remarkable political rebound effectively clinched the Republican nomination) - Mrs. McCain used accoutrements of her wealth to keep her husband's campaign literally "in the air," traveling from one campaign stop to another.

The Times is right to highlight Cindy McCain's litany of assets, including the $100 million estate, the 8 homes, the lakeside estate in Sedona and the private plane. If anything, the Times understates the significance of Cindy's company jet, the campaign's continued use of which exploits a "family" loophole on corporate planes John McCain in 2007 pledged to avoid.
But the potentially embarrassing disclosures for the fabulously wealthy McCains hardly end there. On Thursday, it was revealed that Cindy McCain sold over $2 million she held in investment funds doing business with Sudan. Perhaps just as damaging, the record suggests the McCains' charitable contributions keep their largesse within the family. As Harper's noted in February, the private schools of her children are the "prime beneficiaries" of Cindy McCain's giving to charity. From 2001 to 2006, "More than $500,000 went to his kids’ private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions."
While the Times has spoken out, other leading voices in the conservative echo chamber have been slow to call out the Republican McCains now as they did the Democratic Kerrys in 2004. In this issue of the National Review, the editors reluctantly acknowledge "Cindy McCain is within the law to keep her business to herself, but she is not within the mores of contemporary politics." (Ironically, the National Review writes "'What is John McCain trying to hide?' asked Howard Dean. We assume nothing." That is especially comical, given the 2004 demands from the NRO's Donald Luskin and Andrew Stuttaford, the latter of whom scoffed, "Baseless innuendo? Very possibly. But there's an easy way to show that these suggestions are completely unfair. Disclose the full form, Teresa.") As from the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who famously branded Theresa Heinz Kerry a "sugar mommy" in demanding she release her returns, there continues to be only silence on the subject of Cindy McCain.
For its part, the Washington Times had it about right:

Mrs. McCain needs to change her mind and release the returns as quickly as possible. How Republican John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee who rightly fancies himself the king of transparency on Capitol Hill, and his campaign strategists can permit this open sore to fester is unimaginable.