This short blog entry on Slate regarding John McCain's income taxes is interesting. Not for what it says about Senator McCain's income, but for the following:
John McCain’s released two years of tax returns today to little fanfare. We learn that he earned $405,000 in 2007. We learn that he’s giving his ex-wife $17,000 a year in alimony. What we don’t learn, though, is how much he’s getting from his current wife. That’s because the returns don’t include the assets of Cindy McCain, whose beer fortune is estimated at more than $100 million—a reminder that McCain would be the first president to have signed a prenuptial agreement.
The post goes on to wonder if voters might object to Senator McCain because of the prenup:
Then there’s the moral aspect. In a race that has feature the thrice-married Rudy Giuliani, McCain’s marital situation doesn’t seem particularly controversial. But some Americans might look askance at a prenup, commonly considered leaving the door open for divorce.
I'm not sure about that. A recent poll (results here) doesn't seem to indicate that Americans hate the idea of prenups:
The Thomson West survey found that when asked if they would sign a
prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, American adults said:
-- Yes, definitely (14%)
-- Yes, maybe (27%)
-- No, probably not (21%)
-- No, definitely not (20%)
-- Not sure (18%)
While the question is "would you sign a prenup?" and not "would you vote for a presidential candidate who signed a prenup?", I don't see anything here indicating animosity for prenups per se. Only 20% said "no, definitely not," and I'd imagine that only those who feel the strongest about that "no" vote would view Senator McCain's prenup as a deal-breaker.
To me, Senator McCain's marital situation DOES seem like it might be a little bit controversial to social conservatives. The prenup isn't the problem -- the divorce of wife #1 in order to marry (younger, richer) wife #2 might be. The prenup only reminds social conservatives of the prior divorce.
