McCain of the Keating Five

Black Swan

After Sarah Palin launched a character attack on Obama, attempting to show him as a pal of former 1960s Vietnam Era Protest Movement and Weatherman Ayers, expect to see a counter-attack from the Obama campaign noting that McCain was a member of the Keating Five.

"The aide noted the closeness of McCain and Keating -- that he gave McCain $106,000 for his campaigns and that they'd vacationed together in the Bahamas."

Source and Keating Five video:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/06/1498542.aspx

"In the year before his Senate run, McCain had championed legislation that would have delayed new regulations of savings and loans. Grateful, Keating contributed $54,000 to McCain's Senate campaign. Now, when Keating tried to stack the federal regulatory bank board with cronies, McCain made a phone call seeking to push them through. In 1987, in an unprecedented display of political intimidation, McCain also attended two meetings convened by Keating to pressure federal regulators to back off. The senators who participated in the effort would come to be known as the Keating Five."

"Senate historians were unable to find any instance in U.S. history that was comparable, in terms of five U.S. senators meeting with a regulator on behalf of one institution," says Bill Black, then deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, who attended the second meeting. "And it hasn't happened since."

"Following the meetings with McCain and the other senators, the regulators backed off, stalling their investigation of Lincoln. By the time the S&L collapsed two years later, taxpayers were on the hook for $3.4 billion, which stood as a record for the most expensive bank failure — until the current mortgage crisis. In addition, 20,000 investors who had bought junk bonds from Keating, thinking they were federally insured, had their savings wiped out."

Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print

How could this reference to McCain as being a member of the Keating Five affect the campaign? At the least, does it show that McCain exercised bad judgment during an earlier US financial crisis? At the worst, could this suggest that Keating bought McCain's cooperation with a campaign donation?

Trojan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How could this reference to McCain as being a member of the Keating Five affect the campaign? At the least, does it show that McCain exercised bad judgment during an earlier US financial crisis? At the worst, could this suggest that Keating bought McCain's cooperation with a campaign donation?

Are you having us help you out with your Politics 101 assignments?

Black Swan

Trojan wrote: »

Are you having us help you out with your Politics 101 assignments?

Hi Trojan! I like your comments on the Trojan's Attack thread. Poly Sci homework? I wish! Not in Poly Sci this semester at USC.;)

Trojan

Cheers!

To answer the questions, I think there might be some effect on the all-important swing voters, who I suspect (hope) are getting a bit miffed with McCain and crew at this point. Lots of bs, very little substance. I don't think it'll have much effect with Joe 'NRA' Sixpack who is going to vote for the MILF ticket at all costs. Again I'm hoping that the average voter is above this.

Will the average swing voter dig further into the Keating Five?

Manic Moran

I think there might be some effect on the all-important swing voters, who I suspect (hope) are getting a bit miffed with McCain and crew at this point

If I were the uncomitted voter, I'd be more miffed with Obama for this one.

Obama had the correct answer yesterday, when he said "McCain wants to use smear tactics to distract you from the economy. Well, instead, I'm going to keep bringing up the economy." Excellent response to the McCain camp smear attack. Definitely showing the moral high ground, giving the impression McCain is desperate, and that Obama doesn't need to stoop to such levels.

Yet today, they come back with this. Not a remark in a speech like Palin made, oh no. They have a full 13-minute video on this pre-made and ready to go. Far from maintaining the high ground he had yesterday, he's shown that he's no different from the underhanded politicians he claims to be a change from. I think he could have done better.

Then again, I'm not the average voter. History shows that negative campaign tactics work on the average voter. I can't understand it, and when I hear that sort of advertising, I tend to revolt against it.

There is another item to consider: You learn from your mistakes a lot more than your successes. My Command Philosophy to my troopers is "You can make any mistake... once" If McCain learned from the Keating incident (after all, he's had over twenty years since then, has he repeated the error?), it could be seen as a mark in his favour.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then again, I'm not the average voter. History shows that negative campaign tactics work on the average voter. I can't understand it, and when I hear that sort of advertising, I tend to revolt against it.

Indeed! This reminds me of the Republican 2004 presidential campaign smear tactics that made John Kerry, a winner of 3 purple hearts in Vietnam, appear to be a coward, while G.W. Bush flew one year in the Texas National Guard defending the State of Texas from the State of Oklahoma.;);)

metrovelvet

[EDIT - Keep your biggoted FOX news tabloid comments out of this forum. - GuanYin]

McCain was exonerated.

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yet today, they come back with this. Not a remark in a speech like Palin made, oh no. They have a full 13-minute video on this pre-made and ready to go. Far from maintaining the high ground he had yesterday, he's shown that he's no different from the underhanded politicians he claims to be a change from. I think he could have done better.

I think there's a lot more substance to the Keating Five issue, than to Palin's "remark in a speech". Does that not make a difference? Or do you see the 2 issues as equivalent in seriousness?

metrovelvet

^ Major difference.

McCain dissolved his association as soon as he was aware of what Keating was up to. Furthurmore, Keating did not try to blow up the country.

Trojan

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Major difference.

McCain dissolved his association as soon as he was aware of what Keating was up to. Furthurmore, Keating did not try to blow up the country.

Yeah.

And Obama was 8.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Indeed! This reminds me of the Republican 2004 presidential campaign smear tactics that made John Kerry, a winner of 3 purple hearts in Vietnam, appear to be a coward, while G.W. Bush flew one year in the Texas National Guard defending the State of Texas from the State of Oklahoma.;);)

Kerry's military record had the same effect on me as negative adverts. Fine, he went to Vietnam. Fantastic. You don't need to shove your war record into my face every day of the week to tell me how great you are. That tends to come across as very un-humble (And his actions in the immediate post-war years didn't endear him to me much either). The Swift-boating didn't turn me against Kerry: If the man came back with three PHs and a SS, he probably deserved them. GW basically just released a picture of himself in a cockpit, and left it at that, they didn't try to make much more of it than it was.

Whilst McCain isn't reluctant to talk about his POW time, there seems to be a lot less emphasis on it, mainly because everybody and his uncle already knows about it so they don't need to shove it in our faces quite as much. There's also a slightly different emphasis: Kerry's campaign came across to me (I was in Iraq at the time, and was thus just getting the soundbites) as "Look at me! I was in Vietnam and came out with a bunch of awards!" whilst McCain is using his POW experience as an explanation for his current attitudes and priorities more than for being a POW in itself. You'll note he doesn't rely overly much on the rest of his service record, there's little controversy or publicity over the awards he received. I mean, we all know Kerry's highest award was the SSM, because everyone made sure we knew about it. Without looking it up, what's McCain's highest award?

NTM

Black Swan

metrovelvet wrote: »

McCain was exonerated.

Not according to the Chicago Sun Times:

"False. The Senate Ethics committee censured McCain, saying he exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators." Being censured is an official action of record used to discipline its members.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/mccain/1205087,CST-NWS-fact07web.article

“In April 1989, two years after the Keating Five meetings, the government seized Lincoln, which declared bankruptcy. In September 1990, Keating was booked into Los Angeles County Jail, charged with 42 counts of fraud. His bond was set at $5 million.”

“During Keating's trial, the prosecution produced a parade of elderly investors who had lost their life's savings by investing in American Continental junk bonds.”

“In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee convened to decide what punishment, if any, should be doled out to the Keating Five.”

“Verdict: 'Poor judgment'”

I wonder if that verdict made the people who lost their life savings feel any better? And why was McCain representing the interests of Keating, and not these elderly investors?

I also wonder to what extent McCain's voting for G.W. Bush-favoured legislation 90 percent of the time in the past 8 years exhibited "poor judgment," and how this judgment may have contributed to today's families losing their jobs, homes, and life savings during the current US financial meltdown?

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html

“After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.”

I wonder why McCain did not follow the rules for several years (1982-1989 or 7 years) and disclose these trips until after the scandal broke and an investigation was underway? If the scandal had not broke, I wonder if he would have paid for the flights after all those years of not doing so?

I also wonder to what extent these flights, Bahama vacations, and thousands of dollars in campaign contributions over the years influenced McCain to assist Keating before the scandal broke, followed by Keating's criminal conviction and incarceration on several counts?

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst McCain isn't reluctant to talk about his POW time, there seems to be a lot less emphasis on it,

I call you on that. I have not seen McCain speak without mentioning his POW experience. Anytime he gets a tough question or seems cornered in an interview, he pulls the POW story out of the bag. I find it very distasteful, especially when I work cover a Veteran's Hospital and see some of his war colleagues who never recovered.

I'm not impressed by Obama's negative campaigning either, I think the Keating route will backfire on him.

That said, I've been told that a campain focusing on the fact that McCain gave up military secrets in captivity has been pulled by the Obama high-ups. I would probably go independent if that is ever brought up.

Blue Lagoon, a censure is a slap on the wrist, McCain was all-but absolved, rightly or wrongly.

Hobbes

GuanYin wrote: »

said, I've been told that a campain focusing on the fact that McCain gave up military secrets in captivity has been pulled by the Obama high-ups. I would probably go independent if that is ever brought up.

All they would need to do is give out free copies of McCains biography. It's documented there. In fact the Rolling Stone article which is very negative on McCain quotes from his biography.

Manic Moran

As I said, he's not reluctant to talk about it, but it's used as a means to reach the end, not as the end in itself. It's not pushed as "I was a POW, vote for me!" as much as something like "I voted against torturing because my experience as a POW formed my opinion in such a manner." You have to admit that the stay in Vietnam had to have a profound effect on McCain's perceptions of things and will form a part of his frame of reference. I doubt that Kerry's awards had anywhere as much as an impact on his character, after all, they're just pieces of metal and ribbon. There's the difference in my perception of the presentation: In one corner, we had a person saying "I'm a great guy, look, I've got these awards to prove it*", whilst in the other corner we've got someone else saying "These are great policies, and I believe so because of the way my POW experience has formed my opinion." At least McCain is trying to be subtle about it and apply it to a larger scheme than itself.

NTM

*In and of themselves, awards prove little. There are no end of valourous actions which are not acknowledged by receipt of an award, and there are no end of valourous persons who were fortunate enough never to be in a position where they had to prove their valour. It's why you don't 'earn' medals, you are 'awarded' them.

Manic Moran

I've been told that a campain focusing on the fact that McCain gave up military secrets in captivity has been pulled by the Obama high-ups.

Hobbes wrote: »

All they would need to do is give out free copies of McCains biography. It's documented there.

That would seriously backfire if they were to try that. Contrary to the movies, the military does not expect you to give nothing but your 'name, rank and serial number' for the duration of a stay in captivity. It would be preferred, but it is not expected because it is not a realistic expectation. The trick is to hold out for a certain amount of time, then start giving out enough information to keep you intact. Face it, saying how many pilots were in your flight from Oriskany is perishable information which does no harm after four hours, let alone four days. If it were all that scandalous, would McCain put it in the biography to begin with?

McCain's military record is in political terms unimpeachable. Not saying that there is nothing to impeach, but that any attempt to target him on a perception or a technicality is going to result in a major backlash. I'm very surprised the Obama camp even considered it as a tactic.

NTM

brianthebard

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I said, he's not reluctant to talk about it, but it's used as a means to reach the end, not as the end in itself. It's not pushed as "I was a POW, vote for me!" as much as something like "I voted against torturing because my experience as a POW formed my opinion in such a manner." You have to admit that the stay in Vietnam had to have a profound effect on McCain's perceptions of things and will form a part of his frame of reference. I doubt that Kerry's awards had anywhere as much as an impact on his character, after all, they're just pieces of metal and ribbon. There's the difference in my perception of the presentation: In one corner, we had a person saying "I'm a great guy, look, I've got these awards to prove it*", whilst in the other corner we've got someone else saying "These are great policies, and I believe so because of the way my POW experience has formed my opinion." At least McCain is trying to be subtle about it and apply it to a larger scheme than itself.

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so partisan and denigrating. McCain uses his record as a way of stopping further criticism, its happened on many occasions, you only have to look at any interview he's done in the past month or two where he's mentioned it to see that. Further I think its disgusting that you will degrade the record of a fellow serviceman (kerry, who won 3 purple hearts) while claiming its ok for McCain to use his record for his political gain. Why would this be? Obviously because one is a Republican.
Finally, if you think McCain hasn't dealt with his Vietnam affair after 40 or so years, surely this is a reason not to vote for him? After all, if he can still be so affected by it he must have deep seated issues that would make him unsuitable to be president.
There's no subtlety in what McCain is doing with his record, or in your Republican apologies for it.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

That would seriously backfire if they were to try that.

Well if they did it. But if you read his book it does nothing to make him appear presidential. I'm pretty sure if McCain had any hindsight he would of sanitized the book long ago.

Contrary to the movies, the military does not expect you to give nothing but your 'name, rank and serial number' for the duration of a stay in captivity.

I am aware of that and he even says in the book he gives them useless information after that facts he gave them.

But in the book he says that you should never give anything to the enemy to get what you want (in response to going home early) but had no problem doing it when he needed special hospital treatment. He also did interviews for the viet cong.

Face it, saying how many pilots were in your flight from Oriskany is perishable information which does no harm after four hours, let alone four days.

Well he said more then that by his accounts (even more if you go by viet congs account but I'm discounting that).

McCain's military record is in political terms unimpeachable.

His military record is below average at best. He got where he was on the coat tails of his father. Painting him as a war hero is embarrassing and an insult to those in the service.

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I said, he's not reluctant to talk about it, but it's used as a means to reach the end, not as the end in itself. It's not pushed as "I was a POW, vote for me!" as much as something like "I voted against torturing because my experience as a POW formed my opinion in such a manner." You have to admit that the stay in Vietnam had to have a profound effect on McCain's perceptions of things and will form a part of his frame of reference. .

Again, I think you are wrong. I can pull up at least two youtube videos where McCain uses his POW stories to dodge questions. That is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. He is using an emotive and untouchable topic to evade responsability in answering a question.

Don't get me wrong, I like McCain, but every time I see him dodge a topic I care about with his POW diversion, I take a step towards an Obama vote.