New Keating Five website

[Popeye]

The Obama campaign has put up a new website, complete with video, KeatingEconomics.com which is a reminder of McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal.

The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s.

The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules. And in both cases, John McCain's judgment and values have placed him on the wrong side of history.

Many don't remember or were too young to know of McCain's role in the scandal....everyone should check it out.

 

[robert hawkins]

i agree with you totally. the right wing with palin at the lead is trying to deflect attention from the issues. atching the stock market today, it astounds me that their main talking points are about obama's relationships with wright and ayers. if the american people fall for these atwater-rovian tactics again, they will certainly deserve the dire circumstances that will result.

 

[Libsmasher]

The Obama/Popeye slur machine going at full sewage flow.

The facts:

The keating five consisted of four DEMOCRATS and McCain. The senate ethics committee took action against three DEMOCRATS only, and cleared John McCain and democrat John Glenn. McCain was criticized ONLY for "creating an impression" of impropriety - very weak stuff. Beyond this, the reason why slurmeisters like Popeye and the Obamabots keep bringing up McCain and the Keating Five is because they want to associate blame for the S&L collapse of the eighties, and the current credit crisis, with McCain - of course he had nothing to do with either one. They are counting on the electorate being too lazy to investigate the facts, which show that from beginning to end, it was DEMOCRAT decisions, policy, and personnel who are responsible for both events.

From wiki:

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[45] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[48]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[46][45] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[7] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[49] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[7]

 

[Popeye]

There's more on the website Keatingeconomics...viewers can decide for themselves if McCain was involved. In the meantime, here's a short 90 second clip outlining what the Keating Five scandal was all about.

 

[Libsmasher]

More slur sewage from you - careful viewers will see that the video from huffington post, the premier defamation site on the net, is loaded with insinuations and innuendo but devoid of relevent fact implicating McCain. And facts are stubborn things - the FACTS are that McCain was found INNOCENT of any illegality or ethics violation by the bipatisan ethics committee.

 

[Popeye]

More slur sewage from you - careful viewers will see that the video from huffington post, the premier defamation site on the net, is loaded with insinuations and innuendo but devoid of relevent fact implicating McCain. And facts are stubborn things - the FACTS are that McCain was found INNOCENT of any illegality or ethics violation by the bipatisan ethics committee.

I like Wikipedia too:

]McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981, and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating. Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.Because of these connections, Phoenix New Times writer Tom Fitzpatrick stated in 1989 that McCain was the "most reprehensible" of the five

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

It's just too bad that you're not honest enough to post the facts when you post a link.

FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!!

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[45] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[48]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. [46][45] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[7] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[49] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[7]

Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[50] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[8]

The Senate Ethics Committee did not pursue, for lack of jurisdiction, any possible ethics breaches in McCain's delayed reimbursements to Keating for trips at the latter's expense, because they occurred while McCain was in the House.[47] The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said that it too lacked jurisdiction, because McCain was no longer in the House.[51] It said it did not require that McCain amend his existing financial disclosure forms for his House years, on the grounds that McCain had now fully reimbursed Keating's company.[51]

A lie of omission is still a lie Popeye, which puts you in the same catagory as Dawkins and the rest of the tin foil hatters.

 

[Popeye]

It's just too bad that you're not honest enough to post the facts when you post a link.

FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!!



A lie of omission is still a lie Popeye, which puts you in the same catagory as Dawkins and the rest of the tin foil hatters.

That's nice...are you suggesting McCain's actions were above reproach?

McCain himself, in 1999, acknowledged his role in the scandal... "The fact is," he said, "it was the wrong thing to do, and it will be on my tombstone and deservedly so."

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121299/Perspective/John_McCain_s_uphill_.shtml

 

[Libsmasher]

McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981, and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating.

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo

Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo

Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo.

In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo

McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo. This was the part that only gave the impression of impropriety.

So what have you got? Nothing. McCain was cleared of any legal or ethics violations by the senate.

Your slur posts actually provide an (unintended) public service: for those who are unfamiliar with defamation techniques, they are practically a textbook on the subject - use innuendo, implication, insinuation, and all to leave an impression of wrongdoing, without supplying any supporting fact.

 

[Popeye]

Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo



Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo



Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo.



Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo



Illegal? Ethics violation? Noooooooooo. This was the part that only gave the impression of impropriety.

So what have you got? Nothing. McCain was cleared of any legal or ethics violations by the senate.

Your slur posts actually provide an (unintended) public service: for those who are unfamiliar with defamation techniques, they are practically a textbook on the subject - use innuendo, implication, insinuation, and all to leave an impression of wrongdoing, without supplying any supporting fact.

All those items that you call "slurs" came from the exact same Wikipedia link that you were more than happy to use here...https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5094#3

So what's it all about?...picking and choosing what you care to cite from a particular link?.....maybe a little hypocrisy? Oh excuse me, in your case it's a WHOLE LOT of hypocrisy.

Lets take a look at another Wikipedia link, this about the Appearance of impropriety

Appearance of impropriety is a term often used in reference to a situation whose ethics are deemed questionable. It means that any layperson, without knowledge of the facts, would assume that something he/she saw or heard was inappropriate or a violation of a rule/regulation.

Fact: McCain received at least $112,000 in contributions from Charles Keating

Fact: Cindy McCain and her father had private business dealings with Keating

Fact: McCain and his family made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's private jet. (three of the trips were to Keating's place in the Bahamas)

Fact: McCain met with government regulators on Keating's behalf.

Fact: McCain has admitted what he did was wrong.

 

[XCALIDEM]

It's amazing that only popeye keeps hammering this issue. Don't you think that the liberal media would be playing this issue every 30 seconds if it was true?

 

[Popeye]

It's amazing that only popeye keeps hammering this issue. Don't you think that the liberal media would be playing this issue every 30 seconds if it was true?

Fact: McCain received at least $112,000 in contributions from Charles Keating

Fact: Cindy McCain and her father had private business dealings with Keating

Fact: McCain and his family made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's private jet. (three of the trips were to Keating's place in the Bahamas)

Fact: McCain met with government regulators on Keating's behalf.

Fact: McCain has admitted what he did was wrong.

Perhaps you can tell me which of the above isn't true?

 

[Libsmasher]

All those items that you call "slurs" came from the exact same Wikipedia link that you were more than happy to use here...https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5094#3

So what's it all about?...picking and choosing what you care to cite from a particular link?.....maybe a little hypocrisy? Oh excuse me, in your case it's a WHOLE LOT of hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter that they are from the same link, and I guess just about everyone but YOU knows that anyone can edit wikipedia entries. The things YOU cite are just all the non-relevent insinuations that have been larded in there by the big army of paid Obamabot shills like you who spread all the disinformation, defamation, and (in this case) innuendo that has NOTHING to do with wrongdoing, but leaves the impression of wrongdoing to uncareful readers, which is what defamation operatives like you depend on.

Lets take a look at another Wikipedia link, this about the Appearance of impropriety

YOU quoting the BIBLE????? Have you no shame?

Fact: McCain received at least $112,000 in contributions from Charles Keating

Fact: Cindy McCain and her father had private business dealings with Keating

Fact: McCain and his family made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's private jet. (three of the trips were to Keating's place in the Bahamas)

Fact: McCain met with government regulators on Keating's behalf.

Fact: McCain has admitted what he did was wrong.

FACT: McCain's use of the word was connected with the "appearance of impropriety", and McCain was completely absolved of any crime or unethical behavior by the senate. THAT is the stubborn fact that won't go away, no matter how much innuendo you puke up.

 

[Libsmasher]

It's amazing that only popeye keeps hammering this issue. Don't you think that the liberal media would be playing this issue every 30 seconds if it was true?

Popeye and other defamation operatives know that quantity can trump fact. In a fast-paced country where people either don't have time or are too lazy to study the issues, or depend on the lib media for summaries, or every time they look at the net all they see is the fast sea of lies, slurs, distortions, and innuendo spread by the Obamabot army, it can have enough of a marginal effect to change the outcome of elections, and right now it looks like it's working for them.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

wait... so what is the difference between Obama's association with Ayers and McCain's association with Keating? Both associates are criminals, both candidates showed poor judgement in associating with them.

the only difference i can see is that McCain's association was during the committing of crimes against the American people.

Looting the American people of 130 billion dollars is pretty radical too right?

I don't really post here anymore, i just check in once in awhile to see which side is doing a better job of peddling their sides talking points. currently, the Hannity's are killing the Huffington's.

...back to your regular scheduled talking points.