Keating Five

[Skanda]

With St. John, the McCain being everywhere ones looks these days, in anticipation of running for Pres in '08, we might as well bring this up now. Then we can b*tch about it for the next two years.

[ST]

If we're lucky, it will catch fire and sink McCain's Presidential ambitions before the end of '07.

[Little Lord Patchypaws]

If we're lucky, it will catch fire and sink McCain's Presidential ambitions before the end of '07.

If "we're" lucky? Ah, good ol' ST, breaking Reagan's 11th Amendment and showing no evidence of a learning curve from the election held 2 weeks ago. Tellus ST, who are you throwing your support behind in '08?

I don't recall the Keating Five scandal being used by the right-wing nuts to "swift boat" McCain in 2000 and I"m sure those lovely folks would have done so if they could have.

[Gregg]

I don't recall the Keating Five scandal being used by the right-wing nuts to "swift boat" McCain in 2000 and I"m sure those lovely folks would have done so if they could have.

They didn't need to, Patchypaws. Bushco used McCain's POW and (understandable) subsequent bouts with depression against him in 2000.

[ST]

Ah, good ol' ST, breaking Reagan's 11th Amendment and showing no evidence of a learning curve from the election held 2 weeks ago.

1. I'm not involved in politics because I want to advance the Republican Party, I am involved in politics because of the principles I hold. The Republican Party happens to be the most effective vehicle for those principles.

2. John McCain was the driving force behind a law that regulates the content of political speech. He is an enemy of free speech, and that is something that disqualifies him from my vote. If a candidate does not respect the Constitution, I will not vote for him, Republican or not.

Tellus ST, who are you throwing your support behind in '08?

It's very early, so I don't know yet. Right now, I like Newt Gingrich but that may change depending on who is running.

[hoosierscottn95]

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

McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly ... At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

...

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said... he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.

---

The article also states that McCain and Keating were friends because both had been naval aviators, and that -- long before the scandal broke -- McCain's wife and father-in-law invested $300,000+ in one of Keatings strip malls. (I wonder how that worked out for the McCain family ... I'm guessing not well...)

I mean, if we're going to drag up every act of bad judgment a person has made in their life, why did you ever vote for George W?

In my experience, a man who drinks and drives is a much bigger asshole than a man who makes errors in financial judgment.

And a man who avoids combat is a bigger asshole than one who volunteers for it.

The babble about campaign finance reform pinching Amendment I is weak. Always has been. If you think it should be all shitcanned, than we won't elect a president from the people. We'll just be selecting from one of the two highest bidders.

Of course, the argument can be made that we've been doing that for some time now...

[Skanda]

---"I mean, if we're going to drag up every act of bad judgment a person has made in their life,"---

Ahh, Glasshoppa, you have seen beyond the curtain and exposed the basic way we conduct politics these days.

[ST]

The babble about campaign finance reform pinching Amendment I is weak. Always has been. If you think it should be all shitcanned, than we won't elect a president from the people. We'll just be selecting from one of the two highest bidders.

CFR supporters always throw this out, either ignoring or trying to hide the most egregious part of M-F under a debate over $$$.

I don't like the limits on "soft money"; that contributed to John Hostettler losing because he's never been a good fundraiser. But that pales in comparison to the fact that M-F regulates the content of political speech. I don't see how anyone, including a majority on the Supreme Court, can see such a provision as anything but a violation of the First Amendment.

And as for those 527's everyone complains about, M-F gave us the 527's.

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, I will vote against the Republican candidate for President for the first time in my life. (I supported clinton in '92, but didn't vote that year.) It will be a contest between the Libertarian and Constitution parties for my vote.

[Louie]

Brilliant ploy ST. By announcing your opposition to McCain, it frees swing voters to believe McCain is a reasonable choice. They may not even care to know absolutely anything else about McCain. Absolutely brilliant!

[ST]

Brilliant ploy ST. By announcing your opposition to McCain, it frees swing voters to believe McCain is a reasonable choice.

As if anyone outside of Bloomington knows who Scott Tibbs is. Heck, as if 95% of the people IN bloomington know who Scott Tibbs is.

I'm really not that important.

[Louie]

You undersell. Your recommendation is the best indicator of what not to select. And many in this community only needs to know that. That is real power.