Obama Camp Resurrects McKeating

After the McCain campaign unloaded the proverbial kitchen sink onto Barack Obama this weekend, the Obama campaign responded forcefully by reminding voters about McCain's tainted association with disgraced S&L magnate Charles Keating.

The 13-minute documentary and accompanying website released by the Obama campaign today adds many details about the Keating 5 scandal that voters likely have forgotten or never knew. And unlike the invocation of Bill Ayers, McCain's intervention on behalf of Keating--a scandal caused by deregulation and influence-peddling and paid for by the taxpayers--is directly relevant to the economic crisis of today.

After he was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for "poor judgment," McCain became a born-again maverick and crusader for campaign-finance reform. "The appearance of it was wrong," McCain said afterwards. "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." In his 2002 autobiography he called the experience "the worst mistake of my life."

Yet today McCain's lawyer at the time, John Dowd, was far less contrite, labeling the bipartisan Senate investigation "a political smear job on John." Dowd labeled McCain & Keating "social friends" but ignored the $112,000 in campaign contributions, trips and gifts McCain received from Keating and the business deals between the two families.

So McCain did nothing wrong and learned no lessons? Or he made a huge mistake and became a better man? Yet another piece of inconsistency from an increasingly "maverick"-less campaign.

Comments (52)

1. Gee, I guess this means Obama's smear is relevant, unlike McCains.

   Or is it that both are IRrelevant.

   Clear it up for me Ari will you, you old objective thing, you.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/06/2008 @ 2:56pm

2. Thanks, Ari!

   From Obama Camp:

   Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

   In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

   But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.

   During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

   Sound familiar?

   In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.

   http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 3:01pm

3. McCAin actually went on vacations together with Keating and his family and flew around in the Keating private jet as though it was his own. Keating and McCain were "soulmates" concerning the need for deregulation of Savings and Loan banks which cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, just like the current crisis.

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 3:06pm

4. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/06/2008 @ 2:56pm

   Let's ask PONTIFICUS first, CHIP.

   Is McCain's relationship to Keating as important as Obama's is to Ayers or not?

   If not, why not?

   A "tie" doesn't help McCain. After all, it's not like he can win on the issues, is it?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 3:18pm

5. These aren't the same (Ayers v. Keating) at all. One is superficial at best and completely unsubstantiated. The other is directly related to the current financial crisis and was important enough that the Senate Ethics Committee wanted to hear about it. When the Senate takes issue with Obama's 'relationship' with Ayers, then they are the same thing.

   Posted by DGKusel at 10/06/2008 @ 3:25pm

6. There are many, MASK, who regard Obama's ties as just as relevant to terror issues as McCains is to a 20 year old scandal. What is believed is what is true. My point was only that the Nation is doing its usual bang up job of reporting only that which supports their own distorted view of the world, which would be OK if they didn't try to pawn it off as truth.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/06/2008 @ 3:28pm

7. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/06/2008 @ 3:28pm

   See? Exactly what I expected...suddenly Obama's "relationship" IS "more important" than McCain's to Keating...and the reason?

   Simply partisan politics...nothing more.

   Sorry, CHIP....if this could have worked, it WOULD HAVE months ago. It's the last grasp at a straw of a campaign in BIG trouble....and I think you even know it!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 3:32pm

8. In the word of one my of my personal heroes Dr./ Gov. Dean yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaa! Why do people keep yelling "deregulate" then head for their well regulated gated communities? Do they believe that all American corporations are squeaky clean Christian like entities?

   Posted by lachatte at 10/06/2008 @ 3:42pm

9. but chip,

   you're still voting for obama, ¿right?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 4:10pm

10. How entertaining to watch these filth hurl turds at one another. Almost as entertaining as listening to a complicit Congress lecture the CEO of Lehman Brothers about greed. What a circus. American politics is reduced to sewage while the people are asked to cast their lot with eels like Obama or McCain. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 4:23pm

11. 30 days and counting until...

    Looney Lowell disappears!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 4:35pm

12. What everyone needs to know is that Keating is bundling for McCain and the total so far is 50K. The man does not know when to say NO and since his campaign is flounding I guess he needs all the money he can get.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 10/06/2008 @ 4:36pm

13. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 4:35pm

    Not again. I ring the bell, you salivate, eh, little fella? How humiliating it must feel to be that much under the sway of another? And lately you're so driven with anxiety about whether or not I'll be back after election day that you just can't fail to mention it on thread after thread, day after day here. Why don't you just sit up and beg like a little dog? Say, "please Mr. Lowell, tell me whether you'll be posting here after the election, please." What a wretched little worm you are, Maskedcaca. Do something entertaining, bend over and crack a smile.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 5:04pm

14. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 4:23pm

    Right and conservatives should vote for Barr

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/06/2008 @ 5:36pm

15. but it found no improper action on his part

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 5:30pm

    And who has found that Obama's association with Ayers constitues improper action on his part? Other than a dinner party and joint participation in meetings, how does Obama's actions even relate? While McCain took money and from Keating during the time period when the S&L crises was occuring, Obama had dinner with Ayers 20+ years after any accounts of wrongdoing occured. If Ayers is such a criminal why is he not in jail?

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/06/2008 @ 5:42pm

16. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 5:30pm

    You and I both know that McCain's seeking out of Feingold to do campaign finance reform was ALL about saving his political career in the aftermath of Keating 5 and nothing to do with REAL reform!

    The 527 backdoor loophole, soft money, and bundling, were all lobbied for by McCain in the campaign finance reform legislation, and McCain;s loopholes have kept us in this money-dominated political environment that we find ourselves in today SIX YEARS AFTER McCain-Feingold.

    The BOTTOM LINE is John McCain and Charles Keating are SOULMATES on the DEREGULATION question, and deregulation was the cause of the Savings and Loan debacle as well as the current financial crisis.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 5:50pm

17. Posted by Extraneous at 10/06/2008 @ 5:36pm

    Right and conservatives should vote for Barr.

    Understand where you're coming from, Extraneous, but don't share your choice for conservatives, particularly after Barr treated Ron Paul so contemptuously at Paul's hoped-for four party news conference about a month ago. Nader, McKinney and Baldwin showed up, Barr said he would and then backed out at the last minute claiming he didn't want to dilute his message with an anti-system unity effort. All of which makes Barr contemptable in my eyes. I like Baldwin for conservatives and Paul has now endorsed him rather than Barr. Conservatives vote Baldwin!

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 6:08pm

18. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 6:25pm

    OK, LVL - you tell us why McCain showed a NEWFOUND interest in campaign finance reform "immediately after" being investigated in Keating 5?

    And why did McCain "never" show an interest in this campaign finance reform subject in the 20 years he was in politics before Keating 5?

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 7:27pm

19. Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 7:27pm

    But John Glenn is not out there pretending like John McCain that deregulation is the answer to our current economic crisis since I am sure he knows how disastrous it was in the Savings and Loan debacle.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 7:43pm

20. McCain was a personal friend of Keating. Keating treated him to all kinds of gifts and perks. McCain even met with federal regulators on Keating's behalf. McCain (much, much later...after the gifts came to public attention) reimbursed Keating for trips Keating treated him to...and the ONLY reason the Senate Ethics Committee didn't pursue is because the trips in question happened while McCain was a member of the House.

    The ONLY reason Glenn was included in the investigation is because Republicans were mad that McCain got caught and was included.

    Posted by Lillian at 10/06/2008 @ 7:46pm

21. Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 7:27pm

    It is not just McCain's association with Charles Keating that is at issue here, it is his shared deregulation philosophy of Keating that must be examined as this is the root cause of the past and current financial meltdowns that McCain was involved with.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 7:47pm

22. Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 5:04pm

    You don't HAVE to tell me, you looney...

    I KNOW you'll be gone right after Election day!...heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:01pm

23. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 8:04pm

    You didn't answer my question so let me put it another way:

    IF KEATING 5 HAD "NOT" OCCURRED, DON'T YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MCCAIN-FEINGOLD WAS AN EFFORT BY MCCAIN TO SALVAGE HIS POLITICAL CAREER IN THE AFTERMATH IF KEATING 5 SINCE HE SHOWED ABSOLUTELY ZERO INTEREST IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN THE 20 YEARS PRIOR TO THIS LEGISLATION?

    I don't want to hear from Fred from common cause, I want you to use some common sense and some political savvy, knowing what we know about politicians and politics in America.

    Politicians do not develop an interest in a new political subject out of thin air, there is usually a "political" reason for them showing an interest in a new political subject.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 8:16pm

24. Hey, LVLIB...

    Should Dick Cheney ever hang out with Scooter Libby again?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:25pm

25. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 8:39pm

    OK - McCain was a politician for 13 years (first ran in 1982) when McCain-Feingold was first "introduced" (but not passed) and Keating 5 "ended" in 1991, 3 years before this sudden interest, and only 3 years before starting his exploratory committee to run for president in 2000.

    You don't think an influential political adviser said "Hey, look, John, you might have survived Keating 5 in Arizona, but if you want to run for president you need to clean up your image as a corrupt politician."

    "How do I do that, (Bob)? "If I were you, I would find the most reform minded person in the senate and work with him to pass campaign finance reform." "Then they could never say you are corrupt anymore because you are now on the side of cleaning up the system."

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2008 @ 9:11pm

26. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 6:13pm

    ooooh, commmmmmies!!!!!

    Look out! Look out!

    Pink elephants on parade

    Here they come!

    Hippety hoppety

    They're here and there

    Pink elephants ev'rywhere

    Look out! Look out!

    They're walking around the bed

    On their head

    Clippety cloppety

    Arrayed in braid

    Pink elephants on parade

    WHAT'LL I DO? WHAT'LL I DO?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 10:07pm

27. So, over 20 years after Ayers allegedly bombs government targets, 15 years after his trial is dismissed, Obama is on a charity board with him and gets nearly $1000 in donations from him over 8 years.

    While Charles Keating is swindling 20,000 people out of their life savings, crimes he later went to prison for, McCain receives over $100,000 in political donations, receives free plane rides and multiple trips to the Bahamas. Meanwhile, Cindy McCain partners with Keating in real estate investments.

    How can anyone consider the two to be even REMOTELY equivalent? Ayers' alleged crimes, 20 years before Obama met him, vs Keating's convicted crimes, WHILE he was giving gifts to McCain?

    The Obama-Ayers connection is more equivalent to the McCain-G Gordon Liddy connection--both met the men after they'd committed the crimes in question.

    Oh, wait, Liddy was convicted and Ayers wasn't.

    McCain sure knows a lot of criminals, doesn't he?

    Posted by Omnibus at 10/06/2008 @ 10:18pm

28. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:01pm |

    Please, Mr. Lowell, I'm feeling anxious about the fact that you might still post here after the election and need your assurance that you won't be in order to get closure. I've been so concerned about it that I've been begging you to tell me what you're going to do every day for about a week now, can't you tell? It bothers me that you insult me and make a fool of me the way you do. I know I'm not very articulate and perhaps even a little slow, but to be reminded of it all the time. Please tell me what your plans are, please.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 11:33pm

29. i was wondering when obama was going to dredge this one up and throw it out there. not only did he throw it out there, but made a 13-minute piece on it rather than throw in a little quip in a stump speech. bravo. brav-f***ing-o.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 10/07/2008 @ 12:34am

30. You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows!

    State Polls Aggregate (Compilation: Average of the most recent three polls. )

    Obama: 309

    McCain: 163

    http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php

    Posted by mikecope at 10/07/2008 @ 02:42am

31. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/06/2008 @ 3:28pm

    Chip, That's crap and you know it. Obama was a little kid when Ayers was in the process of his "terrorist" act. Obama wasn't involved in it. McCain on the other hand was directly involved in the Keating 5 scandal. That's one hell of a difference. If you can't understand that, you can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2008 @ 04:10am

32. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 4:23pm

    While you may agree with Nader you know damn well he doesn't stand a chance of winning which makes me believe that you are a closet McCain supporter.

    Your positions support McCain, but then you say to vote for Nader?!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2008 @ 04:12am

33. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2008 @ 04:12am

    WOLF, lowell is a nut.

    He's got some wacky idea that he can convince us that he's "just interested in getting more power for the third parties and it's just a co-inky-dink that it helps McCain and gets him (jl) the kind of Administration that he wants (as a pro-lifer/religious rightie)".

    Then when nobody buys into his bullshit....he goes crazy and starts flinging ad homs and even threatening people!

    He'll be gone in less than 30 days...don't fret it.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 08:55am

34. He'll be gone in less than 30 days...don't fret it.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 08:55am

    Just close your legs, you stinkin'

    (shout out to Sarah and the folks at the Wasilla Gun Depot and Middle School!)

    slime worm.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 09:39am

35. MASKMask, I'm afraid your making less sense by the day, at least to me. Your last post to me yesterday was one of those JR like writes, the points of which I can't seem to plug into any of my points.

    And yes FROSTY I'm still voting for Obama.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/07/2008 @ 09:59am

36. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/07/2008 @ 09:59am

    Okay, I'll clarify.

    Obama and Ayers or McCain and Keating "matter" simply based on your political ideology. Not on any objective measurement.

    Oh and...The Great Middle of the country?...doesn't care about either. If they did, given the OLDNESS of the stories, neither man would have won his nomination.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 10:31am

37. I'm afraid McPalin wins this one in the worst way possible:

    http://tinyurl.com/4o73mt

    Especially if the McPalin plan is to 'violently' get Obama out of the way by inciting the the worst in their already ignorant and racist poorer new con repub dic'tatorship following base types.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 11:21am

38. Isn't there a law concerning inciting the assassination of a presidential candidate? Especially for racist purpose?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 11:25am

39. Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 11:25am

    HSUB, chill the F out, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 11:42am

40. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 09:39am

    "Just close your legs, you stinkin'

    (shout out to Sarah and the folks at the Wasilla Gun Depot and Middle School!)

    slime worm."

    A little off, but, for you, not bad, fruitsie. You like "cross your legs, your breath smells"? In his case it fits, how about you, does it fit you?

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 12:31pm

41. http://tinyurl.com/4o73mt

    Isn't there a law concerning inciting the assassination of a presidential candidate? Especially for racist purpose?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 11:25am

    HSUB, chill the F out, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 11:42am

    HUH?

    ME!

    Why isn't that directed at telling McPalin to tell their fearful/hateful following to chill out?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 12:32pm

42. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2008 @ 04:12am

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 08:55am

    Hi Wolfgang,

    Maskedcaca is just very sensitive little shlub whose feelings are easily bruised but who himself has the moral sensibilities of a pig. He's not very quick - a little on the slow side actually - makes lots of presumptuous demands, is likely being paid by the DNC or the Obama campaign to post here and is just as anxious as hell that I'll be posting on this blog after the election. It unnerves him something awful. He's been just begging me to disclose my plans.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 12:43pm

43. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/07/2008 @ 09:59am

    "MASKMask, I'm afraid your making less sense by the day, at least to me."

    Or to anyone else, CHIP. Ask yourself, do shmendriks typically make sense, or those with bad breath? :-)

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 12:53pm

44. He's been just begging me to disclose my plans.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 12:43pm

    no, he just wants you to go away.....

    opinions are one thing,

    lies however......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

45. Like the Katrina hurricane aftermath, the incompetent hsuB/cHeney power hungry unitary exec admin, let the tragedy of 9/11 happen, history/congressional findings have documented.

    By this point in time, that there are still those that refuse to connect the dots, only proves, this nation has still got the gov it deserves...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 2:13pm

46. this nation has still got the gov it deserves...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 2:13pm

    very, very few nations deserve "their" government.

    and the u.s. is no exception.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 3:09pm

47. I suppose like most spouses?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 4:06pm

48. very, very few nations deserve "their" government.

    and the u.s. is no exception.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 3:09pm

    OK I'll clarify:

    Like most spouses think they don't deserve the spouse they married,

    but won't actually do anything about still being married, other than whine, complain, or perhaps occasionally, very very rarely-- burn the house down with the despised other half in it...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/07/2008 @ 4:44pm

49. Posted by madlib at 10/07/2008 @ 1:55pm

    "You sound like a lunatic, seriously."

    Let me tell you something, coming from a schlemeil like you, best to be considered a lunatic.

    "The two odd years I've been coming here, and the three plus years I've been lurking, he's pretty much ALWAYS been here. Now, that may suggest something about him needing a hobby ... (heh) ..."

    Let me tell you something else, like you its an enema he needs, not a hobby. Maybe you could assist one another? Listen, just talk to him about it, that's all I ask.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 5:04pm

50. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

    "no, he just wants you to go away....."

    Why fruitsie, imagine. And here I couldn't possibly care less what he - or you - do. Neither of you counts for much of anything, actually. :-)

    "opinions are one thing,

    lies however......"

    Yeah, that's right, even when you're lucid and self-contained - which is rarely - you can have real problems with truth, can't you. Want to try the enema cure I recommended for madlib and Maskedcaca? I'm told they promise not to hurt.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 6:09pm

51. Progressives should vote for Nader.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/06/2008 @ 4:23pm

    Really, John? Vote for a guy whose principal motivation 8 years ago was a personal loathing for one of the candidates? Who sat by and didn't say squat about the SCOTUS coup-d'etat? Who said that overturning Roe would be OK because women could go to NY for the procedure? Hey, Ralph has his money so it never mattered to him if Bush won - he'd be well enough off. Ralph said, in 1996 and 2000, that this country would be better off with Republicans in charge if he couldn't be in charge. Since neither Lincoln nor TR was running, since the modern-day Republican has morphed into an American Fascist party, no Progressive worthy of the name could vote for a bullshit artist like Nader. So, John, I'll wait in anticipation for more of the sophomoric pap you like to toss so freely. And, in advance, I won't have my own progressive credentials challenged by someone who all to often sounds like a 10-year old.

    Posted by jmusolino at 10/07/2008 @ 6:21pm

52. Posted by jmusolino at 10/07/2008 @ 6:21pm

    Oh, yes, absolutely, jmusolino, progressives vote Nader, your phony sense of outrage nothwithstanding! Although you conspicuously didn't say so, one assumes that your brand of "progressive" is an AIPAC pandering, FISA affirming, NAFTA supporting, no interest rate capping, war funding, war threatening, bankruptcy law tightening poseur like Obama? Is that who you had in mind for progressives, jmusolino? If so, you've just had your progressive credentials challenged most unsophmorically.

    Posted by john lowell at 10/07/2008 @ 6:54pm