Obama Releases McCain "Keating V" Documentary

Sen. Barack Obama is fighting back against McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's personal attacks against him. Sunday night he released a web video to supporters, criticizing his role in the "Keating V" scandal. The difference: Obama's ads and attack are true...and related to Mcain's political record.

The short video, being e-mailed to millions of Obama supporters, summarizes a 13-minute Web "documentary" that the campaign plans to distribute Monday, spokesman Tommy Vietor said. He said McCain's involvement with convicted thrift owner Charles Keating "is a window into McCain's economic past, present and future."

Here's a little history of the Keating V and McCain from an Arizona paper. You can watch the full 13 minute version here beginning at noon ET Monday. [More...]

From the Keatingeconomics site:

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.

John McCain was accused of improperly aiding his political patron, Charles Keating, chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee launched investigations and formally reprimanded Senator McCain for his role in the scandal -- the first such Senator to receive a major party nomination for president.

At the heart of the scandal was Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which took advantage of deregulation in the 1980s to make risky investments with its depositors' money. McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry -- actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers.

When the savings and loan industry collapsed, Keating's failed company put taxpayers on the hook for $3.4 billion and more than 20,000 Americans lost their savings. John McCain was reprimanded by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, but the ultimate cost of the crisis to American taxpayers reached more than $120 billion.

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. Home

< VP Moderator Gwen Ifill on MTP: "Palin Blew Me Off" | Palin Calls Afghanistan "Our Neighboring Country" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A little history (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:35:19 PM EST
    [McCain] had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

    Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.

    On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

    The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

    McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.

    When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.

    "You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.

    "That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot," McCain said later in the same conversation. "You do understand English, don't you?"

    He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife's ties to Keating.

    "It's up to you to find that out, kids."


    Did you read the now infamous (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:47:31 PM EST
    NYT article detailing McCain's political history?  [Same article from which a reader could infer McCain and a female telecomm lobbyist were having an affair.]  After reading the article I concluded McCain was not really involved in Keating Five, as he only received a reprimand from the Senate and was not charged criminally.

    well (none / 0) (#30)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM EST
    But McCain had deeper personal ties that the others.  He was the guys friend and accepted free trips, etc.  Only after the scandal broke did he pay the guy back and the only reason he wasnt investigated for that was his switch from House to Sentate.  Each body claimed the other was responsible for checking into it.

    He was admonished by the Senate for poor judgement and he himself said, "it was the greatest mistake of my life".

    Its perfectly fair game in that this was a real scandal.


    thanks, I just added the link to my post (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    Yeah, but Allan Cranston and John Glenn.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jerry on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    My lousy human brain forces me to ignore the Keating 5 because two of my favorite Senators and one big hero were involved in it as well.

    Lousy on my part, I admit.

    I'm just going to ignore it.  You folks have fun.  That's me over there, head in the sand.


    I can't hear you.

    Oh, you can bet that McCain (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    is going to go off on the Democrats who were involved.

    Glenn was at the Springstein event in Ohio today, and my guess is that we won't be seeing much of him anymore.


    That would be so sad (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:54:32 PM EST
    if the Obama campaign takes down an American hero.

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:55:58 PM EST
    Glenn is a big boy, and it's politics.

    Hey! I was referring to Alan Cranston, not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jerry on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    John Glenn.

    Just kidding.  Alan Cranston is an American Hero too, or was.  Truly.  Amazing guy.

    And yes, John Glenn is a big boy and can take the heat.

    Oh, I chimed in again.  Not hearing you.  LA LA LA LA LA.


    Oh, please yourself (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
    and pi*ss off a lot of people.  Of course, if they're voters, you won't be pleased.

    Well, some here won't be pleased.  You will find your sort of fun on November 5, no matter what.


    So I'm going to piss off a lot of people (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:17:52 AM EST
    because John McCain is going to talk about John Glenn?

    Or is this just another moment where you declare that Obama isn't allowed to say or do anything political because it might somehow backfire?


    This is rich (none / 0) (#25)
    by zvs888 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:54:42 AM EST
    I fail to see what's wrong with a Democrat shock trying to pre-empt what is on a slippery slope to becoming one of the greatest smear campaigns in history in the closing days.

    Palin's out there pushing this Obama = terrorist line.

    This effectively turns the discussion around and totally removes that message from the radar screen.

    At best it will be a wash, and anything that takes over the media and becomes the talking point of the week is a good thing.

    The only way to deal with swiftboating is to swiftboat right back.  It's sad, but that is the only actual way to deal with it.


    ya (none / 0) (#31)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:34:23 AM EST
    Ah, but dont contradict the republicans around here. They dont have the same agenda as you.

    Well, I'm ignoring it, LA LA LA LA LA, but I do (none / 0) (#13)
    by jerry on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST
    wonder how much sense it makes to bring up what was essentially a Democratic scandal.  I honestly don't remember much about it, and my fingers keeps me from wiki-ing it.  Is there any evidence that McCain's role was much worse than the others?  If not, it seems as though it could backfire, especially given Barney Frank's role (and I love Barney Frank) in apparently helping to ignore known problems with Fannie Mae.

    Anyway, I'm not here.  LA LA LA LA LA.


    This is where the media darling quotient (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:56:53 PM EST
    comes in. My guess is that the media tells the story the way camp Obama wants them ti.

    Yes, and in addition, (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    only one of the five is actually running for president.

    Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal (none / 0) (#36)
    by simontmplr on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:14:02 AM EST
    You hit on an excellent point that no one here seems to be picking up on, or getting upset about. The Fannie May and Freddie Mac problems are at the center of the financial problems on Wall Street. Over the years they grew their portfolios with sub-prime loans, to where almost half of their portfolio's were sub-prime. Fannie and Freddie would bundle up their loans (MSB'S) MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, and sell them. Companies bought these up as investments thinking they were secure investments backed by GSE's ( government secured entitities). When in fact a high percentage of the loans these investors were buying were sub-prime (ie, people with bad, or no credit) loans. It gets worse. As early as 2003 the secretary of commerce tried to get congress to put more regulation and oversight on Fannie/Freddie to lessen their risk in sub-prime loans. The senate committee chaired by a Democrat-Barney Frank essential said Fannie/Freddie are fine and no action was taken. In 2004 a GAO audit of Fannie turned up serious violations stating that Fannie was overstating its revenues, and understating its losses, and sub-prime exposure. The republicans in the senate-including McCain introduced legislation calling for stricter regulation and oversight of both Fannie/Freddie. It went to a vote that basically went along party lines,republicans voted for it, and democrats having the majority voted against it and it was defeated. Now, I know the democrats didn't reject legislation for stricter regulaton because they wanted to destroy our financial markets. It was probably because they favored the GSE's taking these sub-prime loans because it helped get people into houses. However, at some point there needs to be a balance between political agenda/policy, and whats best for the country as a whole. In this case our elected officials let us down big time

    McCain has all but asked for this to happen. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nrglaw on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:25:01 AM EST
    Really, what in hell did he expect was going to happen--Keating V was bound to come up once things turned really negative. Palin's Ayers comment was just the last straw.

    I anticipated Obama wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:32:48 AM EST
    bring up Keating Five because it would remind people of his connection with Rezko.  Wrong again.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:42:35 AM EST
    The difference being that Keating 5 is a real scandal.

    Admonished for poor judgement McCain said, "it was the greatest mistake of my life".

    Though he might be about to rewrite that greatest mistake hit-list.


    The reason it works (none / 0) (#26)
    by zvs888 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:56:35 AM EST
    is because Rezko had no effect.

    They ran some ads about Rezko with little to no impact on voters because it wasn't an all out media blitz.

    The McCain campaign played their hand a bit early by revealing that they were about to launch sludge all over the place, so it allows for an all out counter-assault like this to deluge the media and push out their message.

    This is an effective counter-strategy for Obama.


    Is that the same one posted as ad (none / 0) (#1)
    by TomStewart on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:20:25 PM EST
    on the right of the screen?

    If johnmccainrecord.com (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:27:39 PM EST
    is part of the Obama campaign, it is. If not, then it isn't. I don't know, I was reporting based on the AP article, not the ad on TalkLeft.

    It's the same one you have as an ad (none / 0) (#4)
    by TomStewart on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:28:05 PM EST
    both link to Keating economics.com.

    yes, they are paid for by the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:32:00 PM EST
    johnmccainrecord.com and keatingeconomics.com all say at the bottom "Paid for by barackobama.com"

    This can be well-executed (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    I have no opinion on the original Keating scandal.

    Worth looking into a little (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:45:45 AM EST
    in reasonably objective sources.  Dem.-controlled Congress, four Democrats deeply involved with Keating, McCain the least involved, and the general consensus is that McCain was roped in by the committee so it wouldn't be all Dems in the scandal.  And sure enough, it's stuck to McCain but not the others.

    There are precious few pols who can resist hanging out with the Keatings and Ken Lays, etc., of the world.  Bernie Sanders is probably the only one who it would be safe to say doesn't.

    It's disgraceful, but it's hardly unique to McCain.  I'm sorry to see the Obama camp doing this.  It's hardly "new politics," it's the same old same old.


    thats wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    Ha, McCain wasnt the only one to escape with a light slap for poor judgement.  A three second fact check can establish that.

    1 reprimand
    2 criticized for interference
    2 crticized for poor judgement

    McCain and Glen were in the final category. There were additional reasons to investigate McCain because of his close personal ties to Keating, and his free trips, but the Senate and House split over the jurisdiction.


    the subject here is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:43:37 PM EST
    McCain and the Keating V. I just deleted a comment trying to change the topic to Ayers. You can try that on other blogs, not here.

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by andrys on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:59:47 AM EST
    Jerelyn, that was my comment you deleted, and what I "tried" on your site was to say something in response to your own assessment in the body of your blog entry that said that the difference between McCain's ads and Obamas is that Obama's ads are true.  As you must know, both campaigns have been making misleading ads -- that's been reported and backed up often.

      My posts are deleted these days when they merely disagree with points the co-hosts make.

      Sad.  It has made me think twice about my feeling for 50+ years that Dems don't quash dissent the way Repubs do.

      I realize this could be deleted too, but I'm keeping a log since there is no reason for people like me to feel so unwelcome here, as to be accused of "try"ing something on your site which was merely to differ with you.


    And everyone knows that (none / 0) (#29)
    by andrys on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:00:53 AM EST
    the story has been that the Keating offense is in direct response to the Ayers one, which is why you typed about the "difference" here.

    The linked announcement says (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:57:02 PM EST
    this is in reaction to connecting Obama to Ayers.

    I thought that still was coming.  It's an ad for an ad?  Did I miss a McCain ad connecting Obama to Ayers?  

    Does there need to be an ad? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:27:22 AM EST
    McCain's VP nominee has been talking about the connection herself, right there on the campaign trail.

    Okay, just thought I had missed an ad (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    as so many McCain ads have been run on this blog.

    Keating 5 (none / 0) (#33)
    by caesar on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    This sort of baby slapping avoids the real issues at stake. No doubt, Mccain is openly embracing the Muslim charges against Obama, which cannot be perceived as anything other than prejudicial racism. SO WHAT!? Isn't this a free country or not? Why is it such a big deal even if he is Muslim? Mccain and Palin are trying to paint him as a terrorist, just because they are convinced that he is Muslim. These idiots are quick to connect him to his former Christian pastor Jeremiah Wright, and then simultanteously slide over to charge him with the fallacious accusation of being Muslim. This is a serious disjunction in the thought patterns of many racist Americans. It's unbelievable.
    Anyways... Obama's professionalism transcends any politician this year... it's clear, because he ended up on top of a two year long presidential race. He will NOT be brought down to Mccain/Palin's level. They will not win because of their inability to connect with the real DIVERSE American population that many Americans pick up arms and fight for.