McCain wants to talk about candidate's "associations." Let's start with Charles Keating.

[Joanne98]

The banking crisis of 2008 evokes memories of the Savings and Loan crisis from the 1980s. John McCain played a central role in both crises. John McCain's good friend and campaign donor, Charles Keating, with a little too much help from John McCain, helped precipitate the earlier crisis. This means Keating is now a central figure in the 2008 elections.

As we reported below, a top McCain aide told the Washington Post "We've got to question this guy's associations." Since "associations" are an issue for Team McCain and the economic crisis is THE issue for the American people, lets combine them for John McCain and recall Charles Keating:
Way back in the late 1980’s there was a similar banking scandal involving billions of taxpayer dollars, that time in the savings and loan industry. Eventually, scores of small thrift banks failed and the government ended up creating a special unit to buy up toxic debt and slowly over years salvage what they could and get rid of the rest.

The reason why it’s topical now isn’t just because the federal government is using a similar rescue model to bail out Wall Street but also because of presidential nominee, John McCain’s involvement both then and now.

Back then, the bank at the center, Lincoln Savings and Loan, was a subsidiary of American Continental Corporation and was owned by Charles H. Keating, Jr., a prominent real estate developer who was eventually found guilty of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and sentenced to 12 years and 7 months in prison. He served only 50 months before the conviction was overturned on a technicality.

Wrapped up in the debacle were a series of unusual meetings two years before the collapse between banking regulators and five prominent US Senators, including John McCain. The meeting was at the behest of Keating who was calling in chits to get the regulators to back off of the ill-fated Lincoln. The regulators who were present would later say how much they were intimidated by the entire proceeding and Lincoln ended up with a little more time before eventually imploding.

The Senate Ethics Committee held hearings over 23 days in November of 1990 to investigate the meetings and the Keating Five, including McCain, as they came to be known. There was a good slap on the wrist passed out to all concerned and the taxpayers ended up with the billion dollar savings and loan hangover. Trading cards were briefly sold displaying Keating with each of the Senators.

During that time, it also came out that the Keating Five had accepted campaign contributions from Keating topping $300,000 with McCain receiving the lion’s share. McCain had also made at least nine trips with his family at Keating's expense at a cost of over $13,000. Not all of it was reimbursed by McCain until after Lincoln was in serious trouble. And in 1985, a year before the meeting between the regulators and US Senators, McCain’s wife Cindy and his father in law invested over $350,000 in a shopping mall development with Keating. None of it was in any way criminal, just a question of judgment.
NOTE FROM JOHN: Don't forget about McCain's other "association":

http://www.americablog.com/

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Rick Davis should be mentioned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/rick-davis-mccains-campai_n_128183.html

Fannie
and Freddie
and Rick

are good friends.

[msongs]

2. let's start with how me met cindy and what happened with that nt

[Bozita]

3. I wanna know all about McCain's "associations" with that sexy lobbyist, Vicki Iseman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html



John McCain Affair? Links To Female Lobbyist Exposed
The Huffington Post | February 20, 2008 08:03 PM


** NEW UPDATES **

Media-Loving McCain Now Avoiding Press: Time magazine's Michael Sherer reports:

In the wake of a scandalous New York Times story suggesting a romantic fling with a lobbyist, McCain arrived at a Ford Focus car assembly plant with a decidedly tense grin plastered across his face. His campaign staff promptly separated anyone with a pen or a tape recorder from the candidate. "The McCain campaign decided who they wanted on the tour, and it's only photographers," a nice lady from Ford announced after a reporter spotted the candidate behind a car chassis and tried to approach him.

....At the end of the day, McCain boarded the plane with his wife, his staff, and his daughter, Meghan, who trailed an entourage of friends, bound for Indianapolis. On another night, he would have sauntered to the back to chew the fat with reporters. But on this night, he only came half-way down the aisle, keeping a safe distance. "Everybody happy?" he called out. "Fun day. Fun day." McCains eyebrows bounced up and down to signal his sarcasm.

His question, of course, was rhetorical. He didn't want to hear anything more. Before anyone could answer he had wheeled around and gone back to his seat, beyond the reach of reporters and their notebooks for just a while longer.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum comments: "Look, there's no two ways about it it: this is very weird behavior. If there were really no story here, McCain wouldn't be avoiding reporters. He'd be yukking it up and insisting to a sympathetic press corps that he was the subject of a comically thin hit job from the Times. Instead he's acting almost like a caricature of a guilty man. What's going on here?"

McCain Caught In Contradiction: Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports:

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

more...

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Where *did* Phil Gramm go?

[Metta]

5. All of the above plus whatever else we have. It's been past time to bring that stuff further out.

They're such scum.

[Mabus]

6. Kristol-->PNAC-->War

That was easy.

My new official McCain smilie:

[Richardo]

7. The only weakness in the Keating story from a political perspective is that the other 4 were Dems

...and McCain was cleared of impropriety by the Ethics Committee:

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

Which I wouold expect the McCain camp to point out rather vociferously.

[Mabus]

8. The key words: "Poor Judgment"

Something McCain exercises time and time again.

[Richardo]

9. I agree. But they'll play the 'relative morality' game, point out the more odious sins of the Dem

...and probably draw parallels to Reid/Pelosi/Frank/Dodd 'bailing out' the failing banks again 20 years later.

Not saying it can't or shouldn't be brought up, just that it's not a clear game winner.