DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 29, 2008, 05:53:19 PM
-
(http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif)
White women cold towards Obama
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 5/29/08 3:14 PM EST
Barack Obama's favorability ratings among white women have significantly depreciated in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, posing an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party's base.
According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.
Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.
Over the same period, Democratic white women?s negative view of Obama increased from 21 to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 to 60 percent ? roughly the same rate as white women overall.
White men, in general and among Democrats, have only shown a slight drop off in their perception of Obama one-third of the shift seen in white women. About 20 percent of Democratic white men have an unfavorable view of Obama, a figure which has remained stable since February.
Pew also found that among self-described Clinton supporters, the negative shift against Obama is more severe among women than men.
The Pew findings come as Obama's campaign struggles to close up the primary race while also attempting to avoid the perception of pushing Hillary Clinton out, for fear of offending her most loyal supporters, the largest bloc of which are white women.
Still unknown is whether white women's support for Clinton would translate into problems for Obama in the general election.
Intraparty divisions that arise during the primary season are typically mended over the course of the general election. Bill Clinton struggled with college educated Democrats in the 1992 primary, as did John Kerry with young Democratic voters in the early stages of the 2004 race. Both candidates won back these blocs in the general election.
But the Democratic primary race of 2008 is without modern precedent, insofar as black support for Obama and white female support for Clinton are tied up in the symbolism of each candidate?s historic presidential bid.
"There is some sense of the visceral investment with Clinton," said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist. Lake believes once the general election is underway these same white women will gradually move away from McCain over issues, with the expectation that Clinton will campaign on Obama's behalf if he is the nominee.
"In the long run, women will watch Hillary Clinton's reaction, how she's treated by Barack Obama," Lake added.
White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 to 41 percent. Last month Obama was ahead of McCain among white women, 49 to 46 percent. The head-to-head matchup between McCain and Obama has not significantly shifted among white men.
"There is no question that white women were, especially older women, not young women, Hillary Clinton's base in the primary and there is going to be some repair work that has to be done," Democratic analyst Anna Greenberg said. "There is no reason to believe that these Democratic white women are not pursuable."
"The priority is going to be to bring back these voters," Greenberg added.
Democrats have come closest to capturing the White House by winning minorities by large margins and nearly splitting white women, as they did in 2000. Republicans have generally relied on their dominance with white men to put them in the White House, while at least winning half the vote among white women.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10691.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10691.html)
-
One more thing Obama will have to thank Hilary for if he loses to McCain.
-
I hope that McCain gets support for his own qualitys.
-
<<I hope that McCain gets support for his own qualitys.>>
And what would those be? Corruption, infidelity, boorishness and stupidity?
-
<<I hope that McCain gets support for his own qualitys.>>
And what would those be? Corruption, infidelity, boorishness and stupidity?
There is a canadate with better integrety availible?
-
<<There is a canadate with better integrety availible?>>
Yeah, I can find ya one who was never a member of the Keaton Five, who never did favours for Paxson Investments, stuck with his wife from his wedding day until now, never ditched her for a blonde heiress, never called her a "cunt" in public and did not finish in the bottom five of his class.
Who woulda thunk, eh?
-
<<There is a canadate with better integrety availible?>>
Yeah, I can find ya one who was never a member of the Keaton Five, who never did favours for Paxson Investments, stuck with his wife from his wedding day until now, never ditched her for a blonde heiress, never called her a "cunt" in public and did not finish in the bottom five of his class.
Who woulda thunk, eh?
I didn't say he was perfect , I asked if there was one with more integrety.
Do you happen to know what he did to be included in the Keating five?
You think he was low in his class raniking because of a lack of integrety?
-
The reasons not to vote for McCain are pretty clear:
(1) He will name more rightwing fools to the Supreme Court
(2) He will continue with Juniorbush's failed foreign policy
(3) He will spend vast amounts more money on an Iraqi Civil War than cannot be won by the US on credit, thereby buggering the dollar even more.
(4) The huge disparity between rich and poor will continue.
(5) The war of the rich on the middle class will continue, causing the middle class to shrink even more.
(6) There will be no medical insurance plan for another four years
-
<<I didn't say he was perfect , I asked if there was one with more integrety.>>
Yeah, of course - - Obama
<<Do you happen to know what he did to be included in the Keating five?>>
I know exactly what he did. On behalf of his crooked friend and donor, Charles Keating, he improperly intervened several times to get Federal regulators off the backs of various crooked Keating companies that were defrauding the public of their life savings. Thus permitting the companies to operate for longer than would otherwise have been the case, defrauding ever more citizens, raking in even more millions in stolen life savings, until the final, inevitable shut-down arrived. Keating, McCain's buddy, went to jail for five years. McCain, in a sickening example of Congressional laissez-faire, got off with a slap on the wrist from the Senate. The people who were robbed of their life savings stayed robbed.
And I can't wait till the American people get their memories refreshed. What's really funny is that although he piously claimed to have "learned his lesson" from K5 (a joke in itself since anyone with an ounce of basic personal integrity wouldn't have needed the lesson in the first place) McCain much more recently seemed to be up to his old tricks with a company named Paxson. This also is going to come out in the wash.
<<You think he was low in his class raniking because of a lack of integrety?>>
Nah, I threw that in as a bonus. Couldn't resist. Can't wait for the "3 AM phone call" commercial: Q: who do ya want answering? A: The DUMBEST guy in the class!!! The one who calls his wife a cunt in public. The 72-year old, who else?
-
<<Do you happen to know what he did to be included in the Keating five?>>
I know exactly what he did. On behalf of his crooked friend and donor, Charles Keating, he improperly intervened several times to get Federal regulators off the backs of various crooked Keating companies that were defrauding the public of their life savings. Thus permitting the companies to operate for longer than would otherwise have been the case, defrauding ever more citizens, raking in even more millions in stolen life savings, until the final, inevitable shut-down arrived. Keating, McCain's buddy, went to jail for five years. McCain, in a sickening example of Congressional laissez-faire, got off with a slap on the wrist from the Senate. The people who were robbed of their life savings stayed robbed.
You do realize that the investigation, which turned up lots of evidence against the other four, determined that there was no evidence of improper behaviour against McCain?
-
<<You do realize that the investigation, which turned up lots of evidence against the other four, determined that there was no evidence of improper behaviour against McCain?>>
Oh, I'm very aware of what the Senate Ethics Committee found. That's why I hope the TV campaign will just stick to the facts of the case: what McCain did, who he did it for, who got hurt and how. We'll see whose standards are higher, the Senate "Ethics" Committee or the American people's.
I've never produced a video in my life, but I'd LOVE to produce this one.
-
That's why I hope the TV campaign will just stick to the facts of the case: what McCain did, who he did it for, who got hurt and how. We'll see whose standards are higher, the Senate "Ethics" Committee or the American people's.
So, what specifically did McCain do?
-
Basically, McCain met several times with Federal regulators who were investigating the Keating companies' fraudulent practices and used his Senatorial influence to get them to back off, buying time for his crooked buddies. Time which they used to continue raking in more millions from the unsuspecting American citizens they were defrauding.
I'm hoping they can find the actual victims or their next of kin who were actually defrauded in a time period after the time when the Keating companies would have been shut down but for McCain's interventions on their behalf. "Ole Gramps' retirement years were ruined and he never recovered. Never got to buy that bungalow in Arizona that he'd been dreaming of all his life. Died of a broken heart, he did. Always dreading the next phone call from the collection agency." Just an endless parade of ruined Middle Americans, despoiled of their life savings and a graceful retirement by McCain and his evil cohorts.
-
Basically, McCain met several times with Federal regulators who were investigating the Keating companies' fraudulent practices and used his Senatorial influence to get them to back off, buying time for his crooked buddies. Time which they used to continue raking in more millions from the unsuspecting American citizens they were defrauding.
And where is the evidence of the use of his "Senatorial influence"? In other words, the "facts of the case" that you wanted to make into a movie?
-
<<And where is the evidence of the use of his "Senatorial influence"? In other words, the "facts of the case" that you wanted to make into a movie?>>
Oh, there's two ways we could make the commercial. In one, he's just plain John. The regulators don't know he's John McCain and they don't know he's a Senator either. Keating thinks the same thing. He doesn't know that his good friend John, who he's asked to intercede for him, is a Senator.
In the second version, he's known to the regulators he meets with as Senator John McCain. They know who they're talking to. And Keating knows who he's sending in. Senator John McCain.
I dunno. I'm still trying to make up my mind. Which of the two versions is closer to the truth? Which one do you think the viewers will find more believable?
-
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/obamanewhouse.gif)
-
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l51/malibubikehydros/This%20is%20album%202/Burka-GIF.gif)
-
In the second version, he's known to the regulators he meets with as Senator John McCain. They know who they're talking to. And Keating knows who he's sending in. Senator John McCain.
Oh, you mean these regulators, who routinely meet with Congressmen during their normal business, are intimidated just by the PRESENCE of the (then) Junior Senator from Arizona?
They got a sudden case of yellow belly?
Regulators meet with Congressmen all the time. What was so unusual about this case? Where is your evidence that he applied any pressure?
-
All this nonsense aside, if Republicans voted 90 percent for a White guy running against a Black guy , do you think they'd be called racists?
-
<<Oh, you mean these regulators, who routinely meet with Congressmen during their normal business, are intimidated just by the PRESENCE of the (then) Junior Senator from Arizona?
<<They got a sudden case of yellow belly?
<<Regulators meet with Congressmen all the time. What was so unusual about this case? Where is your evidence that he applied any pressure?>>
No, I think the public should have all the facts. Not just that they met - - why did they meet? At whose suggestion, for what purpose? It's a fairly easy story line to follow - - the crook and his crooked financial dealings, the investigations, the crook and his crooked Senator meeting to discuss this, I need some help, John-Boy, Sure, Chuck, what kind of help, Meet with them, get them to back off, I need a breather. Then the meeting, You need to back off the Chuckmeister, boys, he's a friend of mine, Oh, sorry, I didn't know, Senator, sure, we can cut him some slack -- - then the Narrator's voice:
"The average regulatory investigation takes ____ months from ordering the investigation to draft preliminary report. THIS investigation took ____. The average investigation takes_______ from draft preliminary to final investigation report; this one took ________. How much time did the Senator gain for his jailbird friend and big-time donor before the Feds finally closed him down? ____months; ____months in which they were, thanks to Senator John M. McCain, still raking in over $__________ daily, from unsuspecting working, saving Americans like you. [showing pictures of average Americans] Like your parents. [more pictures] Like your grandparents.[more pix]
Of course, the average American TV watcher will know immediately, this didn't have to be a Senator. Any dumb schmuck can just walk off the street, into a Federal regulator's office, and get the Feds to back off an important multi-million dollar Federal fraud investigation just by asking. Michael Tee could do it and he's not even a citizen. Lynndie England could do it. Osama Fucking Bin Laden could do it. Federal regulators are nothing if not obliging. Hell, they'll put the brakes on an important investigation for anyone. At least, that's how Ami sees it. Most viewers will probably have a different take on it.
-
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
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. The Committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."
All five of the senators involved served out their terms, but only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election (and were subsequently re-elected).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
-
Excerpts of Statement By Senate Ethics Panel
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 28, 1991
Following are excerpts from the statement today of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluding its hearings involving Senators Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain and Donald W. Riegle Jr.: Introduction
The United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics initiated preliminary inquiries into allegations of misconduct by Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Dennis DeConcini, Senator John Glenn, Senator John McCain, and Senator Donald Riegle, in connection with their actions on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr. and Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. In the course of its preliminary inquiries, the committee held hearings over a two-month period which began Nov. 15, 1990.
. . .
While the committee has concluded that none of the Senators' actions . . . when considered without regard to any contribution or other benefit, violated any law or Senate rule, each act must also be examined against more general ethical standards to determine if there was any impropriety because of any relation between those actions and campaign contributions or other benefits provided by Mr. Keating and his associates.
. . .
Based on all the available evidence, the committee has concluded that in the case of each of the five Senators, all campaign contributions from Mr. Keating and his associates under the Federal Election Campaign Act were within the established legal limits, and were properly reported. Similarly, from the available evidence, the committee concludes that the Senator's solicitation or acceptance of all contributions made in these cases to state party organizations, political action committees, and voter registration organizations were, standing alone, not illegal or improper; nor did any such contribution constitute a personal gift to any Senator.
With respect to each Senator, there remains the question of whether any actions taken by the Senator, standing alone or in combination with contributions or other benefits, constitutes improper conduct or an appearance of impropriety. The committee has examined the specific conduct of each Senator and has determined that under the totality of the circumstances: the conduct of each of the five Senators reflected poor judgment; the conduct of some of the Senators constituted at least an appearance of improper conduct; and the conduct of one Senator may have been improper.
. . .
Recommendations Constituent Service
As noted in the course of the committee's hearings, the Senate has no specific written standards embodied in the Senate rules respecting contact or intervention with Federal executive or independent regulatory agency officials. . . .
The committee believes that the Senate should adopt written standards in this area. A specific proposal should be developed either by the Senate Rules Committee or by a bipartisan Senate task force created for this purpose.
. . .
Campaign Reform
The inquiries in these five cases have shown the obvious ethical dilemmas inherent in the current system by which political activities are financed. The committee notes that over 80 percent of the funds at issue were not disclosed funds raised by candidates for Senate or House campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Rather, such funds were undisclosed, unregulated funds raised for independent expenditures, political party "soft money," and a non-Federal political action committee. Any campaign finance reform measure will have to address these mechanisms for political activities, as well as campaign fund raising and expenditures directly by candidates, in order to deal meaningfully and effectively with the issues presented in these cases.
The committee urges the leadership and members of both the Senate and the House to work together in a bipartisan manner to address the urgent need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. The reputation and honor of our institutions demand it.
. . .
Panel Findings Senator Cranston
. . . The committee finds that there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause for the committee to conclude that, in connection with his conduct relating to Charles H. Keating Jr., and Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, Senator Cranston may have engaged in improper conduct that may reflect upon the Senate, as contemplated in Section 2 (a) (1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, as amended. To wit, there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause for the committee to conclude, based upon the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the following conduct or activities, that Senator Cranston engaged in an impermissible pattern of conduct in which fund raising and official activities were substantially linked:
(1) From April 1987 through April 1989, Senator Cranston personally, or through Senate staff, contacted the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of Lincoln, during a period when Senator Cranston was soliciting and accepting substantial contributions from Mr. Keating. On at least four occasions, these contacts were made in close connection with the solicitation or receipt of contributions. These four occasions are as follows:
(i) As a result of a solicitation from Senator Cranston in early 1987, Mr. Keating, on March 3, 1987, contributed $100,000 to America Votes, a voter registration organization. This contribution was made during the period leading to Senator Cranston's participation in the April 2 and April 9 meetings with Federal Home Loan Bank Board Chairman Edwin J. Gray and the San Francisco regulators.
(ii) In the fall of 1987, Senator Cranston solicited from Mr. Keating a $250,000 contribution, which was delivered to the Senator personally by Mr. Keating's employee James Grogan on Nov. 6, 1987. When the contribution was delivered, Mr. Grogan and Senator Cranston called Mr. Keating, who asked if the Senator would contact new Federal Home Loan Bank Board Chairman M. Danny Wall about Lincoln. Senator Cranston agreed to do so, and made the call six days later.
(iii) In January 1988, Mr. Keating offered to make an additional contribution and also asked Senator Cranston to set up a meeting for him with Chairman Wall. Senator Cranston did so on Jan. 20, 1988, and Chairman Wall and Mr. Keating met eight days later. On Feb. 10, 1988, Senator Cranston personally collected checks totaling $500,000 for voter registration groups.
(iv) In early 1989, at the time that Senator Cranston was contacting Bank Board officials about the sale of Lincoln, he personally or through Joy Jacobson, his chief fund raiser, solicited another contribution. (This contribution was never made. American Continental Corporation declared bankruptcy on April 13, 1989.)
(2) Senator Cranston's Senate office practices further evidenced an impermissible pattern of conduct in which fund raising and official activities were substantially linked. For example, Joy Jacobson (who was not a member of his Senate staff and who had no official Senate duties or substantive expertise), engaged in the following activities with Senator Cranston's knowledge, permission, at his direction, or under his supervision:
(i) Senator Cranston's fund raiser repeatedly scheduled and attended meetings between Senator Cranston and contributors in which legislative or regulatory issues were discussed.
(ii) Senator Cranston's fund raiser often served as the intermediary for Mr. Keating or Mr. Grogan when they could not reach the Senator or Carolyn Jordan, the Senator's banking aide.
(iii) Senator Cranston received several memoranda from Ms. Jacobson which evidenced her understanding that contributors were entitled to special attention and special access to official services. Senator Cranston never told her that her understanding was incorrect, nor did he inform her that such a connection between contributions and official actions was improper.
. . .
The committee, pursuant to committee supplementary procedural rules . . . shall proceed to an investigation under committee supplementary procedural Rule 5; and that Senator Cranston shall be given timely written notice of this resolution and the evidence supporting it, and informed of a respondent's rights pursuant to the rules of the committee.
. . .
Senator DeConcini
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator DeConcini's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. While aggressive conduct by senators in dealing with regulatory agencies is sometimes appropriate and necessary, the committee concludes that Senator DeConcini's aggressive conduct with the regulators was inappropriate. The committee further concludes that the actions of Senator DeConcini after the April 9, 1987, meeting where he learned of the criminal referral, were not improper in and of themselves.
While the committee concludes that Senator DeConcini has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate, it emphasizes that it does not condone his conduct. The committee has concluded that the totality of the evidence shows that Senator DeConcini's conduct gave the appearance of being improper and was certainly attended with insensitivity and poor judgment. However, the committee finds that his conduct did not reach a level requiring institutional action.
The committee therefore concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator DeConcini on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator Glenn
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator Glenn's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee concludes that Senator Glenn, although believing that the Lincoln matter was in the process of resolution, exercised poor judgment in arranging a luncheon meeting between Mr. Keating and Speaker Wright in January 1988, some eight months after Senator Glenn learned of the criminal referral. There is disputed evidence as to whether Lincoln's problems with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (F.H.L.B.B.) were discussed at that meeting. The evidence indicates that Senator Glenn's participating did not go beyond serving as host. The committee further concludes that Senator Glenn's actions were not improper or attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level requiring institutional action against him.
Senator Glenn has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator Glenn on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator McCain
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting when he learned of the criminal referral.
. . .
Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator Riegle
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator Riegle's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee finds that Senator Riegle took steps to assist Lincoln Savings & Loan Association with its regulatory problems at a time that Charles Keating was raising substantial campaign funds, for Senator Riegle. During the course of the hearings, possible conflicts arose concerning actions on the part of Senator Riegle that caused the committee concern, but the committee finds that the evidence indicates no deliberate intent to deceive. The evidence shows that Senator Riegle took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting where he learned of the criminal referral.
While the committee concludes that Senator Riegle has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate, it emphasizes that it does not condone his conduct. The committee has concluded that the totality of the evidence shows that Senator Riegle's conduct gave the appearance of being improper and was certainly attended with insensitivity and poor judgment. However, the committee finds that his conduct did not reach a level requiring institutional action.
The committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator Riegle on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2D71539F93BA15751C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
101st Congress (1989-1991)
Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)
Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)
Note: George Mitchell was elected Democratic leader on November 29, 1988, effective January 3, 1989.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)
Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)
-
While you quoted the Senate Ethics Panel results, the Keating Five were also investigated by the State of California and the US Dept of Justice - neither of those investigations yielded any evidence of corruption or wrongdoing.
-
"The average regulatory investigation takes ____ months from ordering the investigation to draft preliminary report. THIS investigation took ____. The average investigation takes_______ from draft preliminary to final investigation report; this one took ________. How much time did the Senator gain for his jailbird friend and big-time donor before the Feds finally closed him down? ____months; ____months in which they were, thanks to Senator John M. McCain, still raking in over $__________ daily, from unsuspecting working, saving Americans like you. [showing pictures of average Americans] Like your parents. [more pictures] Like your grandparents.[more pix]
OK, now fill in the blanks. Obviously, you have the info close to hand.
-
"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry"
Thank you BT
-
BT posted an artfully edited version of the Senate Ethics Committee report. Basically, as far as McCain is concerned, BT posted the CONCLUSIONS of the Ctee and nothing of what McCain actually did. That is why I would like to see a TV commercial focused only on the facts.
Absent from BT's post is any clue of what McCain did - - he basically kept Federal regulators at bay for his crooked friend Keating so Keating could continue to defraud the public. The Senate Ethics Committee found no laws were broken. So be it. The public may well conclude, no laws were broken. The Senate Ethics committee found, McCain did nothing wrong. Fine. The public may not be as lax and as tolerant as the Senate Ethics Committee. The public, the ultimate judge of a candidate's worthiness to serve, may well find, contrary to the Ethics Committee, that he DID do something wrong.
What's the matter, is the Senate Ethics Committee the only one entitled to an opinion around here as to what's right and wrong? The public has no right to its own opinion?
Here's a quick litmus test for you: If what McCain did was not wrong, Why did BT, in tracking down the Committee's report, DELETE every reference to what McCain actually DID, and show us only what the Committee concluded?
I am confident that the public, if shown ONLY the facts of McCain's actions - - the same facts made known to the Committee in its investigation - - will not be as tolerant as the Committee. After all, WHO IS THE U.S. SENATE? WHITE MALE MILLIONAIRES WORKING FOR YOU. (A brilliant, sly and cynical phrase - - what is the likelihood that a white male millionaire would really want to work for YOU?) They are shot through with bullshit artists, liars and thieves. Smart enough to stay out of jail for the most part, but not exactly the moral arbiters of the nation. They're not even particularly skillful criminal prosecutors. Notwithstanding the Committee's conclusions, it is not inconceivable that an energetic and resourceful prosecutor could convince a judge and jury that a criminal act had been committed. But I don't take my argument that far.
All I say is: show what the bastard did. Step by step. Meeting by meeting. Something that BT isn't too anxious to show anyone, as he snips and snips around the Committee report until only its conclusions appear. The Senate Committee saw the facts and rendered its opinion. Let the public see the same facts and render ITS opinion.
-
All I say is: show what the bastard did. Step by step. Meeting by meeting.
Feel free. This is what I asked you for - please post your evidence. You have access to the same report as well. Go ahead and get the US DOJ and State of California's reports as well. Post the info. We're waiting with baited breath.
-
Bated. You're waiting with bated breath.
I'm just the idea man. And the writer. I leave it to bigger organizations with research assistants to fill in the blanks. The essence of the story is as I've reported here. The actual dates, number of meetings, delay times, Keating's profits, the per diem, weekly, etc. cash flows - - fuck it, I've got better things to do with my time. I can get kids at $50 - $70 /hr to fill in the blanks. All I know is this thing's been researched into the ground. Lots of stories out there on it. Anyone with access to Lexis-Nexis can dig out everything I need in two to four hours.
And don't kid yourself - - someone at moveon.org is going to do just that. MORE than one video is probably in production as we speak. They're all gonna be good, ONE'S gonna be great. I wish I coulda done it, but it's not really my line. This one'll hit that war criminal/turd/crook like a ton a bricks.
-
"... what McCain did - - he basically kept Federal regulators at bay for his crooked friend Keating so Keating could continue to defraud the public. "
From what do we know this?
-
<<From what do we know this?>>
Wikipedia's a good place ("Keating Five" or follow the links in "John McCain") to start. But just google "Keating Five" and you'll find a ton of articles.
-
BT posted an artfully edited version of the Senate Ethics Committee report.
Edited by whom?
-
Michael does it trouble you that you seem to often have to "reach" to connect the dots?
Yesterday the "reach" was that President Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Waxman, and other
leading Democrats were somehow bought off to proclaim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat.
In in this instance, you find McCain guilty of something no official court or congressional committee could.
You dismiss the US Senate Committee findings as if the findings were invalid or corrupt.
But you provide no proof of the findings being invalid just inuendo that it's just "a bunch of rich guys" or "who is the US Senate?".
I would assume you didnt dismiss the findings of the Senate Watergate Committee because you agreed with the findings.
BT supplies the findings of an official investigation, you supply a theory or implication that somehow Senator McCain is guilty of something that was not found by a court or official investigation.
-
BT posted an artfully edited version of the Senate Ethics Committee report.
A less edited version.
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml
This seems like a thin soup , Congressmen might ought to be forbidden to accept rides and vacations , but they arn't.
The greatest harm is the appearance of hypocracy, one of McCains greatest themes in his legislative career has ben the reduction of corruption , this case puts that smell on him even if nothing actually against the rules as they are was ever done.
These things were done against the rules as he wants them to be , there is no leagal punishment for this , but it will cost him a few votes in an election that might be a very close one.
I may think it thin soup , but the margin of victory in the last four elections has been even thinner .
-
The essence of the story is as I've reported here.
No, it's not. No less than 3 governmental organizations have investigated, and none of the three found any evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence to be found, it would have been reported. Since it wasn't, it's not there.
So, you're telling us, basically, you know of no evidence to support your allegations. That is what I thought.
-
<<Edited by whom?>>
Well, I had assumed (I know, I know!) that you found the unedited transcript of the Committee Report and cut and pasted with some deletions to this board. My apologies if you found and pasted an already-edited document.
-
The essence of the story is as I've reported here.
No, it's not. No less than 3 governmental organizations have investigated, and none of the three found any evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence to be found, it would have been reported. Since it wasn't, it's not there.
So, you're telling us, basically, you know of no evidence to support your allegations. That is what I thought.
No leagal wrongdoing , but does the appearance of impropriety arise anyway?
I think that people generally expect their Congressmen to interveine for them when requested , but even a mild intervention after being given a vacation produces the odor of influence.
Is this small enough to cause no problems?
I think it is small , but usefull enough to be amplified.
-
<<Michael does it trouble you that you seem to often have to "reach" to connect the dots?
<<Yesterday the "reach" was that President Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Waxman, and other leading Democrats were somehow bought off to proclaim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat.>>
With all due respect, CU4, I don't think you understood what I was saying. I certainly did not mean to imply that someone went around offering money to Clinton, Kennedy and the others to say that Saddam was a threat. These guys have been around a long time and they've established donor networks just like Bush and Cheney. Smart politicians know who their donors are and usually they are in favour of things their donors are in favour of, and agaisnt the things the donors are against. Otherwise the donor would be donating to somebody else. I said that these guys are all drinking from the same well. If the aerospace industry is giving money to Cheney and Bush, they must also be giving to Kennedy and Clinton. How the hell do they know which side is going to win from one year to the next and how the hell can they afford NOT to have a friend in Washington?
To get more specific, McCain had established a donor relationship with Charlie Keating, a player in the financial services industry. Was McCain the only guy in the U.S. Senate taking money from the financial services sector? Of course not. Probably lots of people were getting funding from that sector, from Keating or if not from Keating, then from Bernie Ebbers or some other fucking crook, or even (who the hell knows?) from honest bankers and brokers. All of these guys know the rules, they weren't born yesterday: You take the donor's money, and when the time comes, you go to bat for the guy. Otherwise the donor list runs dry pretty fast. Who's gonna give money to a politician who takes, takes, takes, but never delivers? Well the day came when McCain (with four other crooked Senators) was caught doing what he was supposed to be doing and not supposed to be doing: carrying water for his donor, intervening with Federal Regulators who were supposed to be overseeing and regulating his donor's (Keating's) crooked business.
What's the Senate supposed to do? Ignore it? They can't - - Keating was a big-league crook, as would be indicated by the fact that at least FIVE U.S. Senators were caught doing favours for him. They had to hold hearings, so hold them they did - - lengthy, boring, incomprehensible affairs which not one person in 500,000 would bother to follow, and a report was published, also lengthy, boring and of little interest to 99% of the general public. One or two guys would have to be thrown to the wolves to satisfy the public, and this was duly done. Usually, the least popular guy is the one they throw to the wolves, the one who doesnt' return favours, who takes but gives nothing in return -- and the rest of the guys get off lightly, with slaps on the wrist or maybe even a complete exoneration.
What you have to understand is that the Senators are more like a professional wrestlers, they're all colleagues, they get into fights with one another and make up and sometimes form alliances and fight again and all the time it's like they're working for the same company, they're all on the same team. Democrats or Republicans, they all get their money from the same special interests: the financial services industry, the "defence" industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the real estate industry, Big Oil, the transportation industry, etc. This is what I mean when I say they all drink from the same well.
This is not a conspiracy, but it's not a real two-party system either. They're all more or less corrupt because there's no other way to finance a campaign. Never has been. That's how lobbyists and special interests get their power. But I'd never mistake a Senate Committee finding as if it were delivered in a court of justice. They're not a court, they're a body of very wealthy, often crooked and self-interested, mostly white male millionaires, and there is absolutely no reason at all why their probity, their judgment or their Committee opinions should be shown any particular respect or reverence.
<<In in this instance, you find McCain guilty of something no official court or congressional committee could.
<<You dismiss the US Senate Committee findings as if the findings were invalid or corrupt.
<<But you provide no proof of the findings being invalid just inuendo that it's just "a bunch of rich guys" or "who is the US Senate?".>>
Not at all. They are entitled to an opinion and they have given it. All I propose is that the very same facts that were before the Senate "Ethics" Committee be assembled in a TV commercial and put before the electorate. Who Charlie Keating was, how he made his money, how he befriended McCain, when he befriended McCain, what he asked McCain to do for him, exactly what McCain did for his crooked friend, how much money Keating made, how much he gave McCain for doing what he did, what crimes Keating was convicted of, how long he was sentenced to jail for, and how long he served. How many people did Keating defraud, how much money did he defraud them of, and who are they? (I think a part of the commercial should let the viewers see and hear either Keating's actual victims, or if deceased, their next-of-kin, telling how much poor old Uncle Charlie was looking forward to his retirement and then how he died miserable and broken hearted because Keating had stolen his life savings. It'll be dynamite. at the end of the program, they can sum up everything McCain did for Keating and everything Keating paid to McCain for his services and then: the viewers can make up their own minds about McCain, because we're gonna tell them, "The U.S. Senate (snicker) ETHICS Committee (double snicker) thinks McCain did nothing wrong. What do YOU think?"
Now what in the hell is wrong with that? They'll hear everything the U.S. Senate heard and then they'll form an opinion. Don't you think the voters have a right to form an informed opinion, their own, as to whether or not McCain did the right thing? You're not going to tell me the U.S. Senate can form an opinion as to whether McCain's actions were right or wrong, but an ordinary citizen can't?
We're not going to ask them to decide a complex legal issue, like whether or not a crime was committed. Just whether in THEIR PERSONAL OPINION, McCain did the right thing or the wrong thing.
<<I would assume you didnt dismiss the findings of the Senate Watergate Committee because you agreed with the findings.>>
I really don't remember much of the Watergate Committee report. I knew that Nixon was a crook and a liar since his campaign for the governorship of California against Helen Gahagan Douglas (or maybe it was a senatorial campaign, which I now think it was) and I knew then what a lying crooked piece of shit he was, so Watergate was no revelation. I was more interested in whether or not he could be impeached at the time.
<<BT supplies the findings of an official investigation, you supply a theory or implication that somehow Senator McCain is guilty of something that was not found by a court or official investigation.>>
Well, I wasn't impressed by the source and I don't think I am alone. Seems to me that a recent poll showed that Americans had the lowest opinion of Congress out of all major American institutions, or something like that. Also I am willing to concede that no crime may have been committed. There is a lot of sleazy, low-down, no-good, low-life behaviour that is not criminal but at the same time that is not going to win many votes either, and I would be happy to let the voters see exactly how John McCain conducted himself in the Keating Five affair and decide whether or not they want to vote for that kind of man as their President.
-
I would be happy to let the voters see exactly how John McCain conducted himself in the Keating Five affair and decide whether or not they want to vote for that kind of man as their President.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
That is fair , lets do it.
-
<<No, it's not. No less than 3 governmental organizations have investigated, and none of the three found any evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence to be found, it would have been reported. Since it wasn't, it's not there.
<<So, you're telling us, basically, you know of no evidence to support your allegations. That is what I thought.>>
Nope. I'm saying that with the same evidence as was before the "three governmental organizations" and their conclusions, the voters should be asked if they, too, think McCain didn't do anything wrong, and whether they want a guy who did what he did as their President.
plane got it. It's not really that complicated.
-
Nope. I'm saying that with the same evidence as was before the "three governmental organizations" and their conclusions, the voters should be asked if they, too, think McCain didn't do anything wrong, and whether they want a guy who did what he did as their President.
The three governmental organizations found no evidence of wrongdoing by McCain.
So, you're saying that the voters should have a blank slate put before them to draw their own conclusions?
-
<<No, it's not. No less than 3 governmental organizations have investigated, and none of the three found any evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence to be found, it would have been reported. Since it wasn't, it's not there.
<<So, you're telling us, basically, you know of no evidence to support your allegations. That is what I thought.>>
Nope. I'm saying that with the same evidence as was before the "three governmental organizations" and their conclusions, the voters should be asked if they, too, think McCain didn't do anything wrong, and whether they want a guy who did what he did as their President.
plane got it. It's not really that complicated.
Why do we disagree aboput the importance of the incident?
Is it because I don't expect any better from the other choices presented?
Obama was given a house , Hillary was given a house , McCain was given a vacation.
There is a lot of detail left out of this summation , but the details don't change the picture overall.
-
<<Obama was given a house , Hillary was given a house , McCain was given a vacation.>>
In return for the vacation, McCain went to bat for Keating, permitting him to continue scamming honest, trusting, hard-working Americans out of their life savings. The guy who gave it to him went to jail for five years.
In return for the house, Hillary __________________________________ . The guy who gave it to her . .
In return for the house, Obama _______________________________ . The guy who gave it to him . . .
I think McCain got more than a vacation out of this, and if the commercial is ever made, it'll show what he got.
But you go right ahead, plane, fill in the blanks and make your own commercial about the other two candidates. See what they did that compares with assisting Charles Keating to scam millions in life savings out of honest, hard-working Americans.
I really really really want to see a Keating Five commercial. I don't give a shit about the other two candidates, because your complaints about THEIR ethics are truly Mickey Mouse. The one commercial will blow the other two out of the water.
-
In return for the vacation, McCain went to bat for Keating, permitting him to continue scamming honest, trusting, hard-working Americans out of their life savings. The guy who gave it to him went to jail for five years.
So, where is the evidence that McCain action's slowed down the investigation?
-
<<So, where is the evidence that McCain action's slowed down the investigation?>>
Good point. I'm working on the assumption that Keating didn't pay McCain because McCain was an ineffectual schmuck. I would assume that when McCain calls on a regulator to get him to back off on an investigation, the guy DOES back off, either permanently (which obviously didn't happen here) or temporarily.
This is where research comes in. Hopefully we can find a record of a regulator who has already admitted backing off in response to McCain's entreaties and use the admission. Otherwise we might be forced back onto circumstantial evidence, i.e. the normal course of an investigation has to be time-lined and compared with the time-line of THIS investigation into Keating. (and that's just one example of the type of circumstantial evidence we'd look for to prove that McCain slowed it down. AT the very least, we could use a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't argument: Evidence is unclear as to how much McCain was able to slow down the investigation, letting Keating continue to scam unsuspecting Americans of their life savings, but we know this: either McCain succeeded in his crooked goal of stalling the investigation or he was totally ineffective in so doing, and nevertheless pocketed Keaton's dirty money for a job he wasn't even able to accomplish. In any event, is THIS the man you want to be your next President?
-
<<So, where is the evidence that McCain action's slowed down the investigation?>>
Good point. I'm working on the assumption that Keating didn't pay McCain because McCain was an ineffectual schmuck. I would assume that when McCain calls on a regulator to get him to back off on an investigation, the guy DOES back off, either permanently (which obviously didn't happen here) or temporarily.
Can we assume that a ward healer giveing Barak Obama half the cost of his new home is doing so in expectation of the favor being returned?
-
<<Can we assume that a ward healer giveing Barak Obama half the cost of his new home is doing so in expectation of the favor being returned?>>
Absolutely not. Could be for a favour already done. Could be for legitimate work already done. Could be because Rezko loves Obama like a son. Remember, Rezko has been convicted of nothing, Keating's a jailbird and the worst kind of jailbird, the one who cheated honest, hard-working Americans out of their life's savings, with the sneaky undercover assistance of one Mr. John McCain. OK, the Senate "Ethics" Ctee. found "nothing wrong" with McCain carrying Keating's water. Whoopee-doo. Let's see what Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public think of it. Especially with respect for Congress at an all-time low.
-
I'm working on the assumption that Keating didn't pay McCain because McCain was an ineffectual schmuck. I would assume that when McCain calls on a regulator to get him to back off on an investigation, the guy DOES back off, either permanently (which obviously didn't happen here) or temporarily.
Congress critters routinely go to bat for their constituents - it's part of the job. Constituents that donate more money usually get more access. Par for the course.
You have an assumption because there is no evidence that Keating asked McCain to get the regulator to back off, nor evidence that McCain asked the regulator to back off. The only evidence that we have is that after McCain found out that the regulators were investigating Keating for a crime (rather than just pressuring him over trivial book keeping matters), McCain refused to meet with regulators again (from McCain's statements to the investigators). Two of the other five continued to meet with the regulators after that point (and those two were dealt with more harshly by the various investigators).
-
<<You have an assumption because there is no evidence that Keating asked McCain to get the regulator to back off, nor evidence that McCain asked the regulator to back off.>>
Right now, it's an assumption. I assumed that Keating did not ask McCain to meet the regulators to discuss the price of coffee in Brazil. Given what a slimeball Keating was, let's just present the known facts (including "all about Charlie,"and some interviews with some of the Chuckster's victims or their surviving next of kin, and see what assumptions John Q. Public is willing to make.
You've heard of guilt by association, I presume? You know, as in Obama = Rev. Wright, Obama = Bill Ayers? Well, guess what? It works on Republicans too.
And also, BTW, I find it very strange that in all this "thorough" and "complete" Senate investigation, nobody bothered to ask any of the regulators just what they and Senator John McCain were discussing during their little tete-a-tetes. I have a feeling that it wasn't the price of coffee in Brazil after all.
-
And also, BTW, I find it very strange that in all this "thorough" and "complete" Senate investigation, nobody bothered to ask any of the regulators just what they and Senator John McCain were discussing during their little tete-a-tetes. I have a feeling that it wasn't the price of coffee in Brazil after all.
Perhaps, instead of continued "assumption", you should read the published reports of the Senate investigation, the investigation by the Dept of Justice, and the investigation by the state of California.
-
<<Perhaps, instead of continued "assumption", you should read the published reports of the Senate investigation, the investigation by the Dept of Justice, and the investigation by the state of California.>>
Don't have the time. I'm just the idea man for the video, not the researcher or the fact-checker. I can't lose - - if the documentary record says McCain asked the regulators to back off, I'm home free. If it says the regulators claim the meetings were all about the price of coffee in Brazil, the video duly notes that and points out how ridiculous such stonewalling claims really are. If the record says nothing about how the regulators characterized the meetings, it proves what a farce the investigation really was.
Part of the research, if the record is silent, would be to track down the regulators and get them to go on camera with what McCain asked them to do. Won't be pretty.
Maybe you still don't get what this video is really about: it's McCain-Keating-McCain-Keating-McCain-Keating . . . and somebody is going to realize, McCain the "maverick" Republican is just McCain the Republican. He's a crook, he's a liar and he's a hypocrite. He'll sell you out like he sold out his first wife for an heiress. The guy's a piece of shit. The video's just one way to get the message across. Truth will out.
-
Don't have the time. I'm just the idea man for the video, not the researcher or the fact-checker.
But apparently you do have the time to make up allegations with no facts backing them up. I guess it is faster to throw out a bunch of shit and see if any of it sticks.
I can't lose - - if the documentary record says McCain asked the regulators to back off, I'm home free. If it says the regulators claim the meetings were all about the price of coffee in Brazil, the video duly notes that and points out how ridiculous such stonewalling claims really are. If the record says nothing about how the regulators characterized the meetings, it proves what a farce the investigation really was.
And what if the video shows that:
- McCain specifically told investigators that he did not want to slow down their investigation, just wanted to make sure that his constituent was being treated fairly
- The investigation concluded - with a recommendation for prosecution - less than a month after McCain's meeting with the regulators
What do you think that would tell the American public?
-
<<But apparently you do have the time to make up allegations with no facts backing them up. I guess it is faster to throw out a bunch of shit and see if any of it sticks.>>
As I've said repeatedly, the concept needs more research. I am just making an informed guess as to how the research will pan out, based on a good common-sense gut-feeling for what a slick crook like Keating would ask McCain to do for him. Could I be wrong? Did Keating really just ask McCain to go pay a bunch of visits to the regulators and talk about the price of coffee in Brazil? I don't think so, but yeah, in theory, there is still room for me to be wrong on this.
<<And what if the video [I think you mean the research for the video?] shows that:
* McCain specifically told investigators that he did not want to slow down their investigation, just wanted to make sure that his constituent was being treated fairly>>
I'd say it means that McCain is at least smart enough to avoid committing a Federal offence, and I'd want to see an explanation of what specifically McCain did or said to ensure fairness in his constituent's treatment? What specific indications did he have that his client was being treated unfairly and how were those resolved, and if there weren't any, why would McCain assume there was any likelihood that the regulators WOULD treat the Chuckster unfairly? Why would he think that Federal regulators WOULDN'T know of their own duty of fairness?
<< * The investigation concluded - with a recommendation for prosecution - less than a month after McCain's meeting with the regulators>>
I'd want to know how much money Keating raked in during that month and what stage it was at prior to the Keating Five visits and specifically McCain's visit. I'd want the details of the recommendation for prosecution and whether they could have recommended prosecution for more serious offences but didn't (after all, Keating only got five years) and similar stuff that I'm too busy to think of right now and if there's no indication of last-minute delay and/or last-minute millions, I'd want to congratulate the Feds for standing up to the blandishments of scum like the Keating Five and doing a stand-up job.
<<What do you think that would tell the American public?>>
More or less what I indicated above.
Really, how do you think you can spin your way out of this one? Keating is a piece of shit and McCain is his buddy and his accomplice. McCain went to bat for Keating. Keating is a fucking crook. Get it?
-
I am just making an informed guess as to how the research will pan out, based on a good common-sense gut-feeling for what a slick crook like Keating would ask McCain to do for him.
In other words, you already know he's guilty, you just want to throw some shit around and see if anything comes out it.
I'd say it means that McCain is at least smart enough to avoid committing a Federal offence, and I'd want to see an explanation of what specifically McCain did or said to ensure fairness in his constituent's treatment? What specific indications did he have that his client was being treated unfairly and how were those resolved, and if there weren't any, why would McCain assume there was any likelihood that the regulators WOULD treat the Chuckster unfairly? Why would he think that Federal regulators WOULDN'T know of their own duty of fairness?
What indications? Well, Keating went to DeConcini (not McCain) and told him that regulators were treating him unfairly. I think that's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. DeConcini then rounded up his Junior Senator (McCain) and three other Democrats and scheduled the meeting. There is evidence presented that McCain did not want to get involved - since he had been a Senator just a few months - and quotes from witnesses that DeConcini intended to bully McCain into showing up.
I'd want to know how much money Keating raked in during that month and what stage it was at prior to the Keating Five visits and specifically McCain's visit. I'd want the details of the recommendation for prosecution and whether they could have recommended prosecution for more serious offences but didn't (after all, Keating only got five years) and similar stuff that I'm too busy to think of right now and if there's no indication of last-minute delay and/or last-minute millions, I'd want to congratulate the Feds for standing up to the blandishments of scum like the Keating Five and doing a stand-up job.
Actually, there is every indication that the meeting sped up the regulators - Glenn was apparently quoted by one of the regulators as saying "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs. If things are bad there, get to them. Their view is that they took a failing business and put it back on its feet. It's now viable and profitable. They took it off the endangered species list. Why has the exam dragged on and on and on?" McCain is also noted as having agreed with this position.
These indications are the reason why the prosecutor who was investigating this group for the Senate Ethics Committee recommended that Glenn and McCain be removed from the investigation. The (Democrat-led) committee did not want to lose their sole Republican, so they voted against removing those two from the investigation.
Of course, if you had bothered to read the reports, you would know all this. But instead, you gotta rely on that "gut based" feeling that McCain's a crook and he just hasn't been caught yet.
Ain't it a bitch when facts get in the way of good shit-throwing session?
-
In return for the vacation, McCain went to bat for Keating, permitting him to continue scamming honest, trusting, hard-working Americans out of their life savings. The guy who gave it to him went to jail for five years.
OK, in the other thread you said that you backed up all your claims with facts. The statement highlighted is not a supposition, it is a claim of fact.
I would like to see where this claim is backed up.
-
<<Well, Keating went to DeConcini (not McCain) and told him that regulators were treating him unfairly. I think that's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. DeConcini then rounded up his Junior Senator (McCain) and three other Democrats and scheduled the meeting. >>
So McCain was "rounded up?" What is he, a fucking cow? DeConcini just crooks his finger, and McCain just ambles on mindlessly in his wake? NOBODY is going to buy that crap. McCain knew fucking well what he was doing and who he was doing it for.
<<There is evidence presented that McCain did not want to get involved - since he had been a Senator just a few months - and quotes from witnesses that DeConcini intended to bully McCain into showing up.>>
That's just hilarious. The guy who couldn't be broken by years of "torture" in Viet Nam "bullied" by De Concini into visiting the regulators. Poor John. Keep going, Ami, this is even better than I expected. (BTW, I also hope that the Dems don't shy away from looking into McCain's phony claims of "torture" and do a little Swift Boating of their own on this guy. There should be some recordings kicking around somewhere of the broadcasts he made from North Viet Nam and I'll bet even some former cellmates or fellow prisoners now willing to spill the beans on this guy, but that's another story.)
<<Actually, there is every indication that the meeting sped up the regulators - Glenn was apparently quoted by one of the regulators as saying "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs. If things are bad there, get to them. Their view is that they took a failing business and put it back on its feet. It's now viable and profitable. They took it off the endangered species list. Why has the exam dragged on and on and on?" McCain is also noted as having agreed with this position.>>
I see. Not only are they crooks and scoundrels, but inept crooks and scoundrels at that. Does the record show how much money McCain received from Keating for all this nefarious but bungled skullduggery? We've heard plenty about what McCain did for Keating, but as far as we know, what did KEATING do for McCain?
<<These indications are the reason why the prosecutor who was investigating this group for the Senate Ethics Committee recommended that Glenn and McCain be removed from the investigation. >>
Interesting, was the prosecutor by chance a Republican? In any event, it is the public's opinion of McCain's conduct and not the prosecutor's opinion as to whether a crime was committed, that the video would be hoping to elicit.
<<The (Democrat-led) committee did not want to lose their sole Republican, so they voted against removing those two from the investigation.>>
Thus preserving a facade of due diligence to shield them from accusations of white-wash when they later delivered the love-pats that they already knew would be the outcome of the whole farce.
<<Of course, if you had bothered to read the reports, you would know all this. But instead, you gotta rely on that "gut based" feeling that McCain's a crook and he just hasn't been caught yet.>>
Which still seems to be vindicated by what you dug up there anyway. Thanks, Ami.
-
Quote from: Michael Tee on May 31, 2008, 02:35:33 PM
In return for the vacation, McCain went to bat for Keating, permitting him to continue scamming honest, trusting, hard-working Americans out of their life savings. The guy who gave it to him went to jail for five years.
Ami: OK, in the other thread you said that you backed up all your claims with facts. The statement highlighted is not a supposition, it is a claim of fact.
I would like to see where this claim is backed up.
===================================================
Sorry. You got me there. I should have said "with the intention" of permitting him to continue scamming, cuz I really don't know if the intention was achieved.
Look, basically I am just outlining the contents of a video. I don't have the finished product, but the concept is that the facts as known would be stated with scrupulous accuracy so the public could decide for themselves, is this the guy who I want as my President?
When McCain went to the regulators, unless he was a complete idiot, he knew what Keating wanted, which would have been, ideally, to kill the investigation if possible, which McCain had to have known would be practically impossible, otherwise to stall it. If the research shows that he wasn't able to stall it, the video will still work, it would just need a little rewrite, showing what Keating was making and how much more he could have made for every week that the regulators could have been held off.
-
The worst thing about McCain is not the Keating Scandal, it's what he has proclaimed he will do with the Supreme Court, which is to name more rightwingers like Roberts, Scalia, Alioto and Thomas.
-
The worst ting about McCain is not the Keating Scandal, it's wat he has proclaimed he will do with the Supreme Court, which is to name more rightwingers like Roberts, Scalia, Alioto and Thomas.
Depending upon the makeup of Congress after the election, that may or may not be possible. If Dems do as well as some think, all they'd have to do is pull a few Republican moderates (Chafee, Snowe, etc.) and that would sink the nomination. Hopefully he won't try to appoint Meiers.
-
<<The worst ting about McCain is not the Keating Scandal, it's wat he has proclaimed he will do with the Supreme Court, which is to name more rightwingers like Roberts, Scalia, Alioto and Thomas.>>
If the Dems attack him with that, all the right-wing nuts who think the appointments are wonderful will stick with McCain and everyone else will hate him for it. If you hit him with a properly designed and made Keating Five ad, plenty of Republicans will be sickened by the idea of his ties to an unscrupulous con artist and outraged by the thought of Middle Americans just like them being scammed out of life savings to line the pockets of Keating and his crooked pals in the Senate. The bad justices will be hard on blacks, gays, the poor, the sick and the elderly, people who the typical Republican voter not only doesn't give a shit about, but actively hates with a visceral passion, but Keating and his Keating Five were bad news for people just like the average Republican supporter. That's the beauty of the whole thing. His victims are THEM. Especially if we can get videotaped interviews with the victims. I mean wow, bring out the handkerchiefs and the violins.
-
The way to prevent McCain from screwing up the Supreme Court (and other courts as well) is to see that he isn't elected or even selected.
There are these photos where he is hugging Juniorbush like Timmy hugged Lassie, and they contradict all the bullcrap about what a 'maverick' he is.
He is a maverick only when contrasted with Juniorbush, who was a total slave to the oligarchy.
-
<<There are these photos where he is hugging Juniorbush like Timmy hugged Lassie, and they contradict all the bullcrap about what a 'maverick' he is.>>
I love those pictures and I think they ought to be plastered anywhere a voter will see them. Preferably with little Cupids and hearts-and-arrows fluttering overhead. Or, if that's not subtle enough, a la "Jesus' General" blog, some mock-Victorian, latent-homosexual prose, "Strong in Manly Affection" or the like.
-
That's just hilarious. The guy who couldn't be broken by years of "torture" in Viet Nam "bullied" by De Concini into visiting the regulators. Poor John. Keep going, Ami, this is even better than I expected.
According to the book Trust Me, by Michael Binstein and Charles Bowden, about the Keating Five:
On March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Keating went to DeConcini's office and asked him if the meeting with the regulators was on. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous.
"McCain's a wimp," Keating replied, "We'll go talk to him."
Keating had other business on Capitol Hill and did not reach McCain's office until 1:30. A DeConcini staffer already had told McCain about the "wimp" insult.
When he arrived, Keating presented McCain with a laundry list of demands for the regulators.
McCain told Keating that he would attend the meeting and find out whether Keating was getting treated fairly but that was all.
Does the record show how much money McCain received from Keating for all this nefarious but bungled skullduggery? We've heard plenty about what McCain did for Keating, but as far as we know, what did KEATING do for McCain?
Keating raised $112,000 for McCain's campaign. Also, Keating provided McCain with a couple of vacations. After McCain found out about the criminal investigation, he gave the $112,000 to the US Dept of Treasury and reimbursed the $13,433 cost of the vacations to Keating.
-
Keating raised $112,000 for McCain's campaign. Also, Keating provided McCain with a couple of vacations. After McCain found out about the criminal investigation, he gave the $112,000 to the US Dept of Treasury and reimbursed the $13,433 cost of the vacations to Keating.
That seems proper and acceptable to me.
-
If McCain were really interested in seeing if Keating were being treated fairly or unfairly, the first thing he'd do is get his lawyer on the phone and ask him to pin-point alleged instances of unfair treatment, so that he'd have specific allegations of unfairness to put to the regulators. Or if the issues were relatively simple, he could just ask Keating himself what he thought was unfair. Then, armed with a good knowledge of the complaints, he'd raise them with the regulators. I don't see any indication from the regulators or others of any specific discussions relating to the fairness or unfairness of Keating's treatment.
Basically, the whole story (concerns of fairness) stinks. If fairness is your concern, you hire a law firm specializing in regulatory law. They know all about a regulator's basic duties of fairness and they would write to the regulators and complain. If the regulators are being unfair, they get taken to court, hit with an injunction, sued for millions, etc. There is nothing about unfair regulation that a good lawyer can't deal with, particularly from a firm specializing in financial industry regulation, of which there are plenty.
The idea that you send three U.S. Senators on a visit to complain about unfairness is ludicrous. They are sent to intimidate if they can or to suggest legislative favours in return for looking the other way. Maybe some lawyers could be added to the commercial, though - - fairness complaints? "Oh, yeah, I do 'em all the time. Just wrapped one up for Citibank, got another one coming for Manulife." What's the procedure for victims of unfairness? "Well, you file objection with this body and they'll hold a hearing from which you can appeal to . . . {name of court)" Did Keating ever file objection? "no." This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.
-
I don't see any indication from the regulators or others of any specific discussions relating to the fairness or unfairness of Keating's treatment.
Because you didn't bother to read the numerous reports. There is none so blind as those unwilling to see...
If the regulators are being unfair, they get taken to court, hit with an injunction, sued for millions, etc.
You do realize that this "basic fairness" of regulators is another crock of crap that you're also throwing around to see if it sticks? You know who was running that "basically fair" board of regulators in 1995? DeConcini, the guy that Keating originally went to, the former Senior Senator from Arizona. Bill Clinton appointed him.
And I forgot to mention this previously. Why would a Democratically led committee hire a Republican prosecutor to investigate? Actually, the prosecutor later became famous because of his client Bill Clinton. He defended Bill during his impeachment.
This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.
Then one wonders why you have not bothered to bring any evidence that "explodes" this "bullshit defence [sic]".
-
The idea that you send three U.S. Senators on a visit to complain about unfairness is ludicrous. They are sent to intimidate if they can or to suggest legislative favours in return for looking the other way. Maybe some lawyers could be added to the commercial, though - - fairness complaints? "Oh, yeah, I do 'em all the time. Just wrapped one up for Citibank, got another one coming for Manulife." What's the procedure for victims of unfairness? "Well, you file objection with this body and they'll hold a hearing from which you can appeal to . . . {name of court)" Did Keating ever file objection? "no." This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.
I don 't know how Canadian Legislators behave , but American Congressmen always answer a letter and assign staff to handle problems for constituants routinely "I'm gonna write my Congressman " is a common way to adress unfair management here where I work, every year they keep track of how many letters to the congressman have gone in , it is a good year when the number is small.
When a guy with clout asks for congressman service how much he gets is a measure of his clout , I Imagine that Bill Gates or Billy Chrystal coukd easily get some congressman to talk to but also likely Cindy Sheehan could.
-
In Canada or in the U.S.A. a Federal regulatory board is legally required to act fairly. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would arise if either Parliament or Congress set up a body with statutory regulatory powers over powerful industries and the enabling statute said that the board was NOT required to act fairly, that it could unfairly penalize, for example, Jews or blacks according to the prejudices of the chairman? Yet we have Ami trying to tell us,
<<You do realize that this "basic fairness" of regulators is another crock of crap that you're also throwing around to see if it sticks? >>
Ami goes on to "prove" that there is no basic legal duty of fairness with the following exposition:
<<You know who was running that "basically fair" board of regulators in 1995? DeConcini, the guy that Keating originally went to, the former Senior Senator from Arizona. Bill Clinton appointed him.>>
Oh. I guess that settles it. The board has no legal duty to act fairly because its chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. Case closed.
Let's get back to the real world, OK? EVERY federal regulatory board, Canadian, American, British, whatever, is under a legal duty of fairness, EVEN if the chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. (It's a fact - - see the famous "Clinton clause" that's usually tacked onto the end of every American regulatory statute: "The duty of fairness hereby required of this Board and its Chairman applies notwithstanding that the said Chairman was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton." True story. Pick any regulatory statute. Check it out.) Now I am sorry to say that it has been known that boards and their chairmen on occasion will violate that basic duty of fairness. This is actually a GOOD thing, because it is those little violations that give employment to a whole swarm of high-priced law firms and their supporting staff, who specialize in nothing but guiding their wealthy and powerful clients through the complex mazes of Federal regulation. These guys are keener than bloodhounds in sniffing out any trace of procedural or substantive unfairness, violations of natural justice, , bias, prejudice, denial of natural human rights, etc., etc., etc. and are contantly making threatening phone calls and sending threatening letters and e-mails to Federal regulators about it. Of course the threats would be empty, were there no review and appellate boards within the regulatory system and courts outside the regulatory system, all with the power to grant redress (and sanctions!) to victims of boards which act unfairly. There are lawyers who exist ONLY to get redress and to fight unfairness in the Federal regulatory system overseeing the financial services sector.
It is inconceivable that Keating would not have lawyers who could determine far more accurately than McCain's highly limited intellectual powers would ever be capable of, whether or not Keating's companies were being treated unfairly. If McCain had even a smidgen of interest in the subject, he'd have met with Keating's lawyers, reviewed their complaints of unfairness to the regulators (or their internal memoranda if no complaints had been made yet) and reviewed any answers that the regulators might have made to the complaints.
The idea that McCain met with the regulators "to see if Keating was being treated fairly" is, on its face, preposterous. That is a lawyer's job, not a Senator's. Obviously he could only have been there to intimidate, through the stature of his office, the "lowly" civil servants who dared to make trouble for McCain's wealthy patron, who took the crooked little weasel on free luxury vacations and donated, apparently, as far as official sources are aware, at least $100,000 to McCain's campaign.
The video would have to make it very plain that Keating had sent a clutch of Senators to do what was essentially a lawyer's job. Yet he obviously had a whole mob of high-priced lawyers specializing in that one particular area of Federal regulation at his disposal. So the question has to be, WHY? Why would the convicted felon send a bunch of corrupt U.S. Senators to do what any good regulatory lawyer would do better, determine if Keating's treatment at the hands of the board would be fair?
-
Oh. I guess that settles it. The board has no legal duty to act fairly because its chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. Case closed.
Nothing like a good strawman argument. I never said that it no duty to act fairly.
I said that in the real world, very often those boards contain people who are corrupt. We don't all happen to live in Mikey's perfect little world where regulatory boards are filled with angels, there only to do good.
And it had nothing to do with the fact that he was appointed by Clinton - it had to do with the fact that he was the guy who rounded up the other senators that were called the Keating Five. He was the one guy that Keating actually went to and asked for help. And he was the one guy out of the Keating Five that actually went to lengths to protect Keating.
But I guess he's actually the right guy to have on that board. Make sure it's all fair and honest, right? After all, he can't be bullied around by those wimpy senators, huh?
-
In Canada or in the U.S.A. a Federal regulatory board is legally required to act fairly.
I would not have thought this true.
What are the leagal requirement of fairness of an agency like say the EPA or the BATF?
-
I'd say they have to apply the law fairly, equally, without favour or discrimination. Keep in mind, they are not making a law, they are enforcing it. If the law is unfair, they must enforce the unfair law, but the victim of their enforcement can challenge the law under the Constitution as violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, something we Canadians couldn't do until 1982.
-
I'd say they have to apply the law fairly, equally, without favour or discrimination. Keep in mind, they are not making a law, they are enforcing it. If the law is unfair, they must enforce the unfair law, but the victim of their enforcement can challenge the law under the Constitution as violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, something we Canadians couldn't do until 1982.
Does n agency like this require someone to interpret the enforcement for fairness, or just for enforceing it as it is written?
-
<<Does n agency like this require someone to interpret the enforcement for fairness, or just for enforceing it as it is written?>>
Any branch of the executive has a certain amount of discretion when it comes to enforcement of the law. Eveyone's familiar with the police discretion to arrest or not to arrest, or the prosecutor's discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute. Those seem to be pretty individualized, i.e. personal to the cop on the beat or the prosecutor, subject maybe to the D.A.'s or Crown Attorney's policy directives.
But at the level of big government agencies, the discretion is probably formalized in manuals which spell out the factors that need to be present for enforcement action, or even for discretionary relief from enforcement action. Someone who feels aggrieved by the policy in the manual can always take the agency to court, and a judge will decide if the policy as laid out in the manual is unfair or not. Or alternatively can complain, usually through counsel, to the head of the agency or the agency's ombudsman if it has one.
Even "enforcing it as it is written" is not as simple as it sounds. What if there's a widespread attempt to avoid the legislation by thousands of individuals? Sometimes it makes more sense to prosecute a test case than to go after all of them at once, because if they're right and the agency personnel are wrong, you've blown a thousand times the court costs that you would have blown by just going after the one test case. Sometimes there's a high-profile case of violation, whereas all the other violators are just two-bit schleppers, so it makes a lot of sense to pour agency resources into the high-profile case because if they lose that one and win a hundred low-level cases, they'll still look like schmucks for letting the Big Fish get away. Sometimes there aren't enough resources to "enforce as written" so a fair system has to be devised to prosecute a representative sample without appearing to be racist or class-conscious.