Half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Amianthus]

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).

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Amianthus]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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?

[Amianthus]

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?

[Amianthus]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[fatman]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.