Author Topic: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"  (Read 2003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« on: August 20, 2008, 11:06:07 PM »
from the Yglesias Think Progress blog, some comments on the McCain campaign's ridiculous defence against the cheating accusation - -

 First, McCain's asinine defence:  << “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.>>

And here are some of the readers' comments on the POW defence:




   1. El Cid Says:
      August 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am

      Yes, it is clear that to suggest that a veteran of the Keating 5-led destruction of the U.S. Savings & Loan division of our banking system could possibly have failed to play by the rules is to directly insult a POW for his service to his country.
   
   2. steve duncan Says:
      August 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am

      “John, have you been cheating on me?”

      “Why no, how could you even think that? I’m a former POW!”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Yeah, that must be how the conversation went.
   
  Another reader pointed out that since Bill Ayers' activities of the 1970s and 1980s are considered relevant, there should be no punches pulled on the Keating Five crookedness in the 80s.  The general consensus seems to be that negative campaigning is working very well against Obama and it's time to take the gloves off.  McCain's vulnerable on a lot of issues - - he cavorted with REAL bimbos while he was married, not the fake innuendos of his campaign smears of Obama.  The guy can be nailed on his extra-marital cheating and betrayals, his fake "torture" claims, his Keating Five escapades, the victims of napalm bombing, his age, his gaffes, the Saddleback cheating, etc.  Some of those smears could cost him conservative votes - - how many Evangelicals who might forgive his betrayal of his first wife would put up with his calling Cindy a trollop and a cunt in public?

But Obama, if you're reading this:  WAKE UP, MAN!!! AND TAKE OFF THE GLOVES!! !!!

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2008, 11:38:51 PM »
Quote
there should be no punches pulled on the Keating Five crookedness in the 80s

Absolutely. An full scale investigation should be mounted to discover why the 4 out of the 5 participants in the Keating Affair who were Democrats were let offf the hook with little more than a hand slap by the Democrat controlled Ethics Committee.

That will certainly enhance trust in Obama and his party.

and as long as we are examining quid pro quo, let's take another look at the  Rezko situation and Obama's house purchase.




Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2008, 12:08:03 AM »
Yes, it is clear that to suggest that a veteran of the Keating 5-led destruction of the U.S. Savings & Loan division of our banking system could possibly have failed to play by the rules is to directly insult a POW for his service to his country.
   
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Was there ever any evidence that John McCain broke a law or a rule in the Keating 5 incident?

Or that he lied?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2008, 12:43:42 AM »
<<Was there ever any evidence that John McCain broke a law or a rule in the Keating 5 incident?

<<Or that he lied?>>

You're just evading the issue.  The Keating Five was not about breaking a law or a rule or about lying.    The Keating Five were persons who held high elected office and yet spent considerable time and effort to help a crook stave off Federal Regulators to buy more time to defraud more people.

All Obama has to do is lay out the facts before the people.  He doesn't have to claim that McCain lied if he didn't lie; he doesn't have to claim that McCain broke a law if no laws were broken; and he doesn't have to claim that McCain lied if he didn't lie.  The actual facts will speak for themselves.

How far was John McCain prepared to go to help a multimillionaire crook hold back Federal regulators trying to stop crooks like Keating from robbing simple, hard-working Americans?  WHOSE SIDE IS JOHN MCCAIN REALLY ON?

And at the end of this PURELY FACTUAL presentation, not of what McCain did not do, but of what he actually did, all Obama has to do is ask the people of the U.S.A. - -

CONGRESS said this man did nothing wrong.  IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK?    IS THIS THE MAN YOU TRUST TO LOOK OUT FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES?

This ad would be DYNAMITE if Obama had the balls to make it and run it.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2008, 12:48:21 AM »
<<Was there ever any evidence that John McCain broke a law or a rule in the Keating 5 incident?

<<Or that he lied?>>

You're just evading the issue.  The Keating Five was not about breaking a law or a rule or about lying.    The Keating Five were persons who held high elected office and yet spent considerable time and effort to help a crook stave off Federal Regulators to buy more time to defraud more people.

All Obama has to do is lay out the facts before the people.  He doesn't have to claim that McCain lied if he didn't lie; he doesn't have to claim that McCain broke a law if no laws were broken; and he doesn't have to claim that McCain lied if he didn't lie.  The actual facts will speak for themselves.

How far was John McCain prepared to go to help a multimillionaire crook hold back Federal regulators trying to stop crooks like Keating from robbing simple, hard-working Americans?  WHOSE SIDE IS JOHN MCCAIN REALLY ON?

And at the end of this PURELY FACTUAL presentation, not of what McCain did not do, but of what he actually did, all Obama has to do is ask the people of the U.S.A. - -

CONGRESS said this man did nothing wrong.  IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK?    IS THIS THE MAN YOU TRUST TO LOOK OUT FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES?

This ad would be DYNAMITE if Obama had the balls to make it and run it.

I wish he woudl listen to you !

A negative ad is one thing , but a desprately negative one is another.

McCain did not lie did not cheat and was examined very closely in public , the facts make him look good , but a bit of twisting works wonders .

If Obama didn't have practicly the same skeliton in his closet he might trip up and take your advice , too bad that he does have this one bit of experience.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2008, 12:59:13 AM »
<<A negative ad is one thing , but a desprately negative one is another.>>

Desperation, in this case, being in the eye of the beholder.  Since McCain has been nothing but negative on Obama from the outset, I don't think the Keating Five ad would be seen as "desperate" but rather the long-delayed counter-punch of a man who has taken it for far too long and finally decides to retaliate.

I agree with you, desperation would look bad.  But in this case, it won't look like desperation.  IN fact, the folks who saw Obama meekly submitting to negative ad after negative ad, will probably breathe a sigh of relief when the K-5 ad comes out, and think "At  last! ! ! !"

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2008, 01:14:24 AM »
<<A negative ad is one thing , but a desprately negative one is another.>>

Desperation, in this case, being in the eye of the beholder.  Since McCain has been nothing but negative on Obama from the outset, I don't think the Keating Five ad would be seen as "desperate" but rather the long-delayed counter-punch of a man who has taken it for far too long and finally decides to retaliate.

I agree with you, desperation would look bad.  But in this case, it won't look like desperation.  IN fact, the folks who saw Obama meekly submitting to negative ad after negative ad, will probably breathe a sigh of relief when the K-5 ad comes out, and think "At  last! ! ! !"

It was a Democrat who coined the phrase "If you can't stand the heat , get out of the kitchen"

The Keating Five stuff does not include any secrets , no surprises , not  much that the public still needs to know.

The Rezco affair though is a lot more recent and a lot more personally attached to the canadate , I wonder why that isn't getting more play?

Could there be a Quid pro Quo?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2008, 11:19:45 AM »
<<The Rezco affair though is a lot more recent and a lot more personally attached to the canadate , I wonder why that isn't getting more play?

<<Could there be a Quid pro Quo?>>

Probably, from Obama's side.  He's afraid to raise K-5 because he thinks it'll bring up Rezco.  McCain, if he weren't already winning on other negative ads, would probably say "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!"  Throw his punch and take his chances, in other words.

I prefer the McCain approach and wish Obama would too.  But maybe Obama's smarter than all of us and knows just how to play this.  We (I, rather) can only hope.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2008, 02:25:25 AM »
<<The Rezco affair though is a lot more recent and a lot more personally attached to the canadate , I wonder why that isn't getting more play?

<<Could there be a Quid pro Quo?>>

Probably, from Obama's side.  He's afraid to raise K-5 because he thinks it'll bring up Rezco.  McCain, if he weren't already winning on other negative ads, would probably say "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!"  Throw his punch and take his chances, in other words.

I prefer the McCain approach and wish Obama would too.  But maybe Obama's smarter than all of us and knows just how to play this.  We (I, rather) can only hope.

Obama is the one who certainly knows how big a can of worms lies in the Rezco affair .

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2008, 10:28:26 AM »
Well, hopefully if there is a big can of worms, he'll know how to keep them buried, at least till the bigger crook is beaten in November.  And in the meantime keep the public focused on what we DO know about McCain and his criminal associates.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2008, 11:48:45 AM »
Well, hopefully if there is a big can of worms, he'll know how to keep them buried...

Boy, that sure speaks volumes      :-\
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

ZoSo

  • Guest
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2008, 11:59:35 AM »
If Obama didn't have practicly the same skeliton in his closet he might trip up and take your advice , too bad that he does have this one bit of experience.

The same "skeliton"?

Not quite.

Is John McCain a Crook?

Chris Suellentrop, SLATE
Friday, Feb. 18, 2000

The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.

Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.

(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)

McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)

After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.

The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.



sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2008, 12:23:20 PM »
Ahhh, a 2000 article on an 80's "scandal".  Yea, that's sooooo, relevent in this election, especially given no indictments.  Yea, Oblather should run with that       ;)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2008, 12:48:43 PM »
Interesting tidbit:

Quote
The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.

Is this the same Bennett who defended Clinton?


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ridiculous defence: "POWs Don't Cheat"
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2008, 12:51:20 PM »
Quote
how many Evangelicals who might forgive his betrayal of his first wife would put up with his calling Cindy a trollop and a cunt in public?

Source?

and hopefully you won't be quoting the guy who is flogging his book and blogs at firedoglake and the huff post.