FINALLY!!!! Obama is bringing out his Keating Five ads

[Plane]

plane, do you get that the approval rating of Congress (both houses) is down to about 20%?

Do you think this is going to translate into great respect for the decisions of Congress or any of its committees, including its "Ethics" Ctee.?

My bet is that when Joe Six-Pack is asked, "The Senate "Ethics" Committee gave McCain a "pass," what would YOU give him?" that the answer will be something sterner than the "Ethics" Committee had in mind.

People are a lot more pissed off about politicians cozying up to big-time white-collar criminals than you might imagine.  Keating ripped off a lot of Americans of their life savings.  He's a much bigger crook than Rezco.

Yes people think that the Republicans and Democrats alike fight dirty to gain power.

So that the DEMOCRATS CLEARED McCain counts for even more , if they are crooked, because they would have gained so much if they could have hung him.

Keating was the exact same sort of Crook as Rezco , but Rezco was much more important to Obamas career than Keating was to McCains , if Keating had never met McCain , that would have been good luck for McCain , but if Obama had not had Rezco's support he would have had to search up someone elese just like him to advance.

But please do not let me dissuade you , lobby for a complete vetting and airing , Obama still has a lead and we need something like this to cut him down.

Smears that have been proven false may be bad , but smears that have been proven true are a whole nother animal.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes people think that the Republicans and Democrats alike fight dirty to gain power.>>

People think that the Senate "Ethics" Committee is not very much concerned with ethics, but it's a bunch of crooks protecting its own, and notwithstanding which party holds the chair, McCain is as much one of the Senate's own as any Democrat ever was.

<<So that the DEMOCRATS CLEARED McCain counts for even more , if they are crooked, because they would have gained so much if they could have hung him.>>

They would have gained precisely nothing.  Another Republican would have taken his place in the Senate and the balance of power would remain as before.

In a nutshell, I think the public would know that bipartisanship is and always has been alive and well on the Ethics Committee.  There are too many crooks and liars on both sides of the Senate aisle for anything to be gained by partisanship on that committee.  Both sides have more to lose from an energetic pursuit of corruption in either party than they do from partisan politics of personal destruction, which is really what an ethics committee is really all about.

So I say let the viewers decide:  The Ctee gave him a pass, what would YOU give him?  I personally don't think that in answering that question, Joe Six-Pack would give a shit WHO or WHAT the Committee Chairman was.  He would assume it was some crooked complacent old pol from either party, who's a lot more concerned about good ole John Insane than he is about Joe Six-Pack and his problems.  The Chairman, it would be assumed, was either a friend of Chuck's or of bigger crooks with bigger jets and bigger islands.

In short, a Democratic head of the Whitewash Committee would make absolutely no difference at all.

[Plane]

<<Yes people think that the Republicans and Democrats alike fight dirty to gain power.>>

People think that the Senate "Ethics" Committee is not very much concerned with ethics, but it's a bunch of crooks protecting its own, and notwithstanding which party holds the chair, McCain is as much one of the Senate's own as any Democrat ever was.

<<So that the DEMOCRATS CLEARED McCain counts for even more , if they are crooked, because they would have gained so much if they could have hung him.>>

They would have gained precisely nothing.  Another Republican would have taken his place in the Senate and the balance of power would remain as before.

In a nutshell, I think the public would know that bipartisanship is and always has been alive and well on the Ethics Committee.  There are too many crooks and liars on both sides of the Senate aisle for anything to be gained by partisanship on that committee.  Both sides have more to lose from an energetic pursuit of corruption in either party than they do from partisan politics of personal destruction, which is really what an ethics committee is really all about.

So I say let the viewers decide:  The Ctee gave him a pass, what would YOU give him?  I personally don't think that in answering that question, Joe Six-Pack would give a shit WHO or WHAT the Committee Chairman was.  He would assume it was some crooked complacent old pol from either party, who's a lot more concerned about good ole John Insane than he is about Joe Six-Pack and his problems.  The Chairman, it would be assumed, was either a friend of Chuck's or of bigger crooks with bigger jets and bigger islands.

In short, a Democratic head of the Whitewash Committee would make absolutely no difference at all.

That same cte burned the other four worse , all four of them Democrats.

Americans know what Democrats are willing to do to Republicans , this is exactly like getting a clean honesty chit from your opposition team.

Lets see Obama do so well with his Rezco relationship , did he ever give the house back?

[Michael Tee]

<<That same cte burned the other four worse , all four of them Democrats.>>

plane, I just don't think Joe Six-Pack gives a shit about the other four or the Chairman, this all happened in the Mesozoic Era.  The only reason Joe's concerned is that one of the dinosaurs is still around and running for President.

<<Americans know what Democrats are willing to do to Republicans , this is exactly like getting a clean honesty chit from your opposition team.>>

Not when McCain is always boasting about his famous "bipartisanship," how many friends he has on the other side of the aisle.  And it didn't hurt that he was caught with his pants down in the presence of four other Democrats.  It was obviously not the Committee Chairman's desire to damage four of his own party just to crucify McCain.  So whattaya gonna do?  Let the four Democrats walk and crucify the sole Republican?  They took the obvious way out - - a slap on the wrist for everyone, with some minor distinctions between the offenders just to show it wasn't a big rubber stamp.

But honestly, plane, I really don't think that Joe Six-Pack is gonna analyze it all that closely.  Tell him that the Senate Ethics Ctee. gave McCain a pass, and the likeliest response would be along the lines of fuck the ethics committee, WTF do they know, buncha fuckin crooks, OF COURSE they give the guy a pass, he just was unlucky enought to get caught and they've all done worse themselves.

<<Lets see Obama do so well with his Rezco relationship , did he ever give the house back?>>

Rezco and Keating are a wash, even though Keating was a much bigger crook and ruined a lot more people.  IMHO, people don't give a shit about Rezko but Keating and the Keating Five are famous.  Everyone can understand what Keating did, Rezko's narrative is more complicated and evidence of wrongdoing not so dramatic.  He wasn't - - as far as I know - - stealing people's life savings on a massive scale.  He did not have five U.S. Senators on his payroll.

[Plane]

<<That same cte burned the other four worse , all four of them Democrats.>>

plane, I just don't think Joe Six-Pack gives a shit about the other four or the Chairman, this all happened in the Mesozoic Era.  The only reason Joe's concerned is that one of the dinosaurs is still around and running for President.

As I swig my beer , I realise that you are depending on Joe Six pack to be pretty dumb.

If he is smarter than you expect , he will vote for McCain.

[BT]

Two things Joe Six Pack abhors.

He doesn't like to see people railroaded.

And he doesn't like being looked down upon.

Your ad accomplishes both.

[Michael Tee]

<<Two things Joe Six Pack abhors.

<<He doesn't like to see people railroaded.>>

He doesn't like to see HIS representative, the guy he pays to go to Washington and represent HIM, go palling around drinking champagne and playing golf with billionaire criminals who are defrauding hard-working middle class Americans of their life savings.  And trying to help them by stalling Federal regulatory action so they can stay in business longer.  And he doesn't give a shit if the Senate "ETHICS" Committee thinks McCain did nothing wrong.  That's because he has very little regard for the Senate or for its "ETHICS" Committee.

<<And he doesn't like being looked down upon.>>

Looked DOWN on?  The ad is not even gonna tell him what to think, it's just gonna present the facts, all the facts, including the "ETHICS" Committee's decision, and invite him to come to his own conclusions.  Who's looking down on anyone?

Your ad accomplishes both.

[Amianthus]

And trying to help them by stalling Federal regulatory action so they can stay in business longer.

Well, I'm glad that you're all for getting the truth out there.

Part of that truth is that McCain was probably more responsible for increasing the speed at which regulatory action was taken against Keating, right?

[BT]

He doesn't like to see HIS representative, the guy he pays to go to Washington and represent HIM, go palling around drinking champagne and playing golf with billionaire criminals who are defrauding hard-working middle class Americans of their life savings.  And trying to help them by stalling Federal regulatory action so they can stay in business longer.  And he doesn't give a shit if the Senate "ETHICS" Committee thinks McCain did nothing wrong.  That's because he has very little regard for the Senate or for its "ETHICS" Committee.

Joe SixPack didn't lose a dime in the Keating Scandal. He doesn't have 100k sitting in savings, so he was covered.  He doesn't care who his rep pals around with off the clock and he expects his rep to go to bat for him if he needs him. Constituent services is the best way to get re-elected. Joe Six Pack doesn't like witchhunts and he will take the ethics committees word that McCain did nothing more than make an error in judgment.