Would you vote for Charles H. Keating, Jr for president?

[billvon 2,400]

(posted for Thanatos, who got a bit touchy when this wasn't in its own thread.)

Right now, a lot of people are worried about the economy, and are angry with the lenders, investors and regulators whose poor decisions helped lead to this economic collapse. The investigations have begun, and people may end up in jail as a result of them.

Twenty years ago, the story was very similar. Instead of Fannie and Freddie we had Lincoln Savings and Loan. Charles H. Keating, the chairman, was putting billions in risky and illegal investments. The government regulatory agency (the FSLIB) told him to stop. He couldn't; he was so invested in bad debt that to try to get out would expose his mismanagement of funds. It got so bad that a government takeover was threatened.

Keating needed someone to get the government off his back. So he contributed over a million dollars to a group of senators that included John McCain. The senators interceded for him and prevented the takeover.

Meanwhile, the worthless debt was causing a massive cash drain on Lincoln and its parent corporation, American Continental. Lincoln's branch managers and tellers convinced their customers to replace their federally-insured certificates of deposit with higher-yielding bond certificates of Continental, backed by the worthless debt. They basically sold the bad debt to their banking customers, who paid them handsomely for it. Customers were lied to and told that this would be a very sound financial move for them. An investigator later described it as "one of the most heartless and cruel frauds in modern memory."

Lincoln Savings and Loan finally collapsed completely in 1989, at a cost of $2 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. Keating was prosecuted for $1.1 billion in fraud and racketeering charges. During this time he commented: "One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."

McCain was similarly defensive. He was proud of what he had done for Keating. "I have done this kind of thing many, many times," he said. Helping Keating was like "helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security."

By the end of 1989, the S+L crisis was in full swing, and would eventually reach half a trillion in losses, fueled in part by the several billion in losses from Lincoln. The eventual bailout (and losses via federal insurance) would end up costing taxpayers around $125 billion. Is any of this sounding familiar yet?

Of the five senators involved, only McCain had close personal ties to Keating. He got over $100,000 from him directly, and his wife was Keating's business partner in a shopping center project. Keating often sent his private jet to McCain for use for family vacations. A Phoenix Sun article described him as "clearly the guiltiest, most culpable and reprehensible of the Keating Five."

Keating was found guilty of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. Convictions of federal crimes followed. During a later appeal, he ended up pleading guilty to several lesser felony conspiracy charges in return for a sentence of time served.

Even though he pled guilty, he maintained his innocence outside the courtroom, and blamed regulators rather than himself for his bad investments and bilking of customers.

After the story became public, McCain did a rapid 180 and was suddenly very sorry he had ever supported Keating. In his words:

"I made the worst mistake of my life by attending two meetings, the first with the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the government agency charged with regulating the practices of the nation’s savings and loans, and a week later with four bank examiners based in San Francisco who were at that time investigating the investment and lending practices of Lincoln Savings and Loan of Irvine, California, owned by my good friend and generous supporter Charles Keating. "

"I created the appearance of impropriety so it was my . . I . . I was guilty, and therefore did not represent the people of my state in the manner which they expected of me."

"Despite my recovery, the Keating Five experience was not one that I have walked away from as easily as I have other bad times. Twelve years after its conclusion, I still wince thinking about it and find that if I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important, something that was sacrificed in the pursuit of gratifying ambitions, my own and others', and that I might never possess again as assuredly as I once had."

So in 1989, we had a "trial run" of this economic collapse - and John McCain did his very best to make sure the villians were protected and the bank customers lost everything they had. He even portrayed himself as a hero while doing so, someone just "helping the little old lady who didn't get her Social Security."

Now it's 2008. Would you want Keating running things? How about his strongest supporter?

[TheAnvil 0]

McCain was cleared of all charges, Bill, FYI. If you have such an issue with members of the Keating Five, then how about John Glenn? After all, he was also a Keating Five member (found innocent as well, just as McCain was) and a big Obama supporter.

Boortz put it quite well in his comments this AM: Charles Keating was not KNOWN to be a corrupt businessman when his relationship with McCain began. Bill Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began. If you buddy up with someone who later turns out to be a crook, that's one thing. If you begin an association with someone known to already be a crook – in this case a terrorist – that's quite another. Come on, folks. This stuff is so easy. The truth is that the best friend Barack Obama has out there is not a terrorist but is an uninformed celebrity-worshipping electorate.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

posted for Thanatos, who got a bit touchy when this wasn't in its own thread

What I got touchy about was your gross distortions and misrepresentations of what I had said. Glad to see the consistancy though.
As for the rest of it..
Piss poor decision by McCain. Plain and simple.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Bill Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Bill Ayers and Barack Obama at one time lived in the same neighborhood in the city of Chicago, and both had worked on education reform in the state of Illinois. The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper."[40] Obama was then named to the Chicago Annenberg Project board to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[41] The two served together on a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[41] Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001."[40] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[41] Obama says he has not visited Ayers during the presidential campaign. The senator said in September 2008 that he hadn't "seen him in a year-and-a-half."[42] In February 2008, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement from the senator about the relationship between the two: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."[40] CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved.[43] Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship."[44]

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

McCain was cleared of all charges, Bill, FYI. If you have such an issue with members of the Keating Five, then how about John Glenn? After all, he was also a Keating Five member (found innocent as well, just as McCain was) and a big Obama supporter.

Boortz put it quite well in his comments this AM: Charles Keating was not KNOWN to be a corrupt businessman when his relationship with McCain began. Bill Ayers WAS known to be a terrorist when his relationship with Obama began. If you buddy up with someone who later turns out to be a crook, that's one thing. If you begin an association with someone known to already be a crook – in this case a terrorist – that's quite another. Come on, folks. This stuff is so easy. The truth is that the best friend Barack Obama has out there is not a terrorist but is an uninformed celebrity-worshipping electorate.

Which one IS the convicted felon?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Would you vote for Bill Ayers for President?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Would you vote for Bill Ayers for President?

Depends. Would he be running against Charles Keating?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Would you vote for Bill Ayers for President?

Is he a candidate?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Is he a candidate?

No, but neither is Keating.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Is he a candidate?

No, but neither is Keating.

Ding ding ding.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is he a candidate?

No, but neither is Keating.

Ding ding ding.

More like drip, drip, drip.
("Oh yeah? well, neither is Rev. Wright...."")

[Ron 7]

Yes, but Bill started a thread about Keating for President.

So, it is only fair to ask the same type of question to him about someone else in the same relational position to the primary candidate.

And if you notice...I asked Bill.

I think both were silly questions, but fair is fair IMO.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[misskriss 0]

Quote

The truth is that the best friend Barack Obama has out there is not a terrorist but is an uninformed celebrity-worshipping electorate.

[billvon 2,400]

>No, but neither is Keating.

Ding ding ding! Yes, you are correct, and have figured out the point behind my post.

[Ron 7]

Quote

>No, but neither is Keating.

Ding ding ding! Yes, you are correct, and have figured out the point behind my post.

If you mean your point was to post partisan crap...Yep, but I already knew that before your post.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,400]

>If you mean your point was to post partisan crap . . .

Yep. "Would you vote for Ayers" is as much partisan crap as "would you vote for Keating." You got it.

[Ron 7]

Yes, but to ask you a question related, or opposite, to your post is perfectly logical.

Your post was nothing but partisan crap.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,400]

>Yes, but to ask you a question related, or opposite, to your post is perfectly logical.

Correct. Which is why I replied to Piper17's post by posting the opposite question.

>Your post was nothing but partisan crap.

Again, now you've got it. Both questions were stupid. Neither Ayers nor Keating are running, so the questions are meaningless. Glad you can see the light! It means you're not quite as partisan as many people here.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Glad you can see the light! It means you're not quite as partisan as many people here.

And it shows that you are as partisan as many in here.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Yes, but to ask you a question related, or opposite, to your post is perfectly logical.

Correct. Which is why I replied to Piper17's post by posting the opposite question.

>Your post was nothing but partisan crap.

Again, now you've got it. Both questions were stupid. Neither Ayers nor Keating are running, so the questions are meaningless. Glad you can see the light! It means you're not quite as partisan as many people here.

lets just say for arguments sake that Obama does have some to all of the values of Ayers, reznick, the rev wright, and acorn.lets also say he has covered hos true agenda as best as possible to get elected. the swing is to the dem's right now and they will poss have a 60 senator vote in the senate (fillabuster proof majority)and a majority in the house. if Obama is leaning to the corrupt side this whole situation would be a dissaster for us. a radical as president and the power in congress to make any changes he wants would lead us to a very bad future and a government that would be uncontrolable. the whole idea of the way our government was set up was to never let one faction be in complete control, and until now no side has ever had 100% control. we are leaning towards a very dangerous and uncontrolable situation in the gov that we may not be able to fix. not even when the rep's held the majority in congress did they have total control nor did i want them to have it. vever before have we had the media so one sided to one candidate. this situtation has disaster wrote all over it. we are real close to being the USSR(united states socialist republic) and not the USA.

i think any president needs to have their backround checked and double checked, but even more so because of Obama's ties to radicals and the power he may have with a dem controled congress with a fillabuster proof senate.

where will the balance be and how will we as americans control it or fix it if it becomes the monster it is looking like it can become?

[billvon 2,400]

>And it shows that you are as partisan as many in here.

I take it back - you did completely miss the point. Ah well. Back to your Obama-bashing, I suppose.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I take it back - you did completely miss the point. Ah well. Back to your Obama-bashing, I suppose.

I don't care what you personally think. I didn't miss the point at all.

You post partisan crap and when called on it claim that there was some deeper secret message. That might explain THIS post (although not really). But that does not explain your post history.

On the environment you are very logical.

On economics logical, but with a clear lean.

With politics you are pure partisan.

Please don't attempt to claim you are not....Might as well piss on my leg and try to tell me it is raining.

And...Show a pure Obama bash from me. Go ahead, prove your point if you can.

I could pull up pages of your Bush bashing's.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334