Is the Keating Five scandal off limits?

Last night, at an Obama town-hall event in Oregon, Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-Ore.) was rather candid in his criticism of John McCain, and broached a subject we generally hear very little about.

DeFazio, an Oregon superdelegate who endorsed Obama today and introduced him at the event, went on an extended critique of McCain, saying voters could not “underestimate the threat that John McCain poses in this election to our future.” DeFazio said McCain’s Straight Talk Express should be called the “trojan horse express.”

And then, DeFazio raised the Keating Five, a 1980s savings and loan scandal in which McCain was implicated. The Senate Ethics Committee later concluded that McCain used “poor judgment” in the matter.

“John McCain has already told us he doesn’t know much about economics,” DeFazio told the crowd of 3,000. “He says we need less regulation. Hello? Wall Street, mortgage meltdown, Bear Stears, taxpayer bailout, Enron. But I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five, and savings and loan scandal, less regulation is better for his friends. No, that is not good for the American people.”

After the event, an Obama spokesperson indicated that that the senator’s campaign had no intention of pushing the Keating Five scandal.

“There is more than enough space between Barack Obama and John McCain on the issues, whether it is tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or a timeline for bringing our troops home, and that is where we will focus our campaign,” Psaki said.

That sounds fine, but does the Keating Five controversy have to be off the table?

Yes, the scandal was a long time ago, and for those who were following politics closely in the mid-1980s, this probably appears to be well-tread ground.

But given McCain’s media-infused reputation as a reformer and champion of political propriety, his decisions in 1986 and 1987 seem to matter quite a bit today.

As William K. Black watches John McCain move toward the Republican presidential nomination, he thinks of a day 21 years ago that he considers one of the most troubling of his life.

Black, a senior federal savings and loan regulator at the time, attended a meeting at which he felt McCain and four other senators pressured federal regulators to back off from investigating the troubled Lincoln Savings and Loan.

“I remain very upset that what they did caused such damage,” said Black, now a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, recalling how Lincoln’s bankruptcy cost the government $3 billion. Moreover, he said he believes McCain intervened partly because his wife had invested money with Lincoln chairman Charles Keating, a campaign contributor who let the McCains use his home in the Bahamas.

The story of how the “Keating Five” senators allegedly pressured regulators to lay off a failing Arizona S&L became a major scandal, and marked a turning point in McCain’s life – the near-death of his political career followed by his eventual rebirth as a crusader for campaign finance reform.

The events of 1987, when McCain met with regulators, and 1991, when the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that he used “poor judgment” in the matter, are only dimly remembered by many.

But McCain’s emergence as the likely GOP nominee, combined with the rising volume of anti- lobbying rhetoric in the presidential campaign, has brought renewed attention to the Keating Five case, prompting questions about what McCain learned from it, what he’s accepted was wrong, and whether he now is stepping back from some of his own scrutiny of his past errors.

McCain has assured Americans that while contributors try to buy access, “The question is … do they have excess or unwarranted influence? And certainly no one ever has, in my conduct of my public life and conduct of my legislative agenda.”

This controversy shows otherwise.

Black, however, maintains that the Keating case was a textbook example of politicians, McCain among them, serving a major donor. And Dennis DeConcini, a former Democratic senator from Arizona and another of the Keating Five who hosted the key meeting in his office, said in an interview that McCain has gotten a relatively “free ride” even though DeConcini insists that McCain was the “most culpable” of the senators because he had the closest relationship with Keating.

If you’ve forgotten the details or need a refresher, this piece is a pretty good primer. Obama wants to take the high ground and steer clear of this humiliating part of McCain’s past, but if the media were anxious to be even-handed in their scrutiny of the candidates’ past, one would like to think the Keating Five scandal could draw at least as much attention as, say, the Rezko story, which appears utterly irrelevant by comparison.

It would be nice to hammer McCrazy over the Keating 5 business, but in the end, i think it could be counter-productive. Slimy as it was, the Keating 5 stuff is ancient history, and attacking Mccain’s MSM-granted iron-clad integrity would likely backfire. As Obama’s camp said, they can hit the GOP on issues. You don’t have to attack McCain’s character directly, just point out how he intends to continue the same catastrophic policies embraced by Bush. That says as much about Mccain as the voters need to know.

  • Obama can’t touch Keating; he would get rammed by the McMedia. But that doesn’t mean that WE can’t…

    I think the blogs have a responsibility to do all they can to keep this story and the many more like it in the public eye. Persistence pays off. The Parsley and Hagee stories are now FINALLY breaching the McMedia; I have no doubt that if we maintain pressure on Keating, the Tobacco flip-flop, etc… it will pay off in the end.

  • Just as there is no reason for the Obama campaign to overtly engage in the Keating rhetoric, it is equally reasonable for blogs, and those who contribute to those blogs, to form a “fifth column” against the status quo that is represented by Mr. McPhony.

    As with any war, this one—the Second American Revolution, fought to free the Republic of the tyranny of King George 43 and his designated heir apparent, the flip-flopping, two-faced Khrushchev look-alike—can be fought on more than one front, with more than one strategy and tactic, and with more than one weapon.

  • If public integrety is not an important issue in this campaign, I don’t know what is. And it’s certainly a point that distinguishes the two parties. The media may let McCain get away with saying it’s ancient history, but his phalanxes of lobbyists belie that nonsense. And The Keating Five, along with the Fort Ord deal, the ponderosa pine resort in Arizona, and the telecom deals prove a pattern.

  • just as an addendum: It’s the weight of the combination of scandals which will do McCain in, not the specifics of Keating or any other single scandal…

  • One could approach Hon. Sen. McCain obliquely, drawing a direct route from Keating/S&L to Enron to Bear Stearns/Mortgage disaster. What is the Senators judgement? I don’t know much, but I feel that further deregulation sounds good.

  • Obama will do what Obama wants to do but,
    the rest of us MAY mention it from time to time.

    We can only judge the true character of a man by his actions…
    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it…
    A snake shed it’s skin, but cannot change it’s spots…

    Bla. bla, bla…

  • Keating 5 is nowhere near as ‘ancient’ as Kerry’s war record, which was somehow fair game for discussion in the last round.

    I think it’s relevant for a number of reasons:

    Because of his wife’s investments with Keating, it makes it another argument for demanding disclosure of her tax info, highlighting McCain’s attempt to hide his financial life by putting it all in her name.

    Because it’s a prime example of how McCain’s opposition to tight and careful scrutiny of the financial industry leads to disaster, JUST LIKE BUSH.

    Because a lot of low-information voters won’t have heard about it, and it will tarnish his ‘maverick’ branding to be seen as a guy who arranged some back-room protection for some shady bankers, who just happened to lend him a place in the Bahamas.

    Because it allows someone to say, look, his judgment was that ‘poor’ in 1987. He’s now 21 years older. Are we supposed to think he’s gotten 21 years better, or 21 years more confused?

  • “That sounds fine, but does the Keating Five controversy have to be off the table?”

    Of course it does. If Obama won’t remove it, I’m sure Pelosi will.

  • It’s a long, long time until the election. Yes, McCain has had a mostly free ride from the press so far. But the attention span of the American public is very short – three months at most.

    Not to worry. There will be plenty of discussion about the Keating 5 scandal and McCain’s other deficiencies between now and election day. Everyone who is paying attention will know all about them, except of course for those who get their information solely from talk radio and Fox Propaganda. They weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.

    I would prefer that the Obama campaign stay away from bashing McCain, and keep focusing on policy differences. The present theme of the “third term” of the Bush presidency should be repeated endlessly.

  • Anicent history, my butt – this is an important part of mclame’s life on the public dole that needs to be scrutinized. Yes, it does undermine the lie that he is a “straight talker”.

    Which is exactly why it needs to be part of the dialog – only a fool would proclaim we can’t talk about it cuz the mainstream media has lied and told us mclame stands for integrity and the truth.

    Those that let the lying liars frame the debate are doomed to lose – mclame is promising to continue dur chimpfurher’s policies. America overwhelmingly does not support those policies. Now is the time to start an honest dialog and that includes talking about maclame’s integrity.

    As a side benefit – discussion the way mclame enabled the grandest theft of wealth in all of human history also indirectly brings up his age – a legitimate issue.

  • biggerbox – thanks for bringing up a clear, simple refutation. Simon and his ilk are not really here to share constructive ideas for undoing the mess that chimpy’s criminal cabal have created.

    It is patently nonsense to proclaim something is “too old” and we should only talk about the issues that the mainstream media wants to discuss (and then they lie about those facts too).

  • The Keating Five is relevant in relation to Cindy McCain’s tax returns as per biggerbox. If it is true (and I suspect it was) that she invested in that crap S&L then what other policy clusterfucks is McCain going to get into because of it? Of course, considering that Teresa Heinz was hounded, I think the Repubs need a good taste of their own bile.

  • This has always been my fear about Obama’s too-nice-for-politics approach to both campaigning and governing.

    There is absolutely no reason Keating should be off the table. Had Nixon run for President again 20 years after Watergate would we say “hey, that was a long time ago; lets just talk policy differences”? Of course not. Some violations of the public trust in office are always relevant and arguably disqualifying.

    Moreover, aged or not, the Keating Five scandal and its broader S&L meltdown context are hugely relevant: we are in the middle of a similar wave of greed-fueled financial market failures today. (Of course, to the Republicans, this likely is a plus for McCain – he has relevant experience!)

    And my final argument is, um, WTF? Why would we take anything off the table? Does anyone really believe the R’s will? These guys slandered war heros like Kerry and Cleland, racially slimed decent honest guys like Dukakis and Gantt, and beat Gore by selling stupidity as a virtue and sense as a vice. They give immunity to rapists that happen to be military contractors, out CIA agents, destroy all checks and balances in government, quadruple the debt, kill literally tens of thousands of people (ours and others). . . and they should be shown any mercy at all? Again, WTF? Crush the SOBs.

  • No, he has not changed. Just this last week I read multiple stories of his part in sweet land deals in Arizona for campaign contributions. Hammer this stuff in ads over and over and over. It should resonate. It will annoy the RNC. It might even make McGrandpa have one of those explosive episodes he is so famous for.

  • Keating Five along screwed over a lot of folks and they have given McCain a pass because he is a “war hero” supposedly. That means he can slide on every slimey deal he’s been involved with I guess. Too bad he doesn’t give the same respect to the war heros coming home in bags or pieces now. He is a total hypocrite.

  • Why didn’t the Bush camapaign in 2000 bring up the Keating 5 in the primaries? ‘Cause it’s standard republican behaviour that is.

  • Don’t expect the msm to bring it up – they never questioned the legitimacy of our AWOL alcoholic/cocaine-addicted “war president.” They are not going to start now.

    We will need to bring it up, but we can’t until shillary drops her hopeless and negative campaign – pretty hard to get focused on issues with mclame when clinton is running the most racist campaign since george wallace.

  • I disagree with Obama about the general election. I don’t think it should be about the issues, nor should it be sold as a ‘one-on-one’ competition. The distinction between him and McCain in terms of policies will be made clear pretty quickly. Obama needs to get on the good side of Hillary’s base, and then, I think, the only relevant issue is that Republicans as a group have screwed everything up so royally in such massive solidarity that they can’t be trusted anymore, individually or as a group. I would like to see the democrats launch a series of ads showcasing all sorts of overlooked Republican scandals (one per ad, perhaps numbered for effect), followed by “You never heard much about this? Well, apparently our corporate media believes that ‘It’s OK If You’re A Republican’. Enough of this nonsense, it’s not okay if you’re a Republican. Take back our country, clean up Washington, sweep out the Republicans. Vote Democratic in November.”

    I think the public is ready for a sea change, but we need to help it along.

  • Something to keep in mind: Four of the Keating Five were Democrats. McCain was the only Republican involved. Maybe its not such a good idea to dig up ancient history….

  • “Simon and his ilk are not really here to share constructive ideas”

    Hey!! What’s that supposed to mean?? Me and “my ilk” just want to see Obama win in November. All i’m saying is that the MSM has already given Mccain a free pass on Keating 5 (along with his assorted personal failures). I’ve seen crap on CNN that tries to paint Mccain as being deeply sorry for the Keating mess, and claimed that he’s tried to “atone” for it by pushing for campaign finance reform. Look, we all know Mccain is the crummiest candidate the GOP has offered since…well…Bush, all I’m saying is that because McCrazy enjoys such affection from the media, Obama needs to pick his path of attack very carefully.

  • The Keating Five should not be a footnote, but a major element in any Obama campaign. So what if the other four were Democrats: most of them were useless anyway (with John Glenn the exception). Judgment may be the most important character trait for a President–and McCain has already proven he has none.

  • In ’87 he was pressuring regulators to lay off their investigation of bankers who were doing deals with his wife, who helps fund his campaigns.

    In 2008, he appointed a man who took money to lobby on behalf of the vile thugs of Myanmar, to run the GOP convention.

    I think that answers my earlier question about whether he’s 21 years better, or just 21 years more ‘confused’.

    (Way to run a campaign, guys. Didn’t they have some underling on the Straight Talk Express who had the job of asking Doug Goodyear, “Sorry I have to ask this, sir, but has your lobbying firm ever worked for any client who might be, well, controversial? Anyone who, for example, keeps Nobel Laureates under house arrest, or any international pariahs?” Guess not.

  • Forget the Keating Five – let’s put “The Forrestfire” on the table (the name the incident has in informal Navy history) – the day Mr. Certified American Hero did more damage to the U.S. Navy in 5 minutes than the North Vietnamese accomplished in 10 years – and got a pass for his incompetence and immaturity for being the son and grandson of Admirals. I’m sure out of a crew of 4,500 at that time, that there must be 100 Forrestal crewemen who wouldn’t mind talking about that one. This one beats anything Georgie Porgie ever did.

  • I have a request…please wait until McCasket becomes the official nominee before discussing all these topics. I still get a sense that he’s not going to be the gop standard bearer.

  • Tom C – we need some credible source to validate that story.
    Maybe we can find some sailors from the Forrestal from that time that will explain what happened.
    C’mon Bloggers, this is a big one, can we open a big can of campaign-killing truth on Gigolo John McBush?

  • Weren’t there favors done for the media company represented by lobbyist Vicki Iseman that everyone’s forgotten about around the turn of the millenium as well?
    Like “McCain has learned nothing from his experience in the ‘keating 5’ scandal and just went back to helping out his lobbyist friends with undue influence while crowing on about how he has atoned for his youthful indiscretions”
    thought i heard something to that effect a few months ago anyway.

  • The Keating corruption is “old news” but John Kerry’s service record in Vietnam wasn’t?
    IOKIYAAR.

  • If McCain thinks that Hamas “endorsing” Obama is legitimate, then McCain interceding on behalf of campaign contributors is fair game. If “poor judgement” isn’t relevant, then what is?

  • Of course the Keating Five is not off limits. It reflects on who McCain is and who his chosen political alliles are and were.

  • The Keating scandal simply tells me that McCain has shown poor judgement in the past. It IS a character issue. That misstep wreaked havoc on the economy and nearly destroyed the confidence that Americans had in the banking industry. Presently, the mortgage problems are similar. It comes from lack of regulation. It shows “poor judgement” (read corruption). McCain may give this issue lip service but, if elected, nothing will be done. The American dream will be dashed and we will be relegated to the ash heap along with other working poor.

  • You know, the Main Stream Media and the Elite Bloggers in the Blogoshere have been jacking their jaws so much that no one is really thinking. You remember thinking don’t you?

    (I read very few blogs regularly because of the aftertaste of the Ego ingredient in them. This blog has so far been one of the few exceptions. )

    A Poster on the gossip rag Huffington Post made a presient observation, the Democrat Party has a largely unknown black man a head of their national ticket.

    That candidate did not get to that position by accident. He got there because he is a smart, diciplined, organized person, with a vision. He is pretty much right where he planned to be at the begining of the campaign.

    The reality is that so is Hillary. Her problem is that she did not plan for after February. Bush did not plan for post invasion Iraq.

    There is a lot said about experience in this race. Apparently in the 45 years he has been alive he has had enough experience to learn to plan and know that a gas tax holiday is a bad idea. I tell my kids that experience is important but a person who has done things wrong all their life still has experience at doing things wrong. It is not the experience you have but what that experience is and what you do with it.

    I about to accept the idea that Obama knows what he is doing. It has been so long that we have had someone like that it took me a while to see it.

    If judgement and experience are going to be the standards we are going to be asked to use for the next president then, the Saving and Loan debacle is fair game as it directly addresses one of those criteria. If one sets a standard, then one needs to be able to live up to it.

    Race is going to be a tough issue for Obama, but it is one that needs to be addressed now and I would rather loose with Obama that win with just about anyone else.

  • Speaking as an anti-democrat, the answer to the question: “Is the Keating Five scandal off limits?” is NO. The Keating Five scandal is as much a relevant part of Senator McCain’s public record as is Barack Obama’s public association with Bill Ayers.

  • let’s go then….and be careful what you wish for. the keating 5 really is old news. bill ayers, the good reverand, partial birth abortion votes, guns to defend your family….these are all new and wide open for discussion. live and grow in chicago style politics and die by the same.

  • I agree with Reed. Nothing that speaks to the character and judgment of a candidate should be off limits. This includes Keating Five… and all of Obama’s questionable associations.

    In our rush to “undo” the past eight years, we are on the verge of making a terrible, terrible mistake if we elect Obama.

  • Of course Keating is on the table just as Obama’s Rezko involvement and his failure to speak out about the dirtiness of Chicago poitics.

  • Great site!

    Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 70 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP and Congressional Leaders!!
    http://netradionetwork.com

  • If McCain is going to try to “swift boat” Obama, then the answer is clear.

    With McCain being a Repub. the gloves can come off, to a point.

  • In a word, No.

    McCain has indicated that no issue deemed worthy of discussion by the American people is off-limits, so by that standard alone, the answer is no – the Keating Five scandal should not be off-limits.

    McCain himself uses the events of Keating Five to underscore his supposed commitment in subsequent years to better ethics and financial transparency in politics.

    The Keating Five scandal happened over 20 years ago, but let’s not forget: McCain was an elected official at the time – a U.S. Senator with powerful “friends” in Washington. His “good friends,” (who happened to be among his most powerful AZ supporters and major financial backers) abused and misused their power, which resulted in staggering financial losses of millions of taxpayers’ investments & savings, which triggered federal criminal investigations. As their Senator and “good friend,” McCain interceded – made some calls – on their behalf. The resulting bailout of the savings & loan industry bilked the American treasury of hundreds of millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. McCain says “oops, it was an honest mistake; I’ve learned my lesson.”

    Since then, other “friends” of McCain have been the beneficiaries of government largesse over the years, yet his help from his powerful position in Washington isn’t questioned?

    We’re supposed to accept at face value that McCain is above any quid pro quo because he says so, because he says he only rides on the straight-talk express?

    Now Congressman DeFazio says wait a minute, let’s verify his claims of being a straight-talker that only takes the ethical high road.

    What’s wrong with that?

    Given recent events in the financial/banking world, is it wrong to consider McCain’s subsequent judgment and his agreement with Bush/Republican anti-regulatory policies, in particular?

    What really gets me is that McCain’s real, ACTUAL involvement in the Keating Five crimes, which actually harmed taxpayers, is somehow not relevant; but based on pure fantasy, Republicans want to tar & feather Obama because a former supporter is on trial for corruption involving downstate Illinois politicians – no matter that Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged charges – it’s never even been suggested?

    I just don’t get that at all.

    Why anyone can’t see the double standard and hypocrisy in that is beyond comprehension.

  • I don’t care about what Obama says. I only care about what he does.

    If he genuinely takes a “my opponent’s economic ignorance, bad judgment, and lack of integrity are off the table” approach, he might as well pack it in now. I suspect that he’s a little savvier. But, who knows? He’s certainly had his ass handed to him by McCain in the past.

  • Comments are closed.