I guess it depends on how high or low you want to set the bar for corruption and hypocrisy.

 

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.)

Is John McCain a Crook?

IMO, the measuring stick for corruption in public office should not be indictments and expulsions from office.

 

Not much, really - it just fits my impression of McCain as a relentless opportunist who will use anyone and anything to further his career.

No, I do not believe that McCain-Feingold is better than what we had. Campaign spending immediately exploded in the first national election cycle following the enactment of the law. IMO, the conservative position is to err on the side of free speech and require full disclosure of political contributions without the spending limits. Incumbent politicians have always crafted "reform" laws that make it more difficult for challengers to unseat them and I do not expect that will ever change.

What do you consider to be a "moderate" Democrat? There are very few (if any) left in the US Senate. There are a few in the House, but gerrymandering has decimated the ranks of moderates in this country. There is not much middle ground left.

 

If you think McCain is already a little bit too liberal on a few issues now, I believe that you would be amazed at how fast and far he could move to his left to work with a Democratic Congress.

 

Interesting article that you linked to in re the Keating Five investigation.

 

But here's another, perhaps even more interesting, part of that same article that folks might enjoy reading:

 

"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."

 

 

 

As the S&L crisis broke and it was being reported that little old grandmas and grandpas lost every thing they had deposited in the S&Ls, politicians got all swept up in the situation. By golly, they clamored, something was going to have to be done to see that this never happened again and someone was going have to pay. In the frenzy for Congress to protect us all, be do gooders and maybe get their name in the newspapers and make it on TV every day as the protectors of the little people, the investigation was launched and by golly (again) no matter the recommendation of the special counsel, the Congress was going to find these Senators guilty of something so the rest of the Senators could go home to their districts and say "and what a good boy am I".

 

McCain did the horrendous thing of attending two meetings with regulators on behalf of a supporter, friend and constitutient but did nothing else to influence the regulators and at the second meeting told the regulators that he wouldn't want any special favors for Keating. If your bar for corruption is set that high, I've got a feeling that there aren't many people that can get over it. I guess I can't either, as I've called my Senators and Congresspeople from time to time and asked them to help out my clients (some of which have politically supported them) with requests like "can you see if anything can be done to expedite an immigration visa or at least find out what's holding it up" which I don't consider wrong. Heck, that's a part of representing us to the federal govt isn't it? Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that because my clients and I

 

 

As for the MF issue, at least this conservative doesn't agree with your opinion on what the conservative position is on political contributions. If you are worried about incumbents using the power of their incumbency to stay in office, remove all spending/contributing limits. They'll have to shoot their mothers to not get re elected.

 

At the end of the day, we'll just disagree on McCain. He's certainly too liberal for some far right conservatives. I can understand that and respect it. I only ask that people based their opinions and decisions on true information and in my opinion the Keating Five investigation was nothing but a witch hunt convened by Congress to make themselves look good. McCain as far as I can tell having done a lot of reading on the matter did nothing other than attend two meetings at the request of a business owner in his district whom had made political contributions to the Senator. I've got a feeling that EVERY member of the Senate had probably done the same thing previously. But because the S&L crisis then blew up, with folks showing up on the nightly news each evening talking about how old Charlie had lost and swindled all their money, the rules changed for the 5 senators and the Senate made them scapegoats.

 

Oh well, I have to walk the dogs and have rambled enough. Aces, I've enjoyed the discussion back and forth. You've been very respectful in your posts and points. I hope you feel the same towards mine and if you feel I've crossed the line, I apologize.

 

Who you supporting by the way?

Leatherneck,

 

I always enjoy reading your posts and have also enjoyed this little debate.

 

My opinion of McCain has been formed over years of watching him on the Sunday morning news talk shows like Meet the Press and nothing that he says during the current campaign will change that opinion.

 

I am currently leaning toward Romney although Huckabee's campaign has impressed me the most. Romney seems a little bit too polished to me but it seems like the Mormon "issue" has been the biggest one that opponents have found. He has been very successful in the business world and with saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, which impresses me more than any of the permanent politicians' resumes.

 

I like Huckabee, but he reminds me a little too much of Bill Clinton. He has a slickness factor that other candidates must envy.

 

Aside from not wanting to see McCain get the nomination, I really don't have a strong preference for a Republican candidate. I think that either a Romney/Huckabee or a Romney/Thompson ticket would be very formidable in the general campaign.