Obama launches site about McCain's Keating Five involvement

A documentary style ad:
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/


Short web ad:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...TqSIeDL5XeqAO3ufGWCw&q=obama+keating+ad&vt=lf


Article about the ad and site:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...-mccains-involvement-in-keating-five-scandal/


Well, it's October and it's getting predictably nasty. It's a shame I'm reduced to using language of a five year old when talking about Presidential politics, but McCain started it.

 

That he did, it however is sickening from both sides.

Use attack ads, simply make them honest. Obama's ads are getting worse and worse as the time marches on. Sure you almost can't blame him, McCain's are nasty as fuck, filled with lies that his supporters eat up. I however can't give Obama a pass when he gets almost as nasty.

 

He doesn't have a choice. Because negative ads are proven to work, just letting the other guy beat the hell out of you with them is suicide.

 

I do understand that, I've said as much in the past

I just so wish we could have 'truth' when it comes to campaigns and politicians in general.

I am not voting for or supporting either, so it's easier for me to say I can't and don't give him a pass.

 

I was wondering if and when Obama might start advertising on this issue.

As mentioned elsewhere I worked specifically with S&L's back during this period, was involved in the burgeoning S&L loan business through my commercial real estate work, and followed this topic when it occurred and attracted news and exposure during that period.

5 members of Congress were investigated; 4 democrats and 1 republican, McCain. Some were more vigorously addressed for their activities, some less so. McCain and Senator John Glenn were less vigorously addressed as their relationships with Keating the head of Lincoln.

McCain may have had the closest personal relationship with Keating and like the others received money from him for his campaigns. McCain also rebuked Keating and refused to continue to support him once it became obvious that Keating was trying to use favors to keep the Federal Home Loan Board off his case. On the other hand, McCain had close ties that included traveling on Keating's jet, traveling with him, and his wife's family directly invested in a Lincoln property deal.

McCain both lived to regret this relationship and acknowledged that. He also claimed that he was made a scapegoat, in that without his being involved in the investigation it would have been only focused on dems.

The involvement in this case probably had something to do with McCain's efforts at campaign reform in co-sponsoring the McCain Feingold bill that tried to directly address campaign funding and more directly campaign funding by big money interests. Republicans hate that bill, but McCain got personally involved in the messes it creates and saw campaign funding as a problem for politics.

Today, regardless of their claims both candidates and all candidates have connections to big money lobbiests and big money from special interests. The system continues to promote it.

Frankly IMHO they should remove private money from campaigns. It leads to insidious relationships between voting members of Congress and the administration and the groups that fund their ongoing races.

Big money buys votes and bills in Congress. Its grotesque.

 

Welcome to Politics.

Peace,

 

Really? How exactly?

 

McCain started with the negative ads and has taken them to new lows, which Obama is forced to follow. The first negative was probably the "celebrity" ad. Then the "obama is a pervert that wants to teach your kids about sex" ad.

Obama didn't want a negative campaign. His whole campaign has basically been based on something that's sort of like one of those dramatic "slow-clap" scenes from a Hollywood movie. The more negative he gets, the more his message of hope and politics of change is diminished. He's been forced to hit back, so he is. This isn't the campaign that he wants or one that particularly benefits him, but he has to do it.

 

Can you be any more specific? Both ads were not negative. They both focused on realities. How is that negative? Can you cite something specific that was negative in either ad?

I'd have to say that that is completely untrue. Almost every ad Obama has put out has been negative. The negativity I found in them was exemplified by the inaccuracies and half truths told.

And I'm not talking about McCain here.. I'm talking about the negative ads he started running back in December of last year against Hillary.

Look, this guy is the king of negativity. He's spent his life following the Saul Alinsky method of annoyance into submission. He's an agitator. Nothing more negative than that...

 

McCain's ads were based on 'realities' excuse me while I die laughing.

http://www.factcheck.org is needed by some I see.

 

Well, the celebrity ad was basically not about issues but apparently just intended to mock Obama. The sex-ed ad was just sensational and untruthful enough that even Rove said it didn't pass the truth test.

I'd have to say that this is completely untrue. Hillary started the negative campaign as well.

This slow clap compilation is a pretty good illustration of the type of campaign that Obama would like to run:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTiJEYqqY8

Calling McCain nuts would be more negative.

 

I am an Obama supporter, so I may be biased, but his ads seem to be defense, more than offense. If he says McCain voted more times to raise taxes, he at least is telling easily checked facts.
Launching a website detailing John McCains role in the Keating 5, and that he was reprimanded and made to pay back money that he took, may be dirty, but it actually happened !

Obama seems to be using McCains own words against him, and he has 20 years of them to use.

This website is sheer brilliance though. nice touch.

If it's got to be dirty, at least use the one medium that McCain and his campaign seem to be the least comfortable with, and have the least amount of leverage. It seems at times a simple Google check would have steered them away from some of the blunders, yet it seems as if no one in that campagin can even use the internet.

Obama has been using tech since the beginning. McCain's campaign is severely behind the times, running a Regan style campaign.

 

^ If this is the extent of the intelligence of the average Obama supporter, God help us!

 

but he tis rite - dem mckayn sup'erters kant yous da internets cause dey is 2 stupit

 

When it comes to dirty fighting in elections, the rabid Republicans are the nastiest. and McCain is no exception. It's good to see that Obama is not going to let himself get "swiftboated" the way Kerry did in 2004, or the way Dukakis let himself be blindsided with the Willie Horton ads in 1988. For the first time in decades, the Democrats are not letting themselves be forced into a defensive campaign.

 

How can one paragraphed opinion be the extent of anything ? If you look at one paragraph by one person and attempt to make it the opinion of a few million other people whom you don't know, or will ever meet...then God help you

Who cares about the supporters, I am talking about the lobbyist running his campaign. They seem to have no idea that everything out of their mouth is easily refuted in seconds online, yet they still keep flapping their gums as if people have to wait for next weeks newspaper to come out to double check the validity of their statements.

By the time anything comes out of their mouths, there are 20 reporters, bloggers and newscasters refuting it and posting the truth, or documented facts. They are wasting fuel flying around the country making speeches with rhetoric, just to have the media correct their statement, and point out the flaws or mistruths before they even get on the plane to depart.

Research is not their strong point, propaganda is. This is not the 50's, and Regan and McCarthy are dead.

IT does seem as if the timing of the launch of the website threw McCain off of his game tonight in the debates. He seemed a little pissed off, short, and staggered a little when Obama put up specifics...McCain just spouted general talking points.

McCain kept saying things like, "we know how to fix this" and "we know hot to find that" but offered no specifics, or even hints.

He even said, "We know how to fix social security..", and I am sure the whole country said, "Then what the hell have you been waiting for all these years, and why did you vote to privatize it...if that had passed, it would be gone right now with the stock market. Finished."

He even said, "I know how to find Bin Laden.."...Well, what the f*ck is he waiting for?

 

McInsane has totally lost it! Pretty much the debate tonight proves that this man suffers from dementia. He acted as if we was speaking to a crowd of preschoolers for God's sake. If he says that fixing social security is easy, so is finding Osama and fixing the economy, then what the f**k!!! Wave the damn magic wand then and save the world. He is done, toast! Obama owned him tonight and the polls will show it tomorrow.

 

I never understood how this was declared a lie. Here is the text of the law in question.

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."

This text comes directly from the law. So as crazy as it sounds and as much as you might enjoy calling him a liar again, what he says is true.

Source

I've seen the factcheck.org site and as unbelievable as it might sound, it appears that they did not see this, so what's the deal?

 

Wait so is the average Obama supporter a Georgetown, college educated, wine sipping elitist or are they morons who can't spell?

Look your candidate is erratic and all over the place. That doesn't mean you have to be

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
........................