LA Times ignored McCain's alleged role in Keating Five scandal
SUMMARY: In an article about Sen. John McCain's early political career, the Los Angeles Times' Richard A. Serrano described Charles H. Keating Jr. as "[a]nother influential friend" who "raised more than $100,000 for McCain." Serrano noted that Keating eventually went to prison for his role in a savings and loan scandal, but did not mention McCain's own alleged involvement in the scandal, or that Keating's relationship to McCain reportedly extended beyond simply raising money for his congressional campaigns.
In a May 30 Los Angeles Times article about Sen. John McCain's early political career, staff writer Richard A. Serrano wrote that "[a]nother influential friend [of McCain] was financier Charles H. Keating Jr. The Phoenix resident raised more than $100,000 for McCain. (Keating went to prison in the 1990s for his role in the failure of Lincoln Savings & Loan.)" Yet while noting Keating's role in the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal, the Times ignored McCain's own alleged involvement; a Senate Ethics Committee investigated allegations that McCain -- along with four Democratic senators, together called the Keating Five -- had exerted improper influence when he met with federal bank regulators on behalf of Keating. The committee found that while McCain didn't break any rules, he "exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators."
Moreover, contrary to the Times' suggestion, Keating was not simply a fundraiser for McCain. As The New York Times noted, Keating "gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall." In a November 15, 1990, article (accessed via the Nexis database), the Los Angeles Times itself noted Keating's close relationship with McCain, stating that McCain took "nine trips to the Bahamas on Keating's plane before he was elected to the Senate in 1986. He and his wife stayed at Keating's vacation home during three of the trips and his wife invested money in a Keating venture."
Similarly, in a March 1, 2007, article about the Keating Five, The Arizona Republic reported that while during the investigation of the Keating affair, McCain "had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent. ... Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain." From the March 2007 article:
He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.
Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.
On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.
When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.
"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.
"That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot," McCain said later in the same conversation. "You do understand English, don't you?"
He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife's ties to Keating.
"It's up to you to find that out, kids."
The paper ran the story.
The Republic further reported that McCain admitted in 2002 to having exhibited "ridiculously immature behavior" during the 1989 interview with the Republic, and that shortly after the Republic interview, McCain acknowledged that he "said he should have reimbursed Keating immediately, not waited several years."
Additionally, in the May 30 Los Angeles Times article, Serrano wrote that during McCain's 1982 race for a U.S. House of Representatives seat, McCain's father-in-law, James Hensley, "put him on the payroll as a public relations man for the statewide beer distributorship, giving him the opportunity to meet business executives and gain access to fundraiser lists -- crucial for a political novice." However, Serrano didn't note that Hensley and his business associates reportedly did more than simply give McCain a job with access. The Associated Press reported on April 4:
Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 race for the House of Representatives, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.
Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much money that the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. His campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.
The AP article added, "The [McCain] campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses."
From the May 30 Los Angeles Times article:
Colleagues recall how he [McCain] ignored the searing desert heat -- and the risk of skin cancer -- as he campaigned, refusing to wear a hat or tote an umbrella to ward off the sun. His knuckles rapped on 15,000 or so doors that summer. "Let's go hit the bricks!" he liked to say.
It was by no means a solo effort.
His father-in-law put him on the payroll as a public relations man for the statewide beer distributorship, giving him the opportunity to meet business executives and gain access to fundraiser lists -- crucial for a political novice.
McCain also leaned on his Washington connections, old friends such as Sens. William S. Cohen (R-Maine), Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and John G. Tower (R-Texas), his political mentor. All were important in securing endorsements for McCain.
Most fortuitous of all was the fact that the veteran Republican officeholder in the Phoenix area, Rep. John J. Rhodes, had decided to retire -- leaving the 1st Congressional District wide open.
[...]
The candidate also was aided by his friendship with Arizona Republic Publisher Darrow "Duke" Tully, who touted himself as a war hero and was eager to spread McCain's story across his pages. The two were so close that Tully was named godfather to John and Cindy McCain's first child.
(Tully resigned from the paper after it was learned that he had fabricated his war achievements; it turned out he had never served in the military.)
Another influential friend was financier Charles H. Keating Jr. The Phoenix resident raised more than $100,000 for McCain. (Keating went to prison in the 1990s for his role in the failure of Lincoln Savings & Loan.)
"John McCain had some pretty powerful friends at that time," said Donna Carlson, a state legislator and one of the three Republicans who squared off against him in the 1982 primary.
Carlson had moved to the Phoenix area about 15 years before McCain and worked to build her Arizona resume. She was a county committeewoman and a state representative. Before that she headed a local GOP women's group. When Rhodes stepped down, she figured it was her turn to move up. Two other candidates jumped in, which threatened to split the important Mormon vote.















Robert Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him."
Since there really was no political motive to try and smear McCain, (as MMFA is attempting to do here by association,) the LATimes saw no need to mention the Keating Five.
BTW, only one, Alan Cranston (D) was censured for interfering with the FHLBB's investigation into Keating. of the other four: The Ethics committe concluded that DeConcini's(D) and Riegle's (D) conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB's enforcement efforts and that they had interfered at the behest of Charles Keating. The committee concluded that the involvement by Glenn (D) and McCain(R) was minimal.
ooops. This came from Wikopedia
I have used wiki many times. I have no problem with it.
Of course, there is some valid criticism of it. Each article should stand on its own as to how well cited it is and any allegations of bias. Simply deriding it as "wikipedia" is not sufficient enough a criticism in my book.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators.
McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulator.
After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators maintained they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices.
Minimally involved...that says it all. Sort of like a little bit pregnant.
Print it, shout it out and let the people decide. Of course, a little twisting, embellishment and adding yeast to the story is acceptable. I am sure that my Conservative and Republan friends wouldn't mind since they do it all the time.
P.S. The D's invovled got what they deserved.
I largely agree that there is nothing to see here. The problem is that there is much less connecting Obama to any of Ayers' activities yet you were all over that story - making implications and exaggerations of their supposed relationship. You are just another hypocrite as far as I am concerned.
If you were able to hold some rational argument as to why I shouldn't worry about Obama's relationship to Ayers seeing as how Obama started his political career in Ayer's House you might have a point. I know the fact that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist bomber means little to you.
Also if you were to go to the trouble to actually list what it was that Sen. McCain actually did that was illegal you might have a point.
Since you did neither please forgive me if I am nonplussed by your opinion of me.
The benefit of the doubt in the face of insufficient evidence used to be considered rational. I have given it to McCain as you have on the Keating Scandal, but for some apparently irrational reason, you will not give it to Obama with regards to the flimsy argument about Ayers.
Even the Politico author admitted there is no reason at all to assume Obama and Ayers are anything more than casual acquaintences - yet you have gone well past that in your arguments. You are a hypocrite.
I stand by my original post.
Nice work here by Media Matters,
The American people need to know The Real John McCain. And here it is. A very wealthy and privileged elitist, more than willing to go to bat for his wealthy friends.
Some "reformer." Some "straight-talk."
If my memory serves,
It was the day after McCain called the reporter a liar for simply asking a question--and then came completely unhinged-- that he had an altercation with his wife that turned very bizarre and ugly.
"At least I don't pile on the makeup like a trollop, you ****," he said to his wife.
Why aren't the media reporting this? The American people need to know how McCain talks to his wife? It says something I think about his sense of entitlement.
Hannity said the other day essentially that the candidates' wives aren't off limits (he actually asked who Obama thinks he is for telling people to lay off his wife). I wonder what Hannity's tune will be when/if Cindy McCain (and her apparent flaws/weaknesses) is ever brought into the discussion.
Personally, I don't think any family members are "fair-game". It pretty much disgusts me to bring them up at all.
-- Keating was not simply a fundraiser -- mmfa
Then mmfa reports that the ethics committee sighted McCain for using poor judgement.
Good enough...nothing wrong with that. But here's the kicker. mmfa thinks this is entirely within the ethical realm to report about McCain...but similar criticism of Obama is not?
Rev. Wright was not simply Obama's pastor...spiritual advisor, moral compass, baptisms and wedding vows...and Obama used poor judgement in accepting his endorsement.
Both issues are in bounds or they're not...but you can stop with the sanctimonious campaigning while masquerading as a media watchdog.
Come on Wesley,
Obama never accepted Rev. Wright's endorsement.
It was McCain who accepted the endorsements: Rev. Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsely. Two reprehensible, anti-Christian hate preachers.
McCain needs to explain why he sought out the endorsement of these hate preachers? The American people want to know about this!!!!
Matt Taibbi has a great article about Rev. Hagee's church entitled "Jesus made me puke"
Me, personally, I think most pastors are nutty, but then again, I'm not a Christian. At least not in the sense of the modern day Christian.
mmfa thinks this is entirely within the ethical realm to report about McCain...but similar criticism of Obama is not?
Oh...do you mean that Obama has helped a crooked S & L owner dodge federal regulation so said owner could drive his S & L into the ground with illegal and unethical practices, by the way wiping out the savings of thousand of people and setting off the S & L crisis of the 1980s which effectively wiped out most of the industry? I'm sure you have details, Wes...
Lefty, Enough with the facts. you want to drive people away. Come on now, be realistic. McCain was just helping a guy he knew stay out of jail. Not to mention some of his wifes' money was floating around. Enough already.
Remember, McBush was a POW
"Both issues are in bounds or they're not..."
That's a matter of opinion, Wesley.If you feel that the opinions of a candidates former clergyman are comparable in newsworthiness to a candidates actual involvement in criminal activity, or connection to convicted criminals, I won't try to talk you out of it.
In fact, I would encourage you to start a website that promotes that viewpoint.
This site is probably geared less to that mindset, and more to a reality based one.
"Both issues are in bounds or they're not..."--wesley
Well the media has already established that Rev. Wright is "in bounds" repeatedly. Why can't MMFA simply expect the media to adhere to the simple standard that Wesley has stated so succinctly?
Rev. Wright was not simply Obama's pastor...spiritual advisor, moral compass, baptisms and wedding vows...and Obama used poor judgement in accepting his endorsement.
Rev. Wright NEVER endorsed Obama, however McCain spent a year trying to win Hagee's endorsement and NEVER bothered to find out what Hagee preached about.
If Obama lacks judgement regarding Rev. Wright, McCain's lack of judgement is off the charts. McCain sought support from a preacher that he said he admired and respected but NEVER bothered to find out exactly what Hagee preached about? "Bring a Slave Home day at the church" "Katrina was God anger at gays" "God sent Hitler to make sure the Jews went to Israel", "The Catholic church is a whore" ANY man who takes the time to win the endorsement of a preacher who thinks these kinds of sermons are perfectly acceptable doesn't have the judgement to run a lemonade stand.
McCain didn't have to sit in church to know about Hagee, he simply had to get up off his lazy butt and do a little research.
Pearlene,
While I don't agree with Hagee at all, it is obvious that he filters everything through the old testament and believe's God literally has a hand in all events here on Earth.
Again while I don't agree with Hagge, his reference to Katrina being caused by a gay pride parade is really not any different than saying Katrina was caused by global warming. There is no proof of either.
Haqgee's comment about the Nazi's and the Jews only is his weird opinion that God works in mysterious ways to bring about the creation of Israel.
Speaking of research you are not quite accurate with Hagee's quote regarding the Catholic Church. Do you have any particular quote where Haggee said the Catholic Church was a hoar?
I couldn't disagree with Haggee more regarding his interpretation of the Bible and current events. I couldn't disagree with him more about the Catholic Church, (I am a Catholic myself.) However as wrong as I believe Haggee to be, I do not see his statements as hateful.
I don't have a problem with Hagee either. His remarks make sense.
Now the media are doing to Obama what they have spent the past year doing to Clinton: omitting crucial facts about McCain's failures and scandals and playing up Obama's vulnerabilities. Just as I thoughyt the MSM would eventually do, once they had made sure Clinton was destroyed.
Any of you who fell for the anti-Clinton smearing have been duped. John McCain will be the next president of the United States. McCain's failings and lies will be downplayed or ignored entirely while all of Obama's worst flaws will be magnafied. The corporate MSM runs America; they create the reality they want. Regardless of the facts. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance. Now, ask anybody...we're in Iraq fighting Al Qaeda-in-Iraq. You republic is dead folks. You live in a neo-fascist totalitarian nightmare.
Let's not elect/re-elect anyone who has any whiff of scandal. That would, of course, put a lot of politicians back out on the streets, but wouldn't it be fun to watch them actually have to work for a living?