If I could talk the the McCain campaign, I would tell them to get ahead of this one. They know that the democrats are going to us it. How could they not? They will probably wait a month or so, so that it's close enough to the election where people won't take the time to learn the story.

Do you folks agree? Would it be better if the McCain campaign came out in front of this story and explained their side?

It's going to be tough when the story does come out. Even though McCain wasn't charged with any crimes, he will still be criticized for "poor judgement" and associating with the wrong people.

Here is Wikipedia's take:

Wikipedia-Keating Five

I'm curious about what you folks think will happen when this story eventually becomes the story of the day.

 

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[20] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

that should be the response to any inquiry into any mention of Keating

 

You don't think that the democrats are going to say that McCain associated with criminals? They might expect us to give Obama a pass for his associations with Rezco, Ayers and Wright.

 

In light of recent problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (under a Democrat controlled Senate) and considering 4 of the 5 Senators involved in the Keating 5 were Democrats, I don't think we will hear much about it.

 

and dont forget this little nugget of golden irony

DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February 1995 to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

that sure was a good idea, when did all of the predatory loan practices start in earnest hmmmm I was offered one when clinton was in office

 

murderers, gangsters, and domestic terrorists > swindlers

 

I saw a documentary about McCain on Foxnews. The investigator (a democrat) said McCain didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished. He was reprimanded for using poor judgement. We're all guilty of that.

 

Not nearly as bad as all of Obama's questionable aquaintances, pastors, parents, brother, etc. etc.

 

First, find a politician at the state or national level that hasn't "used poor judgment", they are few and far between. Second, if you are going to bash Obama, how can you give McCain a pass? What McCain should do is publicly state that the Obama connections are meaningless if he wants to head this off. You are right, it will come up. Hell, some one posted a video of Obama introducing Kilpatrick and went off on a relationship, or a link (we know how much conservatives like the word link) between Obama and Kilpatrick, so let apples be apples. Neither McCain or Obama has been convicted of anything, so if you want to question one's links, the others are up for grabs.

You should really be more concerned about Palin's past. She's the obvious star of the show and McCain was already dragged through the mud by the Bush campaign in 1999.

 

I may not agree with you all the time, but you don't have double standards, you think everyone sucks!

 

Nope. Obama willingly connected with his shady characters.

 

What exactly should I be looking at?

Newsweek-Sliming Palin

 

Sheez already CrAz3D. Your logic baffles me. Hopefully one day you'll learn. Then I'll vote for you.

 

and obamas continues to this day

 

Just joking