data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7db8f/7db8f7d3c55893fd555cbeb93c1d90de62941cec" alt=""
OK, I'm just a philosopher. But tell me this. How come nobody’s talking about the Lincoln Savings scandal and John McCain’s part in it? It’s pretty relevant to the issue of McCain’s
judgment, wouldn’t you say?
Essentially, businessman
Charles Keating, chairman of
American Continental Corporation (ACC was the parent company of Lincoln here in
Irvine), had contributed to the campaigns of several senators, including pal
John McCain, and when what was left of the feds’ regulatory mechanism (
Saint Ronald had deregulated the S&L industry in the early 80s) commenced closing in on Keating’s corrupt operation, five of these senators, including McCain,
met with regulators on Keating’s behalf in 1987. In the end, Keating’s riverboat gambler ways led to bankruptcy and seizure of ACC in 1989.
The episode cost taxpayers $2 billion. Over 20,000
elderly investors lost their life savings. Keating went to prison, but he was released after only five years.
As I recall, when he was asked whether his campaign donations had bought influence, Chuck said:
“I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so.” (See
Political Corruption, p. 43.)
The larger Savings and Loan crisis cost the taxpayer over $120 billion. And the government let it happen. John McCain was in the thick of this FUBAR.
Gosh, John, that doesn’t show much judgment on your part!
McCain was fifty years old at the time of the 1987 meeting with regulators.