As a freshman congressman in 1983, John McCain could have been described accurately as a Reagan conservative. But, he was not afraid to disagree with the President. McCain voted against a resolution that would allow the President Reagan to keep the Marines in Lebanon an additional 18 months. The Marines were in Lebanon, ostensibly, as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. They had been deployed during the Lebanese civil war. McCain also denounced the policy in a speech on the House floor. He stated that he did not think that there were "obtainable objectives" in Lebanon and that the longer the Marines stayed, the more difficult it would be for them to withdraw. But the resolution passed and the Marines stayed. A month later on October 23, 1983, tragedy struck when a terrorist truck bomb blew up the barracks where Marines were sleeping. 241 American servicemen were killed in the attack. In February 1984, Reagan ordered the Marines to withdraw.
Because of his POW experience, McCain had always gotten attention from the press. But, after his dissention on Lebanon, the attention increased. He was being invited to the major news programs to discuss Lebanon. McCain was also listed by "US News & World Report" as a "Republican on the rise."
After being elected to his second term in the House, McCain started looking higher. Barry Goldwater was retiring from the Senate and John McCain wanted his seat. McCain had the support of the newspapers in Arizona and the support of Barry Goldwater. In 1986, he won his first election to the Senate.
McCain quickly became a rising star in the senate. He was a key voice on defense and foreign policy issues. His stature was also rising in the Republican Party. McCain became part of the Republican "truth squad" that went around the country pointing out the shortcomings of the democratic candidate for president, Michael Dukakis. He was also on Bush's list of possible vice presidential candidates. But, McCain was not chosen for the number two spot on the ticket. He was honored instead by being chosen a featured speaker, sharing the stage with Ronald Reagan at the convention. It was a heady time for John McCain, but he would soon be brought back down to earth by an emerging scandal.
McCain and four other senators were asked by Charles Keating, the owner of Lincoln Savings and Loan, to meet with bank regulators regarding a federal audit. McCain was reluctant to be involved, but did join with the other four senators in what would be two meetings. At the second meeting the senators discovered that the case was going to be turned over to the justice department. McCain and Senator John Glenn from Ohio backed off and had no further involvement. But the two meetings they had attended were enough to pull them into the scandal.
McCain had been friends with Keating since 1981. Keating was a major political supporter to the tune of $112,000 combined in McCain's two house races and his senate race. McCain had also gone on vacation trips with Keating that were found later not to have been reimbursed. McCain claimed it to be an oversight. There was also the troubling revelation that McCain's wife and father-in-law had invested in a Keating shopping center project to which McCain claimed to have no knowledge.
At that time in the Senate, there was no clear rule in regards to the illegality of the actions of the five senators who met with the regulators. This quote from Senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, published in The NY Times reflects the confusion.
"It is very difficult. This is not a case of a clear Senate rule being broken or not broken."
Later in that same NY Times article,
Senate and House rules do not define improper intervention with Federal officials. The closest the Senate comes is a rule stating the members should not benefit from compensation that would occur "by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position as a member, officer or employee."
A senate ethics investigation would eventually clear McCain and Senator John Glenn. They would only receive a mild rebuke for using "poor judgment" in attempting to intervene on the behalf of Keating. It was thought though, that the two should not have been tried at all as the lawyer appointed by the committee to investigate had earlier recommended that charges against the two be dropped. He was over-ruled by the committee and they were tried with the others. Many thought that the decision had been motivated by politics, not by the evidence.
McCain did not let the Keating Five scandal defeat him, quite the opposite in fact. He began to look at the way campaigns were financed. Reform was needed. The fact that many of his colleagues in both parties were opposed to such reform did not deter him.
McCain enlisted the aid of Senator Russell Feingold, a democrat from Wisconsin. Their target was to restrict the "soft" money from political campaigns. "Soft" money is the term for funds that are donated from special interests to the political parties. The parties then used these funds for attack ads on candidates in the other party. The candidates themselves were restricted in the use of "hard money" contributions. The political parties had no such restrictions is the use of the "soft money."
It would take seven years, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was finally passed. Soft money spent by the political parties was finished, as the act prohibited national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits.
Sources:
New York Times: 5 Senators in S.&L. Case Plan to Challenge Ethics Panel's Legal Authority
New York Times: G.O.P. Senators See Politics in Pace of Keating 5 Inquiry
The Confusing Case of the Keating 5
So I was listening to MPR on the way to work today, and heard that Pawlenty is going to Iowa today to promote McCain. Think someone smells a VP spot in the future?
Thanks for the article!
Heh, I usually avoid her column, for reasons such as this article.
Shorter Kersten: 'Hey, Pawlenty's pretty neat. And when WE ALL DIE during the 2008 convention, you'll totally agree with me.'
I'm not a huge Pawlenty fan but I'll take him over another Cheney any day. At least he's still got a little bit of Minnesota moderate in him. If he's going to be the "defining face of conservatism", that's fine, they could use a better face then the one they got now.
Another good article. Thanks azsky13
Yes and no, I was not downtown, but I was on Capital Hill that overlooked alot of it. I was helping out with a amateur radio group that volunteers services at large events and we had a "command post" up overlooking the crazy events of that fatal day. That was some kind of wild thing, nobody ever imagined that happening in Seattle as life here is usually pretty laid back, that sure was not the case !
I almost went downtown, but the traffic was a nightmare, so I stayed where I was.
Yeah the spammers were driving me nutso....too many of them, plus we now have so many members that are doing tons of reporting and there is only one Calvin.
I don't spend to much time in the Greenhouse, most of the people I see are on the front page or most active list ! Plus one problem with reporting too much is I think you starting losing friends or people stop following you around as they get sick of reading "Reported as advertising"..It is time consuming.
I remember you doing the protest study, my Newsvine email address is good, so just send it there and I will get back to you when the convention gets closer. You saw the pictures I posted of the protesters we had in Olympia right ? They were about 2 months ago and some great photos. I have some stashed away from WTO. Plus they are making that crazy movie "Battle in Seattle" based on the WTO protest.
Which book did you buy ?
The Battle of Seattle: The New Challenge to Capitalist Globalization
The Battle in Seattle: The Story Behind and Beyond the Wto Demonstrations
Five Days That Shook the World: The Battle for Seattle and Beyond (Paperback)
My feeling is the Janet Thomas version is the best of the 3. I heard that there are two others floating around, but not the best.
I also noticed this, however I don't know anything about it.
Yep and thats how I think alot of people reacted on the books also. There was also a study put together by the City of Seattle concerning how well poorly the city handled the whole thing. It was actually a pretty decent study, pretty critical and did not make to many admin people to happy with the outcome. Have you seen that one ? If not I can dig around and get it from the county records.
Hey, azsky,
What is this about a voter fraud scandal brewing with McCain and guy named Ali Akbar??
This is new stuff, from Dec. 2007.
Here is a link to story in the bornagainredneck blogspot...
Keep an eye peeled for this continuing story, hey?
Yeah, I realize it could just be politics as usual - of course that crossed my mind as it did yours.
But we will see if the story has any legs to stand on.