Wow, thank you so much for sharing this. I had heard of the piece, but did not know how damning it was for McCain. I may have to re-evaluate my impression of Senator McCain, as I've always considered him a good man but just on the wrong side of the majority of the issues.

I will share this will friends and family.

Thanks again.

This explanation is a total mischaracterization of what happened. It just buys into the institutionalized mythology. The so called S&L;crisis was not caused by crooked bad guys like Charles Keating. It was certainly not caused by lack of regulation. This is popular media mythology created and reported because silly viewers demand guys in white hats and guys in black hats and don't have the patience to listen to the truth if it cannot fit on a bumper sticker. People generally don't want to understand. That is just too hard. Just tell us who to hate and point our finger at. Just show us someone in handcuffs going to jail.

Now, Keating and some other bank execs WERE bad guys. Just like some CEOs are bad guys, some lenders are bad guys and even some BLOGGERS are bad guys (I know, shocking isn't it?) But what caused the S&L;crisis was Ronald Reagan. yup, my hero, favorite cowboy and all around good guy caused the S&L;crisis. Not by deregulation. Not by being a crooked banker or even playing one on the big screen.Not even by listening to his wife's astrologer. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the way taxes were handled. It simultaneously put me out of business. Prior to that act, there were huge tax rates, up to 90% but also substantial opportunity for sheltering one's income from taxes.Thus the term "tax shelter". Most investment real estate was structured as tax shelter deals. That was my business. We raised money from doctors, lawyers small business owners etc all looking to shelter their income from taxes. Contrary to what "Foot in mouth" Biden says, this was not unpatriotic, it was how the system worked. So what happens when the government sticks its big nose into business? As always bad things happen. The tax change meant that now, all of a sudden, with little notice and no recourse, over half of the loans on real estate became bad loans overnight. They were structured under one set of rules and the government came in and changed the rules at halftime. So while I am sure that Keating and other bankers indeed did sweetheart "country club" deals with their friends, that was a small pimple on the butt of the real problem. The real problem was that the government, much as in the current crisis mandates something without understanding the down the road consequences. So please understand, nothing happened to the underlying real estate. The government just changed the rules so that a loan that was good one day, became bad the next. In many cases there were no missed mortgage payments. In fact the government came up with a typically silly name for such loans "performing, non performing loans" meaning they were performing (the mortgage payments were being made) but under the new tax code they were bad loans whether in default or not. THERE is your example of bad regulations. And this is why Republicans are against regulations in general. Often we don't know a regulation is bad until some time after it passes. SO better to err on the side of too little than to risk bad regulation. Especially in the environment we have now where legislators who screw us with bad regulation, blame the damage on not enough regulation and so many of us prefer to follow blindly and accept NEW bad regulation to fix the results of the PRIOR piece of bad regulation

Now, despite causing the S&L;crisis and making my career disappear, I am firmly convinced that the changes Reagan put into effect ALSO restored our corporate entities to a competitive footing in the world market, created an environment where venture capital flooded the creative markets and ultimately was responsible for the tech boom of the nineties.

One of the things we need to realize is that regulation is not always good or for our protection and that it rarely if ever is free from negative unanticipated consequences. Also that there is good and bad regulation, and what they seem to be for or against is not the only judge of whether they are good or bad. The congress trying to push for more home ownership is good. The results of their mandating it was bad. The goal of simplifying the tax code in '86 was good. The effect ultimately on the economy was stunning. The effect it had on the S&L;industry was awful.

So I am not saying that Keating wasn't a crook. I am not saying there aren't now or weren't then bad apples in the banking and lending industries, the respective crises are not and were not caused by a few bad apples in business. Our economy is way too strong, diverse and sound to be taken down by that. But take one bad congressman, well intentioned as he may be, the power of one bad regulation and it can bring down the whole thing. The reality is that while we don't need more regulation to convict a Keating of fraud, we DO need more regulation of the regulators to keep them from knee jerk overzealous BAD regulations and the unanticipated, unintentional disastrous results that bad regulation can bring.

None of that really addressed the question. In my opinion this should have no bearing on the campaign for the following reasons. First the issue has been adjudicated and no wrongdoing was found. The congressional rebuke was a sham and was shameful after McCain was investigated and not indicted. McCain in this issue has been vetted many times by voters and reelected after full disclosure. The difference between this and Ayres and Wright et al is precisely this. McCain has apologized, said the relationship was a great error in judgment and been cleared by voters for decades since this occurred. Obama on the other hand has tried to sweep his relationships under the rug. He has not called them an error on his part, claiming insisting he didn't know the unsavoriness of his associates. He has cut ties only when forced by public opinion and has repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of his relationships. For me, I believe he overlooked Wright's racist hate mongering and Ayre's violent anti American past for two reasons. First it was professionally expedient. They all made money for each other's causes. Second, I believe as a disciple of Saul Alinsky, he agrees to more than a minor degree with both of them and with their tactics. I think this election will be the natural extension of Tom Hayden going to congress. Personally I would prefer Pigasus to Obama but I think we are going to get a 60s radical, Abby Hoffman with more schooling and less sense of humor in the White House.

I personally think this video will have zero effect on the election because I think there is almost no chance of McCain winning this election either way. Add in that it is old news and based on an institutionalized mythology and it is a non issue IMO

The problem with the Keating 5 scandal is that its complex and cannot be explained succinctly in a 30-second commercial. This documentary, while powerful, is just too long to have a material on the race.

I watched this last night since it was sent t0 me by 0bama's site. It's a great reminder 0f what was and the timing is excellent c0nsidering the bail0ut that just 0ccured. T0 deregulate anything that can, in effect, je0pardize the financial marketplace t0 this extent is n0thing less than p0litical racketeering. I w0uld h0pe that 0bama picks up this ball and runs with it and sh0ws the pe0ple h0w deeply entrenched he was with Keating and h0w, when all was said and d0ne, he asked f0r furthur de-regulati0n in the banking industry.