Varmint, do you trust McCai's judgement
 

from wikipedia
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".



so varmint, McCain had poor judgment in the 80's so he must have poor judgment now. Oh what a moral dilemma you have.

Sounds like you are the one with the moral dilemma.

Weak. Very weak.

Yhgtbfkm. :)

so this is where you went. is there some reason you don't want to answer the questions from the last thread? to answer your question, i am not a big fan of mccain. he let himself get too close to a scuzzy banker. mccain was never convicted, or even charged with a crime. but it is still a stain on his record.


now, here's where we left off from the last thread...


i hope the other obama supporters are reading this. i hope they see the spectacular moral compromise, and it makes them reconsider.


suppose some candidate serves on a board with a klansman. the guy bombed a black church 40 years ago. he escaped justice, and is quite proud of it today. but hey, it was 40 years ago. we shouldn't judge. we can no longer call him a terrorist.
__________________

do you consider this at all serious?

no, they all have warts

I don't hold the Keating incident against McCain.

I didn't see any question to respond to. I wouldn't judge a candidate based upon other board member's history of 40 years ago.

Would you expect the board member to resign his post because of the other's ancient activities which have no bearing on current activities?

Now that is a bit disingenuous isn't it?

No, they don't need to resign, but they don't need to defend the terrorist either, or have their coming out party at the terrorist's house, wouldn't you agree?

well I guess you need to show me Obama defending Ayer's terrorist acts