Strike that. Verbatim Conn Carroll:

Uh, Jim Johnson, uh, who was head of, uh, who was CEO of Fannie Mae, worked, uh, personally with the CEO of Countrywide, in 1995, helped streamline the, uhhh, the underwiding [sic] procedures so that Fannie Mae could buy more, um, more of uh, so that Countrywide could buy more of Fannie Wae's [sic], uh, uh, heh-heh, so that Fannie Mae could buy more of Countrywide's mortgages to then package and resell. Um, then later, under, uhhh, while Jim Johnson was still in, was still in control of Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae lobbied Congress to allow them to, uhhh, sell, uh, to, to be able to buy mulp subprime mortgages.

I think Conn, Senator Obama, and I can all agree: syllable-for-syllable transcripts of someone speaking extemporaneously is really the classy way to go.

This claim of Conn's has been called into serious question. Cheney admits he lied about this. (Oops -- I now see that graz gave the same link.) (more refs)

Conn: Your attempt to portray Obama as another Jimmy Carter, with the implication that this is bad for Obama, because Obama is telling the truth that gas prices are not going to go back down, strikes me as not only weak but disingenuous. There is no way to get the price at the pump down in the immediate future. Drilling won't do it. Messing around with the SPR won't do it. Letting the oil companies continue to make money hand over fist is clearly not doing it. Just admit that, and stop trying to say Obama should be attacked because he's telling it to the American people straight.

P.S. Please try to be a little more honest about Obama's tax raises, too. Stop saying over and over again "total." The plan is to tax the rich. You and Heritage don't like that? Fine. But be honest about what you're against, especially when Bill is correcting you as you try to mislead. [added] Especially as it apparently upsets you so much when McCain's statements on the war get tweaked to his disadvantage. You were in better form the past couple of times you were on. I'm sad to see you going back to mindless hackery this week.

Okay, I can't help myself: Everything is just so black & white for Conn!!!!!

bjkeefe-
On oil: Thanks for the corrective. I had not seen that CBS story. I would still argue that the Miami Herald story cited still shows China has done oil exploration near Florida and that India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway all own oil exploration contracts in Cuba's waters. These countries all obviously are interested in drilling for more resources while current US energy policy is not. On taxes: you're all wet here. Yes Obama's plan is to tax the rich. I specifically said that. The fact remains that overall taxes paid by all Americans (the sum of all receipts the government would take in, the "total" taxes if you will) under Obama's plan goes up by billions of dollars each year. This is a cold hard fact. He is raising America's tax burden when the economy is teetering on recession. Something that hasn't been done in this country since Herbert Hoover right before the Great Depression.

Bill is not quite fair about taxation under an Obama Presidency. Not everyone's INCOME taxes would go up, but everyone uses energy, and Democrats want to make energy more expensive to use so they can control the weather of the future (cue the laugh track). Call it cap & trade, call it whatever. The goal is to raise the price of energy. So it's true: Democrats will raise taxes on everyone if they get their way.

Quoting conncarroll: bjkeefe-
On oil: Thanks for the corrective. I had not seen that CBS story.

Conn - much of your energy/oil points are just talking points (fed by whom?) and do not hold up to scrutiny. Encourage you to do more research on the topic before delving into discussions about such. E.g. "oil shale" - do study the history of the Synfuels Corporation. E.g. ANWR - please read the latest report of economic impact from the EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...af(2008)03.pdf Unfortunately so much of the Republican talking points on these issues are really screwed up and just like Cheney did will eventually lead to mea culpa.

Conn: Thanks for checking in, once again. I do appreciate it when the diavloggers check in, and I know others do, too.

Quoting conncarroll: bjkeefe-
On oil: Thanks for the corrective. I had not seen that CBS story. I would still argue that the Miami Herald story cited still shows China has done oil exploration near Florida and that India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway all own oil exploration contracts in Cuba's waters. These countries all obviously are interested in drilling for more resources while current US energy policy is not.

You're welcome. Let me emphasize something in response: "Interested in drilling" is not drilling. I am interested in dating Morena Baccarin. It's not happening, at least so far. The United States is "interested in drilling" in ANWR, off the coast of Florida, etc., or at least a big chunk of the US population is. Nonetheless, drilling is not happening. Similarly for "exploration" -- this could mean anything -- sounding, collecting seabed core samples, or even just "exploring a relationship with Cuba." I haven't seen the Miami Herald story that you mention. I can only say that since this idea was floated by Cheney and that Republican Congressman, pretty much every news source I've seen since is saying it's not true -- there is no drilling happening -- and that the

Quoting InJapan: Conn - much of your energy/oil points are just talking points (fed by whom?) and do not hold up to scrutiny. Encourage you to do more research on the topic before delving into discussions about such.

E.g. "oil shale" - do study the history of the Synfuels Corporation.

E.g. ANWR - please read the latest report of economic impact from the EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...af(2008)03.pdf

Unfortunately so much of the Republican talking points on these issues are really screwed up and just like Cheney did will eventually lead to mea culpa.

Mr. Carroll's main point was that showing that the U.S. was serious about oil exploration, discovery, and drilling is what would have the biggest near term affect on prices (not to mention the obvious increase in long term probabilities). Democrats making it illegal to even explore is ludicrous made even more so by the possibility of China or whomever drilling off our coastline. So sure make it about a Cheney lie instead of the obvious stupidity of handcuffing our own abilities. Or make it about 10 year old data (ANWR) with no ability to legally update it. Or tie it to a government company started

I'm not trying to deny that Obama wants to raise taxes. The objection I raise is to the way you were talking about this: You kept trying to make it sound as though everybody's taxes are going to go up. They are not. Obama is not raising "America's tax burden." He is raising taxes on some Americans; specifically, those who have been enjoying a ride on the gravy train for the last eight years.

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=2200 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...ues_matrix.cfm http://royho.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...cain-platform/

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the

Your attempt to portray Obama as another Jimmy Carter...

This is one prime example of why I would argue that the MSM and someone who would peddle in talking points (whether Carroll or Scher) should be fired and issued a trench coat and rusty shopping cart. All the ways the current economic situation differs from the situation in the 70s should spur journalists to draw distinctions and hone their "skills" getting the facts out. Instead, we get lame, tired, dated allusions for cheap effect from people who obviously get paid too much and don't pay enough taxes for the damage they do. Mr. Carroll, we need fruit pickers! Please help out!

Hey, good one guys.
Excellent point and counterpoint! and Bill happily held most of the trumps.
Big points to Conn for his more relaxed less bitter manner; much more engaging to hear, more credible because more persuasively from a well-meaning heart.
More humane=Better. Something observed on bloggingheads which should be more widely known.
More open and vulnerable=Stronger.

On oil: Thanks for the corrective. I had not seen that CBS story. I would still argue that the Miami Herald story cited still shows China has done oil exploration near Florida and that India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway all own oil exploration contracts in Cuba's waters. These countries all obviously are interested in drilling for more resources while current US energy policy is not.

Compare with:

Piñon, who supports oil and gas exploration, said he met with several congressional offices Wednesday about the China-Cuba connection. He said he told them: ' `If you guys want to use this as a scare tactic to lift the moratorium on drilling off the west coast of Florida, at least be factual, be correct.' They didn't do their homework.''

China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling. Western diplomats in Havana told McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge there is no Chinese drilling offshore.

Cuba's state oil company, Cupet, has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway. But many oil companies from those countries

...Repeat! This is NOT a drill

Burn it down.

Happy Flag Day!!! as well as Happy 223rd Birthday ARMY!

And happy Saturday to my Friends.

Oh, the heartbreak of premature flagulation. Happy Saturday, Whatfur.

It works both ways. We can all join this Colbert contest! http://www.comedycentral.com/colbert...videoId=173621

Think about what Bill is saying here Conn, it's allright to be disingenuous and dishonest (McCain's quote without context) in short political speeches and ads as long as you maybe kinda sorta hopefully provide context in a completely different and much more limited venue somewhere down the road. I already called him out on this after one of your previous discussions and he just ignored it. Here with you again, he sweeps the dishonesty aside and jumps into the permanent base meme. He did however change the wording slightly from Obama's '100 years of war' to 'permanent military presence'. I'm afraid this is as close as he'll ever come to eating his words.

Harkin, I'm not saying it's "OK" to be dishonest. I don't think the DNC "100 years" ad and the recent criticism of McCain's "not important" remark are disingenuous or dishonest. McCain is OK with troops staying 100 years in Iraq. Similarly, McCain does not think it is important to estimate when troops when can come home. These are facts. Now, such initial attacks do not give McCain's explanation for these positions. Welcome to politics! I would give all the examples of Republicans attacks against Democrats that do not provide the Democratic explanation and context, but I would die before I finished. My point during this bhtv sessions was: when McCain takes his opportunity to repeat his context and make his explanation, it is still a political loser. It does not succeed in making the Democratic attack look disingenuous or dishonest. The initial attack does not appear to be "out of context." It is squarely within that context -- of what our foreign objective in Iraq should be -- where this broader debate is happening and should be happening.

During our session, I said I didn't think Conn was right the US had the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world when you consider the effective tax rate. I've been hearing conservatives repeat that "fact" a lot lately because McCain is proposing a $300B corporate tax cut. Here's some more on our corporate taxes, from Jason Furman:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...es_furman.aspx "...The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But because the United States has so many generous special tax preferences for businesses, it collects the fourth lowest corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP among all OECD countries."

Anyone who thinks that Americans are going to wait for the unicorn of "renewable energy" and all the other nonsense is stuck in their little lefty bubble. I say this to inform, not to criticize. The Democrats are making a lot of the people I know very very very angry. We see the Democrats as deliberately starving this country of energy. They do nothing to help anything.. ever. We don't blame Bush.. because the Democrats blocked everything that was tried. Bill: your nitpicking is perhaps interesting in the abstract but to the regular person , you are so out of touch it's not funny.
We either start drilling right now or people will be in the streets with pitchforks by winter.

Bill: Hi.. Can I offer a critique? It seems that when Con presents an issue with the Democratic side, your first instinct is to side-step what is presented to you and you counter with a counter-example from the other side. Doesn't that sort of skip the issue?

Bill: So your argument is that the Jihadis do not want any US presence in the Iraq... and so therefore we should grant them what they want?
That tells me you don't understand what their true objective is.

My point during this bhtv sessions was: when McCain takes his opportunity to repeat his context and make his explanation, it is still a political loser.

Right. McCain means by his comments that it doesn't matter that US troops remain in Iraq for 100 years, provided they are safe. But it does matter, even if they are safe. It matters to the troops and their families who don't want to be there or get stop-lossed into staying there, and it matters to us taxpayers who pay for the occupation instead of spending our treasure on healthcare or good schools.

It matters to the troops and their families who don't want to be there or get stop-lossed into staying there, and it matters to us taxpayers who pay for the occupation instead of spending our treasure on healthcare or good schools.

It goes beyond checkbook issues. There is always the possibility of a proposal for which I would pay the price. But, it's not because of stubbornness. It would be because I agree with the principle behind the proposal. It's a choice between "America can lead others to democracy" or "Every state deserves its own shot at democracy". The concept of permanent, and even mid-term continuing presence, basing as a means to affect democratization (or, really just favorable political and economic change for certain interests) is for me arrogant and short-sighted. The US should favor political stability and increase political competence, not undermine states and localities. The anarchists win, because Washington creates power vacuums every time it fires bureaucrats or disbands armies.

The larger question that not being asked is what are the "change" principles for US military intervention? There was plenty of Neo-con in both the Clinton and Bush administrations (although Bush clearly wins the prize for brutality, stupidity and depravity). Does Obama merely try to clean up the Iraq catastrophe (a hard enough job) and then retreat to Clintonian principles; or does he have a new game plan?

Quoting bjkeefe: Conn:

Your attempt to portray Obama as another Jimmy Carter...

Conn's argument that Barack Obama is like Jimmy Carter is idiotic. He made five points of comparison. Here are three of them: (1) Tarnished Republican brand following scandals.
(2) Rising energy prices
(3) Threats of inflation Of course, these have nothing to do with Obama. These might be comparisons between the 1980 election and the 2008 election, but surely Conn recognizes that these are not comparisons between Obama and Carter.
That leaves two "comparisons": (4) "Jimmy Carter fought off an establishment figure that everyone thought was going to win." So, according to Conn, any Democrat who beat Clinton this year would be "like Jimmy Carter." I guess John McCain is like Bob Dole, because they both won the Republican nomination. (5) Conn's last point was that "Obama is proposing the same policies that Carter did," but then cites only a single policy: windfall profits tax. But of course, this isn't a comparison between Obama and Carter so much as it is a comparison of most Democrats with most other Democrats. You might as well argue that "Obama is like Carter" because they are both Democrats. Usually if you are going to say two people

One for the problems with election cycles is that the policy focus is always on the immediate future, not on the long term. I don't think the price of gas is too high, people just aren't used to it. Many bought their cars when the price was much lower, and so fuel efficiency wasn't a high priority. The high price sends a good signal to the market to improve efficiency now. I would point out that any oil that is in the ground is finite and once it is used up it will be gone forever. If left in the ground, it will still be there tomorrow. If the price of oil keeps rising, it will be even more valuable in the future than if you use it now. And if it doesn’t keep rising, then we don't really need it, do we? Either way, there's no long-term harm in waiting. The only benefit of sucking it out now will be short-term. Assuming that it does reduce the price of oil, that would only make it easy for people to go back to their gas guzzling ways for a little while, and