« More Fun In Minnesota: Franken Voters Sue To Get Their Ballots Counted | Home | Election Central Morning Roundup »
Report: Obama Meets Unconditionally With George Will, Bill Kristol, David Brooks
Barack Obama is palling around with who, now?
A pool report tonight shows that Obama left his temporary home at the Hay-Adams hotel tonight to go to the home of none other than George Will, for a cocktail party that also included Bill Kristol and David Brooks.
To be a fly on the wall...
Advertisement
hehe.. nice snark about him meeting "unconditionally"
January 13, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Pallin' around with delusional psychopaths.
What's next? Lunch with Rush Limbaugh?
Hmmm....this can't be good.
January 13, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, to have a bottle of Visine...
January 14, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what Obama is known for. This is straight out of his Harvard days. I would hope he is looking for a little conservative straight shooting from someone somewhere but since none of the 3 people mentioned are worth a damn I am not optimistic. Brooks has his moments but they usually lie between some pretty sucky ones.
January 14, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, come on, now. i've oft said david brooks is my favorite conservative. he doesn't demonize, and gives credit where credit is due. anyone remember his "run, barack, run" article in the nyt? and george will even kinda-sorta-not-quite-but-almost endorsed barack by calling attention to mccain's volatile temperament.
January 14, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Brooks, too. He's pretty sane for a Republican and you can tell he's not happy with the direction of his party.
January 14, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and he hates Sarah Palin, so he's got that going for him.
January 14, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he does have disdain for Palin...I could not believe when he said people think she is white trash on ABC with Stepinfetchnopoulous...I was like whoooooa
January 14, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've watched that scumbag dance for Bush and repubcretins on "The News Hour" ever since Gergen left. He was no different than Kristol until he realized his party was in trouble after 2006 and slowly he started moving into his "Im a Buckley Conservative" stance.
He's a sleazebag. Treat these repuglicans like the Vichy French politicians they are.
January 14, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look out, there's liable to be kryptonite stashed around there somewhere.
January 14, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
When do we get to see Obama pal around with actual Progressives?
Change we were deceived in.
January 14, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
When they stop whining.
January 14, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
when they stop demanding to be the center of his attention.
January 14, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are aptly named.
January 14, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like how self-styled progressives are demanding that Obama demonstrate the same qualities that they pretended to despise in George W. Bush.
Real progressives (read: not left-wing ideologues looking for a new label) appreciate that the president-elect is consciously avoiding the lure of the ideological bubble.
January 14, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what qualities do you think we despised in George W. Bush? His dedication to an ideology? No. We despised the ideology itself, and his actions, and the man, but not his dedication.
If you think that there are good ideas all across the political spectrum, then you'll appreciate Obama spending time with these nutballs. If you don't, you'll think it's a waste of time at best and a very bad sign at worst.
It's not ideological bubbles that are the problem. It's being inside the wrong one that is the problem. The further left Obama can get, the better. There's nothing to be learned from the other side.
But what we left-wing ideologues realized all along was that Obama is not a leftist. My expectations of him are not very high specifically for that reason. He could be FDR, or he could be Bill Clinton. Either would be better than Bush, but Clinton-style tweaking and caution won't get the job done now. Oh well.
January 14, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not ideological bubbles that are the problem. It's being inside the wrong one that is the problem. The further left Obama can get, the better. There's nothing to be learned from the other side.
Exactly. Liberals have got to stop apologizing for being right about everything.
Obama's overtures to the wingnut freakazoids will only be effective if he makes them amid strong, loud demands from liberals to hew left.
January 14, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say this as a liberal: We have NOT been right about everything! We've been right about a lot but to say we've always been right is delusional.
We were wrong about housing projects. We were wrong when we turned our displeasure about the Vietnam war into disrespecting the soldiers.
That said, by meeting with and listening to right-wing columnists, Obama will make it more difficult for them to demonize him.
January 14, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
January 14, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, the most liberals have been right about is that contemporary Republicanism is unsustainable, but the same can be said of a lot of liberal policy that has been instituted in the past. The notion that anything superficially labeled "left" is self-evidently "right" is naive and dangerous, a by-product of being the opposition for so long. On the whole, nay-sayers tend to be right more often than yea-sayers, which is why I'm skeptical when nay-sayers think their hit ratio will immediately translate to their yea-saying.
January 14, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, now it's fatal to the cause if we simply listen or exchange ideas with those on the right? Ideas are dangerous things? How very authoritarian of you. I didn't realize that left wing values were so weak that they would collapse from the weight of the words from those on the right.
I'm not sure who this "we" is that you're referring to, but as a left-winger, I don't recall nominating you to be my spokesperson. I, in fact, did despise Bush for his "bubble"...for his inability or unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. Iraq was a direct result of this sort of echo chamber. I don't care if you're left, right, or center, if you can't listen to and then rebut an opposing viewpoint,then I'm afraid you don't have much of an intelluctual base to stand on to begin with.
January 14, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this kind of unquestioning arrogance is why I'm an atheist. While the empirical evidence seems to amply demonstrate that hardline Republicanism doesn't work, I'm not about to blindly put my faith in a "more left = more better" mantra. No golden idols for me, thanks.
January 14, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this comment snark? Seriously, you're too much, man!
January 14, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't suppose anyone is following this thread anymore, but I just noticed that there were a few responses to my comment.
No, it is not snark. It's too bad that so many liberals and leftists think it's "authoritarian" or "unquestioning arrogance" to believe that questions have correct and incorrect answers. I defy you to name a single issue in the last fifty years that conservatives were right about and the (non-Communist) left was wrong about. There isn't one. Being on the left is about utilizing facts and logic. Being on the right is about living in a fantasy world.
Nearly all of the questions that face us as a nation are settled among sane and decent people. The problem isn't that we need to work with Republicans in order to find the best solutions. The problem is finding ways to turn the best solutions into policy without the Republicans screwing it up.
Politics is war. The goal is to win. You don't win by allowing your enemies to alter and dilute your goals. You win by defeating them and making them irrelevant.
January 19, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone up to date on the Tennessee situation?
It's quite a hoot, if you're not. Can't wait to see TPM's reporting on it tomorrow.
January 14, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kristol? Bloody Bill Kristol?
January 14, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
theWalrus: delusional psychopaths? Lumping Limbaugh in the same group as Brooks or Will is an extreme stretch. Kristol is on the fence but agree or disagree with Will or Kristol, they're hardly psychopaths...
January 14, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure you meant Will or Brooks.
January 14, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's playing them, sort of.
They all have big egos, and he's whispered in their ears. THEY LOVE IT!!!
The President PERSONALLY told them whatever...
These guys chatter for a living, and now EVERYONE will listen to what they have to say.
Being human (sort of), they want more.
They go easy on him. They may even support parts of his stimulus package, etc;
Sewing discord and confusion behind the lines of the enemy is as old as Lao-tsu.
January 14, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sun-Tzu, by the way. The leading book on political and general day to day combat. Excellent read and I live and operate by it every day.
January 14, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I like Will and Brooks. I may not agree with everything they say, but I do agree with some of their observations and opinions. Will more than brooks. Now,kristol is an intellectually dishonest lying fool. He doesn't deserve to be in the same room with the other two. Will and brooks actually are behind obama on some things, which is a good thing. Smart move on obama's part, once again. The guy is trying to govern the entire country and represent all people, not a small sliver of the population. Go obama!
January 14, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is anybody surprised at this point?
They probably discussed the need for prayer in the schools.
January 14, 2009 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm not surprised that Obama isn't withdrawing into a Bush-like bubble of ideological purity. We have an emotionally mature adult for president, not the real-life equivalent of a self-isolating DailyKos/RedState commenter, and that pleases me.
January 14, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stroszek, is this name-calling the dawning of the Obamacult's understanding of civility and not marginalizing anybody in a democracy? How disheartening.
January 14, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or (gasp!), tax cuts!
January 14, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you give any thought to redacting the actual address of the event? Press pool reports are for other press. I don't think it adds anything to the story to reveal the actual address.
January 14, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Whom"... "...palling around with _whom_..."
Hope That Helps!
;-)
January 14, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ability of Obama to engage on all sides is what we elected him for.
I think it's great. I have to have faith that these pinheads won't infect Obama with thier small "can't do that" worldviews.
I see a bailout coming.
January 14, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief, people! He's not setting policy here, he's simply socializing. And given the tendency of the aged Villagers to close ranks on an outsider, this is just a politically savvy thing to do.
January 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now here's a comment that swerved off-topic mid-sentence.
I was starting to reprove the Jacobins by saying, "imagine how pleased we would have been, and now different our world would be, if Bush had been the kind of guy who could have had dinner with . . ." and then I got stuck. Because the only people who are more or less the leftist intellectual and ideological counterparts to these guys are bloggers. There's no one in the MSM who comes close.
Closest I can come is E.J. Dione is the leftwing version of Will, ideologically if not in pompousity. They're both adherents to kind of ideological state of the art for liberalism and conservatism as of about 1980.
Brooks? Where do I find someone left of center who writes stuff that seeems coherent for most of the read and then abruptly, and without warning, dives into a pit of intellectual dishonesty as if the strain of all that reality was just too much for the author?
And Kristol? Where do I find someone on the left who is so smugly and persistantly impervious to the fact that absolutely everything he's said or written has been provern wrong? You're really going to have to find some creaky old Marxist to approach Kristol's level of intellectual impermeability (not to mention his infinite belief in the power of violence to solve problems). Not a lot of creaky old Marxists writing columns for major news outlets.
But, anyway, acknowledging my inability to make any comparison that wouldn't be deemed invidious by both sides, imagine P-E Bush had been the kind of guy who was willing to dine with, say, Josh, Kos and Dione in January 2001? In that parallel universe, I suspect the country is a lot better off and the Republicans are still be in power.
January 14, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, I agree with your snark about the intellectual dishonesty of these right wing pundits.
But I do want to point out that there are some real lefty journalists out there, with whom Obama could (and should) meet. These people don't get to go on TV very often (due to the corporate right wing bias of the MSM), but they're out there.
Pick any of a number of folks who write for The Nation magazine. Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel comes to mind (and she is actually on TV, once in a while). Mark Shields is The NewsHour's answer to David Brooks, so maybe he would qualify. There are other left-leaners who publish syndicated columns in many mainstream papers. (Unfortunately Molly Ivins is no longer with us.)
There are also the lefties on the radio -- Thom Hartmann is one of my favorites. And, of course, Rachel Maddow now has a TV show of her own.
So I'm okay with Obama meeting with these right wing mouthpieces (disingenuous though they may be), as long as I also hear reports that he's meeting with my side, the lefties, just once in a while.
When I hear he's having dinner with Katrina, Rachel and Thom Hartmann, I'll be happy.
(I'd also like to hear about a private meeting with Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold. Maybe throw Al Franken in there, once he gets to town.)
-- ARG
January 14, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your wish was granted, sort of. From Ben Smith:
I say "sort of" because I don't think these are the liberals you probably wanted him to meet with. (Ron Brownstein is a liberal???? Maureen Dowd??? Only one on that list that I think of as a liberal is Maddow....)
January 14, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind Gene Robinson, but I do mind all this glossy, shallow posturing from the Obama camp.
Hope things get better after Jan 20.
January 14, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARG Roland Martin reported Obama met with him with Maddow today.
The other attendees:
DeWayne Wickham, Gannett News Service
Derrick Jackson, Boston Globe
Gene Robinson, Washington Post
Maureen Dowd, New York Times
E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post
Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
Frank Rich, New York Times
Ron Brownstein, Atlantic
Jerry Seib, Wall Street Journal
The meeting lasted for about 1 1/2 hours, and covered a lot of stuff.
Can I tell. Nope. It was off-the-record, which was reiterated by press secretary Robert Gibbs.
January 14, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, CT Voter and whiterosebuddy. I feel a little better. Of course I'm not totally thrilled by the list of attendees representing the "left", but I suppose the wingnuts cringe a little when they read their full list, too. (I mean, Larry Kudlow?! Peggy Noonan??! Ugh.) And these are, by and large, the folks who get to be on TV, or are widely read in the papers.
-- ARG
January 15, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any word on whether arugula was served?
http://pufferfish.typepad.com
January 14, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, is anyone else bothered by the idea of journalists meeting in secret with the president, promising not to report what they said?
January 14, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink