dinner
I think it's pretty cool that Obama had dinner last night with a bunch of Conservative writers. Why not? I'm all for being friends. And the President-elect should reach out, just to validate his claim that he's bi-partisan.
Remember, Bush tried to do this sort of thing at the beginning. The first thing he did as President was to cook up a dinner and a movie for the Kennedy family. A gracious first step. No Child Left Behind was the result. (We've seen how incredibly ungracious Ted Kennedy has been to Bush ever since.)
Larry Kudlow is brilliant. If I ever run for President, he's my financial adviser during the campaign and my choice to run Treasury. But, it sounds like after last night, he's got a serious man crush.
Remember, Bush tried to do this sort of thing at the beginning. The first thing he did as President was to cook up a dinner and a movie for the Kennedy family. A gracious first step. No Child Left Behind was the result. (We've seen how incredibly ungracious Ted Kennedy has been to Bush ever since.)
Larry Kudlow is brilliant. If I ever run for President, he's my financial adviser during the campaign and my choice to run Treasury. But, it sounds like after last night, he's got a serious man crush.
posted by Kent at 3:09 PM
21 Comments:
Curious to know more about the Bush bbq for Kennedy. Any links to back that up?
There's really no reason for Obama to be bi-partisan. The GOP is as powerless as any party has ever been and was widely rejected in November. But meeting with movement conservatives/neocons, which is what Obama did, is very different than cooking for a lone senator.
Be curious on the think though.
Sure, buddy.
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668445,00.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bushs_decency_highlights_democ.html
Yes, there is clear reason for Obama to be bipartisan. If his recovery plans don't work - and they won't - he's going to be in trouble come 2010. But he's not really soliciting ideas from these folks. The entire purpose of the meeting is to give more legitimacy to RINO's like Brooks and Kristol. From what I've read, George Will and Charles Krauthammer were very quiet during the meeting - they're far more conservative than Kristol or Brooks. The Obama goal is to try and select for himself the new leaders of opinion on the Right, to empower the moderates in the GOP who tend to lose elections - or win by a squeak.
Like it or not, folks like Palin, Jindal, Thune, and even Romney are the kind of conservatives that are firing up the conservative movement these days. The GOP had to re-learn that trying to be moderate doesn't work. Palin drew bigger crowds than Obama once people heard her message, and leading intellectuals on the Left like Camille Paglia have already expressed admiration - and worry - over Palin's method of revitalizing the Right. In fact, Paglia believes Palin will end up being more of a force in politics than Hillary - given time. Is she ready for prime-time yet? Probably not. Is there strong hope for the future? There certainly is.
Obama knows he promised a lot of things to a lot of people - precisely none of which are going to be happening the way he or his followers envisioned. The bloom will come off the Obama Rose by April, and he's going to be all out of ideas before the midpoint of his first term. When conditions do not measurably improve, and recent splits in the Democratic Party are going to make it very difficult for him to take my money and give it to layabouts who can't find a job (yes, unemployment is up - meanwhile, the listings in CareerBuilder and Monster are strong as ever). Blue Dogs and other fiscally responsible Dems in the House will likely side with the GOP in opposing most of Obama's spending measures - at the very least, they will submit trimmed-down bills that put a severe constraint on any social "change" that Obama originally wanted. I suppose taking my money and giving it to the people who might mug me on the street someday is a more direct way of "change", but how do I tell these future yokers this when they have the knife and all I have is my wallet and smartphone?
Of course! I'll do what Obama once wanted to ban in Chicago. I'll buy a handgun - legally, not through the Plaxico Burres method - and obtain a real CCW permit.
Nevermind - already done. You should feel safer already.
Thanks for the link. I never said it didn't happen, just wanted a link. Inviting one Democrat over for supper is different than meeting with movement neocons, however.
The rest of your comment is meant for someone else besides me. The GOP is in complete disarray. If they survive as a national party it will only be because of Obama's leniency during their turbulent times. There really is no reason to give consideration to GOP ideas in this current atmosphere. They are powerless and void.
Yeah, I recalled it as BBQ and the Kevin Costner movie. The Times of India refers to it as 'dinner and the movie.'
I've mentioned this to you before Chris that night we met for drinks in San Diego. You didn't believe it then either.
Of course, Obama can just throw the GOP under the bus. Only problem? We still have the veto. We also have the Supreme Court (most of the time). Also, if these moderates can ever get their heads unstuck, we have the ideas that are needed in these times.
How about across-the-board tax cuts? We already know that cutting taxes will give people more money to spend, and also give businesses more money to go out and hire people - which magically expands the tax base! Imagine that.
How about having Henry Paulson testifying on EXACTLY what his plans are for the rest of the TARP funds, and what he would do if granted even a dollar more to spend. Let's get a list of what banks should be saved, what banks deserve to take a hit, and what banks are still viable and untroubled in this turbulent environment. Gee whiz, accountability! Imagine that.
Let's also understand that government jobs do not produce anything that we can sell. The government does not manufacture blenders, or screwdrivers, or cars, or A/C units. Americans do, however. So let's use this opportunity to lower some trade barriers and talk seriously about freeing up more American products to trade overseas - as well as accepting that this comes with more foreign products hitting our shores. While we're at it, since China is balking at lending more money, let's have a twofold approach: A)strict tariffs and import limits on Chinese products until they better regulate their currency, and B)Let's adopt a rational spending policy.
Bush tried spending - it didn't work. Obama will try spending - it won't work. Under Clinton, the opposition GOP Congress limited spending - and lookithat, we ended up with a surplus. This is why, if Republicans acted like the conservatives they claim to be, good things happen. I'll be honest here - Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had the most sensible fiscal policies of any candidate running - in either primary. Ron Paul focused on basic ideas, whereas Mitt Romney understood that American business needs to be allowed to grow.
Finally, can we end this myth that deregulation caused this crisis? Gov't regulations forced banks to make loans that were unstable, so banks did what banks are supposed to do - try to make money on the deal. Unfortunately, when housing prices fell, they had not made enough to cover their losses. Only about 15% of subprime mortgages are failing, anyway (some estimates do say 30-35%, but I believe that is a trend local to formerly high-value locations, like California and downstate NY, and parts of Florida and Virginia).
So, fine, liberals and wussy GOPers don't want to loosen banking regulations. Ok, then let's loosen up regulations on other industry, and let them compete better. This could lead to more products being sold, more profit for the businesses, more demand for the product, which means the business may have to expand, which means they use part of their extra profit to - BINGO - create jobs. And not just any job - productive jobs. Coolidge said it best, "The business of America is business."
Economy and government do not mix well. The economy does not like being horse-collared, and the government doesn't understand the economy. They're all lawyers of one type or another, and even the finance guys are just folks from Wall Street or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange who moved money around. Maybe they got lucky on a stock issue at some point, but as far as driving an economy forward with creative thinking and getting results, the solutions they come up with are ALWAYS the same - throw money at the problem!
Schools failing? Give 'em more money!
Detroit failing? Give 'em more money!
Banks failing? Give 'em more money!
People on welfare can't afford to have surf'n'turf night? Give 'em more money!
Johnny can't buy a house? Force the banks to give him money!
The people are catching on. The problem is, for every person who is disgusted by this, there are five more who want to know where the line starts to receive handouts. Remember the video of the woman at the Obama rally, who said she was free of worry because Obama would put gas in her car and pay her mortgage every month? This is the mindset of the liberal worker. "If I can't do better for myself, the government should step in and give me money."
We can't keep using China and the rich as a piggy bank through lending and taxation. What we need are drastic cuts. Will it hurt? Sure. Weaning is always a difficult process, whether transitioning from breast to bottle or from government check to paycheck. But it is what we need to do. Am I wrong? Of course not. Will it happen under Obama? Of course not.
I never said I didn't believe it. I said I was curious to know more. I didn't recall it. I never said it didn't happen. I just wanted a link to read more about it.
Bush meeting with a senator is different than Obama meeting with right wing commentators. Totally different. The president has to meet with members of Congress, Obama will undoubetdly meet with GOP members as well. It's when Obama meets with right wing "thinkers" does it verge on an extra ordinary gesture.
When did Bush ever meet with left wing reporters/commentators/journalists? That was my point.
Andrew, I can't get past your first paragraph. How do Republicans have the veto? The president is the only person who can veto and Obama is a Dem. And neither is the Republican Party the Party of moderates. It's controlled by the right wing and in complete disarray.
Sorry, meant to say filibuster.
Now that you can "get past" my first paragraph, you can make a proper response.
I could see the Repubs being obstructionist and using a filibuster, but I don't think the GOP is organized enough to do that.
I'm not going to address the rest of it because it is obviously meant for someone else besides me. I'm going to stay on topic of Kent's original post about Obama meeting with leading right wing "thinkers," versus Bush doing the same thing.
I'll paste again my earlier response concerning Kent's post:
"I never said I didn't believe it. I said I was curious to know more. I didn't recall it. I never said it didn't happen. I just wanted a link to read more about it.
Bush meeting with a senator is different than Obama meeting with right wing commentators. Totally different. The president has to meet with members of Congress, Obama will undoubetdly meet with GOP members as well. It's when Obama meets with right wing "thinkers" does it verge on an extra ordinary gesture.
When did Bush ever meet with left wing reporters/commentators/journalists? That was my point."
That's what the post was about, in my opinion at least. I see a difference between meeting with leading movement neocons and meeting with a single Democratic senator in 2001. I don't know of an instance where Bush met with leading left wing "thinkers." He might of, I'm not saying I'm right, I just don't recall Bush doing such. That's the point I was trying to make.
Getting into tax policy and economics is not at all what any of this was about.
From your first post:
"There's really no reason for Obama to be bi-partisan. The GOP is as powerless as any party has ever been and was widely rejected in November."
That isn't what Kent's OP was about either. But those are your comments.
If you don't have any better ideas or arguments to answer what I posted, you can always just say so.
From Kent's original post..."I'm all for being friends. And the President-elect should reach out, just to validate his claim that he's bi-partisan."
Hence why I said there's really no reason for Obama to be bi-partisan and that the GOP is powerless and has been widely rejected.
Kent's OP was indeed about bi-partisanship.
Nice try.
Yes, Obama must prove he's bipartisan, because he isn't. He spent the better part of the last two years telling us how bipartisan he is, how he loves reaching across that aisle. But, it turns out he just had a couple of conversations with Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. Big deal. And he bailed on the Gang of 12 thing after he promised McCain he'd support it. He's not bipartisan. There's no record of him being bipartisan. His voting record, both in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate, straight down the line, every time, hard left. No bipartisanship. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Obama must validate his claim that he's bipartisan. Otherwise, he'd be a liar.
So, the George Will dinner was a nice touch, I thought. It remains to be seen how Republicans will work with the new President and how the new President will work with Republicans. I agree with Andrew. They don't need each other. Yet. But I bet that changes.
I don't think he's got anything to prove as a bi-partisan. As a uniter, sure. But bi-partisanship is not unity.
I don't see anything changing as far as Obama needing the Repubs. The Repubs need him way more than he needs them.
My point is still did George Bush ever meet with left wing "thinkers" like Obama just met with right wing "thinkers?" He might have. I really don't know. To me meeting with leading movement thinkers and meeting with one Democratic senator is not the same thing. Therefore when you said that George Bush tried this sort of thing, I'm not so sure he did.
And it's smart politics, by the way. It makes Obama appear like a statesman.
There will come a time when the hard Left politics of Pelosi and Reid won't be smart politics for Obama and I think any and all efforts at bipartisanship we see from the Obama administration will be toward insulating themselves from such a time.
To my knowledge, Bush never met with Leftist writers or thinkers. His approach was different. Just as Obama's approach was to have dinner with some high profile Conservative writers/thinkers. It's all "reaching out."
Great debate guys. Andrew, as usual, I find your comments spot on. Of interest, the conservatives invited to sup with Obama, both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were NOT included. Two of the truest and strongest voices in the Conservative Party.
Your kind words are appreciated, ma'am, and you are correct.
There's no way he could invite those two over (imagine Obama waiting on the steps to shake hands with Michael Savage), because this is not about reaching out at all.
This is about, and will always be about, legitimizing the weakest conservative voices in the movement. Will and Krauthammer are decent folks, but they just don't have the impact that the radio guys do. Kristol and Brooks were all-too-ready to denounce Palin and the religious Right, and this makes them prime targets for the Dems to manipulate. Not convince - but shape, in a subtle fashion, into more 'reasonable' opposition figures. Obama is counting on his personality to neutralize these folks, and the scary part is it might not be a losing strategy for him.
If Bill Buckley were alive to see this, he'd run out of synonyms while describing how angry it made him.
Noticed you remained silent to my reply Andrew. I suppose I could say "If you don't have any better ideas or arguments to answer what I posted, you can always just say so." But I won't.
What argument did you make? That you are afraid to reply to the clear, concise things and ideas that I have put forth? As far as your next post, where your middle blurb reads: "I don't see anything changing as far as Obama needing the Repubs. The Repubs need him way more than he needs them." - that's a bland restatement of what you said right at the get go, and which I clearly replied to.
Kent's post was indeed about bipartisanship, and you replied that there was no need for it now that the Messiah has absolute power (forgot about the Supremes though - and Prop 8, apparently, a true citizens revolt). I then stated that Obama is already on shaky ground, and while the public lovefest may be ongoing, the political lovefest is about to end.
Then you went on about how my reply was 'meant for someone other than you', which I handily ignored, while advancing my own argument, which you then replied to with the same 'I must not be talking to you' line, and then . . .
I'm falling asleep here Chris. I'm waiting for you to offer up this strong evidence of Democrat unity and smoothness in the transition, because I really want to let you walk through that wide open door. So I can slam it shut.
I didn't make any argument Andrew. I was referring to your insistence that Kent's original post had nothing to do with me saying there was no need for Obama to be bi-partisan. But indeed Kent's post did have plenty to do with bi-partisanship, he mentions it directly.
Your rant about tax policy and economics, on the other hand, is off course for Kent's post. You then tried to turn it on around on me by saying I too was off course for mentioning bi-partisanship. I was not.
Your advice to me was if I didn't have any reply to you I could just say so. I did have a reply. My comments were on topic. Yours were obviously meant for someone else besides me and had nothing to do with what the original post was about and what my initial comment was about.
You've slammed nothing shut. You can't even follow a simple blog comment section.
Again, a swing a miss from Chris. Did I miss a secret left-wing blogger memo somewhere that mandates the comments on a particular post cannot stray from the topic of that post? Because if I did, then I'm glad.
But by your own standards, since you seem to have a very closed mind concerning what belong or does not belong in a blog comment, you called the Republicans weak and powerless - to that, by your standards, all I would be allowed to say is "No, they're not." A "Yes they are", "No they're not" match can go on forever. Ask your fellow third-graders.
Instead, since I missed the aforementioned memo, I decided to give a few reasons to back up my claim that Obama will need, or at least have to pay attention to, Republican interests in the coming months and years. Of course, since constructive conversation is apparently not you thing (although you're exceptionally good at repeating yourself - kudos), all I got was a blank stare and a wagging finger. Basically the equivalent of telling your math teacher that since you're only going to be using the first five digits of Pi in Trig, that there's no need for you to even learn that Pi can be extrapolated for over 2 billion digits.
Ooops - my bad, I'm off topic again. Is there a three strikes rule enforced by you Lefty bloggers??
No memo Andrew, it's just a personal policy not to comment on something that has nothing to do with the conversation. If you want to have a conversation about whatever mumbo-jumbo you mentioned above, send me an email but I'm not going to address such ranting on a comment section, one of which has nothing to do with what the post was about.
The GOP is indeed powerless and weak. Thank God for that.
I'm sure we're all resting a bit easier now that the guys who created the economic mess now control all three branches of the American government.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home