dagblog - Comments for "President Obama, off the record"

Driftglass, yes. Brooks,

NCD — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:22:50 +0000

In reply to He also has a large audience,

Driftglass, yes. Brooks, hardly. I annually cancel my NYT for a month or two, and cite Brooks as the reason.

He also has a large audience,

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:25:29 +0000

In reply to Brooks blames Penn State

He also has a large audience, one which seems to include you at times.

Not to Politico, apparently,

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:24:18 +0000

In reply to Or that seemingly Friedman &

Not to Politico, apparently, with a large audience that looks like this. Ever suspect, maybe just once in a blue moon, that you might also be subject to thinking within a bubble as to things such as what is considered left and what is considered right?

Brooks blames Penn State

NCD — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:03:04 +0000

In reply to President Obama, off the record

Brooks blames Penn State crimes on Dirty Hippies.

Meet The Press, from the transcript:

MR. BROOKS: I don't think it was just a Penn State problem. You know, you spend 30 or 40 years muddying the moral waters here. We have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is; and so, when people see things like that, they don't have categories to put it into. They vaguely know it's wrong, but they've been raised in a morality that says, "If it feels all right for you, it's probably OK."

...MR. GREGORY: Is it really that we don't know right from wrong? Is there anybody who doesn't know that sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in a shower by another man is wrong?

Driftglass on Brooks: Afflicting the afflicted, and comforting the comfortable for 30 years.

Driftglass on 'moral water muddying':

..by Mr. Brooks' logic, the child rape cult at the heart of the Catholic Church could only have been the product of the free-wheeling, godless, anything-goes attitude for which Catholicism has so long been famous.

I read the article,

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:32:56 +0000

In reply to I don't know the rest all

I read the article, especially the quotes from some of the non-conservative participants, more as saying it's not that he values their opinions but that he thinks they are ones that will often end up getting his point of view out there with a fair shake and might even come round to supporting it:

“He sees columnists as portals,” another journalist who has attended meetings said. “It works — I feel it work with me. It’s almost impossible to spend hours face-to-face with the president, unfiltered, then write a column or go on television without taking his point of view into account.”

For that reason, calling these sessions “off the record meetings” is actually inaccurate, said Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for President George W. Bush, who held similar meetings.

“It’s a misnomer. After these meetings journalists will go on the air and say, ‘Here’s what the White House is thinking on this,’” Fleischer explained. “It’s smart. Every White House should do it.

Myself, I am kind of shocked that when I came to the conclusion that David Ignatius seemed to have very high level excellent sources on what the Obama administration was thinking (on like Netanyahu and Iran, or Snowden) that a lot of it was probably coming directly from the president himself. That is not the kind of source I was imagining.

I wonder what the shake out of this article will be. All these guys have basically been outed as having a direct line to the Oval Office!

Or that seemingly Friedman &

Anonymous PP — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:23:19 +0000

In reply to I don't know the rest all

Or that seemingly Friedman & Brooks don't count as conservatives in this unbalanced lineup.

I don't know the rest all

Donal — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:50:22 +0000

In reply to President Obama, off the record

I don't know the rest all that well, but it is depressing to think the Prez values the opinions of Friedman, Brooks and Krauthammer.