What fun it would have been to be a fly on the wall as President-elect Barack Obama dined Tuesday night at the home of conservative columnist George Will (in photo) with other right-thinking scribes including David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michael Barone, Peggy Noonan and Paul Gigot. The gathering was said to be off the record, but it will interesting to see whether the tone of any of these pundits changes in the coming days.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
56 Comments
Gathering of the minds or perhaps fiends…
Perhaps Obama stuffed cotton in his cheeks and made them an offer they couldn’t refuse.
Time will tell…
Obama’s a Centrist, and at least a dozen IQ points above bush, I’m sure they have no option but to be satisfied with him.
Wow! This was just like when President-elect Bush met with Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Joe Conason, Sidney Blumenthal and Molly Ivins.
Oh, wait. He did nothing of the kind. Not even close.
Sounds like Obama had to go the extra mile to educate conservatives who are either wrong about everything, or simply lie.
Maybe they talked about baseball
Perhaps, Obama understands what too many on this blog don’t. Those who disagree with him are not his enemies, and one need not be disageeable to those one disagrees with.
And effective governing is always done from the center. It has to be; that’s where most people are.
More importantly, unlike so many on the left here on this blog who recoil in horror at the thought of meeting with those they disagree with, Obama is comfortable enough in his own skin and with who he is and what he believes not to fear dissenting thought.
Maybe they talked about baseball
I think college football playoffs are the topic du’jour. Of all the things on Obama’s plate, the one thing he has the least control over makes the headlines. American Idol, we are living it…
Maybe Obama hasn’t decided just who he is yet. It’s a little late for that.
I’m predicting a very short honeymoon for him.
You mean, GMC, celebrating the diversity like your pal Bradley Slozman did (now under investigation for “politicizing” hiring) . . .
But, George Will is Huge baseball nerd, not sure about Obama other than hes a B- ball fan and hates the BCS
Utah did get screwed
The BCS has served its time. Playoffs are overdue.
I hope all those people used their good manners and didn’t belch or fart. I wonder what they had for dinner.
Capn –
I mean genuine tolerance, more than the PC platitutes so easily tossed about, on a level that many on the left seem incapable of. The ability to exchange ideas, at a REAL level, not just the PC rote and generic labels. People are complex, and do not often fit into the neat pro/con, left/right boxes you seem so determined to stuff them into.
In the end it may be necessary to agree to disagree where that disagreement ultimately exists, all the while respecting the other’s point of view even as you disagree with it. That takes not tit for tat, or meaningless crap (i.e. your last post), but an effort to understand the other guy. And be willing to disagree with him. And still respect him, or even enjoy his company (or, gasp, even sup with those you disagree with!).
And at the same time be a civilized human being, able to treat others will real respect. Real respect means recognizing that reasonable persons may well disagree with you.
To do that, you have to be more than a bombthrower. Unfortunately, several of the most gifted posters on the left here seem determined to remain nothing but bombthrowers. And yes, Capn, that means you.
Thankfully, however, several quite gifted posters are more than that.
Translation of GMC’s post above–
I won’t answer your question because it’s true that Bradley Slozman hangs out with all the same bourgouise CON groups I do–country club, pachyderms, Sedwick Co. Repubs, Junior Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Quote d’ jour: “Of course you’re in pain. You’re getting screwed by an elephant.”
GMC70
Posted January 15, 2009 at 10:35 am | Permalink
Perhaps, Obama understands what too many on this blog don’t. Those who disagree with him are not his enemies, and one need not be disageeable to those one disagrees with.
___________________________________________________
Well put. Obama has to be the president for all Americans, not just the radical Left. Personally, I’m pleased to see Obama moving toward the center. Good on him!
Obama probably informed them that under the new Reich, they will report what they are told to report, or else!
I won’t chase your red herring, Capn, because it’s irrelevent to the subject, and loaded with the usual prejudices that you’d condemn in most other contexts. Your hypocricy swerves you well.
You well know all that, of course; that’s why you raise it. It then permits you to throw out the usual “lawyer, BAD, Ugh!; and “Bush, BAD, Ugh!” level of analysis bombthrowers are famous for.
It’s so much easier than thought.
Of course, if Bush ever HAD met with the extreme liberal media, the hue and cry from the leftist extremists would have been that he was ‘pandering’ to them. But, for Obama to do such is ‘reaching out’.
Such one sided myopia is pitiful.
You can dismiss it by calling it a red herring if you want to, G-Man, but since you felt complain that Obama’s appointment to some Justice position was not qualified after serving as President of Harvard Law School, I thought you might want to opine on a local attorney who stands accused of hiring based on ideology, not qualifications.
(And also lying to Congress, but IOKIYAR)
GMC says, “pay no attention to the giant log, this tiny, tiny speck is what is important.”
correction: you felt compelled to complain that . . .
The Crapn doesn’t have a log in his eye, he has an entire forest.
Capn, maybe it’s me, but I kinda think that serving as Solicitor General, the nation’s advocate to the SCOTUS, that at least SOME appellate experience might, ya know, kinda matter.
I don’t care how good a President of Harvard she is. Or how smart she is (and I don’t doubt she’s quite smart). But ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who steps in front of the SCOTUS without at least some real court experience (and a great deal of specific preparation as well) is a fool.
To be blunt, I am better prepared for the job of SG than she is, and I have no illusions that I’m ready for SCOTUS advocacy (I’ve had two defendants file petitions for cert; the arrival of a packet from the SCOTUS on my desk the first time scared the hell out of me!). And I’ve actually been in front of appellate courts. Regularly.
I, for one, want the person representing me before the SCOTUS to be the best advocate I can get. Her utter lack of any appellate experience is a valid concern.
You, on the other hand, changed the subject.
As you attempted to do here. Imagine that.
In case anyone is wondering who Capn & I are talking about, it’s Elena Kagan, Obama’s proposed Solicitor General. The SG heads the appellate advocacy section of the Justice Department, and has in particular responsibility for arguing the gov’t’s position before the SCOTUS.
And she has ZERO appellate experience. In fact, a review of her resume seems to indicate a lack of any legal PRACTICE at all. She’s been an academic, who went pretty directly from law school to legal teaching. That’s not a bad thing, of course, and I don’t doubt that she’s a very capable person; whe wouldn’t be Dean of Harvard Law (and a well-regarded one) if whe wasn’t. And no, this is not first time that a SG pick has had this hole in her resume.
Here’s here resume:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=112
I mean genuine tolerance, more than the PC platitutes so easily tossed about, on a level that many on the left seem incapable of.
I have no issue with the notion of civil discussions (even with bitter enemies). As Isaac Goldberg reportedly said, diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest thing in the nicest way.
There are certainly persons from all walks of life who tend to prefer heat to light. Sometimes it’s warranted, but it usually accomplishes nothing.
But I find the notion that incivility is somehow a disease solely–or even primarily–of “the left” hilarious, particularly after the past 8 years, when insane, hateful right-wing demagoguery became socially acceptable, even desirable, and books like “Treason” and “Deliver Us From Evil” made the bestseller list.
I don’t advocate “payback” for that dismal era (criminal investigations are quite enough). I don’t think anyone on the “left” wants that kind of climate to return.
But I won’t forget either.
For that matter, GMC, it’s hypocritical to call out only those “many on the left” when right-wing personal attacks have lately become the norm on this very forum.
GMC raises a fair question, but Kagan will naturally face examination from some of the sharpest and most experienced lawyers in the country.
If she’s an ineffective advocate or somehow unfamiliar with Supreme Court rules or appelliate procedure, that’ll come out in the wash.
Yeah, GMC.
If only we could have an SG like Kenneth Starr again.
Good times. Good times.
Surely we can find a small-town mayor with appellate experience.
Rage –
Point taken, I don’t defend those on the right who do so either, and have said so.
I do think, however (and I may be biased here) that much of the right’s nasty posting is in response to the left. Ultimately, both “sides” are equally guilty; “he started it” ended as a valid excuse about the 2nd grade.
My preference would be that we begin to look past “sides” and discuss issues here. But I unfortunately doubt that will happen. It’s too easy to just throw bombs.
I will say, Rage, that when I spoke of the gifted posters who were much more than bombthrowers, you were among those to whom I referred. My compliments.
I nominate Clint Eastwood for Solicitor General. He has no legal experience, but it would be damn entertaining to hear him argue a case before the Supreme Court. :)
I will say, Rage, that when I spoke of the gifted posters who were much more than bombthrowers, you were among those to whom I referred. My compliments.
Thanks, GMC. I think Julie once posted something along the lines “I don’t care who started it, I’m ending it!”
GMC raises a fair question, but Kagan will naturally face examination from some of the sharpest and most experienced lawyers in the country.
Surely you don’t mean the Senate, do you? (I’m not sure the SG requires Senate confirmation, as I think about it. But in any case . . .) Have you seen those bozos? Try tuning in to any recent SCOTUS confirmation, for example. It’s a joke. Most of those guys couldn’t litigate their way out of the proverbial paper bag; that’s why they’re Senators, and not practicing attorneys. And Biden was, to be blunt, clown-in-chief.
If you mean the Justices of the SCOTUS, yes, you’re right. But by then it’s too late; the US’s position before the Court will have not been adequately represented.
SG does require Senate confirmation, and that requires not just Senators blathering, but testimony from advocates and opponents. If you think that makes no difference, you might ask Justice Bork.
And say what you will about Pat Leahy’s limited experience as a prosecutor. He’s a sharp, fair, well-versed guy who’s been grilling legal appointees for very long time.
Doesn’t experience matter? :)
Boo Hoo, I was not invited.
Or let’s look at the distinguished career of Bush’s first SG, Ted Olson, who ended up resigning in disgrace:
Defended Reagan in the Iran Contra Hearings.
Defended convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, and overturned his death-penalty conviction.
He worked closely with The American Spectator magazine’s Arkansas Project muckracking into the lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Successfully argued for Bush in Bush v Gore which stopped the recount that Florida law required and gave Bush the Presidency.
Olson worked with the Giulianni campaign.
His wife, Barbara a CNN CONmentator, was flying on one of the hijacked planes on 9-11. Grief-stricken Ted remarried less than 6 months later.
Was accussed twice of “less than forthcoming” testimony before Congress.
Because of Olson’s bad legal advice on the Superfund cleanup fiasco, Reagan’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator was forced to resign.
“Afterward, when Congress was investigating both the scandal and apparent attempts to cover it up, Olson gave what a colleague would later call “deliberately evasive” answers when questioned about this advice in testimony before Congress. He earned a full investigation by an independent counsel, for perjury and obstruction of justice, because of this testimony.”
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/14/independent_counsel/index.html
He was cited for contempt of court.
Doesn’t experience matter? :)
Yup. It does. Which is my concern with the Kagan appointment.
Capn –
Re: your 1:27 post.
Which has what, exactly, to do with Kagan?
That’s called changing the subject. Again.
Don’t you ever get tired of making my point for me?
GMC, you call “changing the topic.”
I call it “refusing to see my point,” which is that no experience is better than the bad experience of a uber-political CON like Ted Olson.
I believe that someone with no experience (Kagan) is better than someone (Olson) whose experience includes lying under oath in court and rabid partisanship.
But, hey, that’s just me.
Uh, Capn, if Olson was the one seeking the office, I’d agree.
He’s not. The qualities (or lack thereof) of Olson would be relevant to Olson, were he seeking office.
It tells us NOTHING of the qualities of Kagan. Ergo, changing the subject.
Why do you continue to make handing you your ass so easy?
Perhaps, GMC, the point is that there are many types of experience. If it’s demonstrated that this distinguished law professor is somehow a less-than-quality courtroom litigator, that’s an issue. I don’t see that happening, and see little reason to believe it would be so. Teaching students to be lawyers requires a sound familiarity with the process itself, including an ability to perform in adversarial circumstances.
And I doubt dealing with law students is any picnic either. :)
Teaching students to be lawyers requires a sound familiarity with the process itself, including an ability to perform in adversarial circumstances.
One would hope so, but in IMHO that is not necessarily the case.
I can tell you that law SCHOOL is next to nothing like law PRACTICE. Frankly, law schools do relatively little in practical preparation for actual practice; they’re too busy teaching students to “think like lawyers” (and yes, there is value in that, too). That is more true for the upper echolon schools, IMHO, judging from those I’ve met from the Ivy League, than the “lesser” schools. The “lesser” schools focus more on making competent practicing lawyers; they have to, as they don’t have the prestige of a Harvard or Yale. Graduates from the Ivys are more likely to go into, as Kagan did, clerkships, government service, consulting, or teaching; grads from Washburn or KU will more likely go directly into practice.
I had a criminal procedure prof as a 3L who proceeded to lecture our class (a small one) about the ins and outs of prosecution of domestic violence. She spouted the usual (and forgive me, if this offends) feminist tripe, and I (and several others) just rolled our eyes. You see, at that point, I had as an intern in Johnson County already prosecuted three jury trials for domestic violence (and was 3-0, BTW); others in the class were similarly interning in other places.
Our illustrious prof, however, had NEVER TRIED A CASE. Not one. Unfortunately, that sort of “experience” is more the norm than the exception. Law schools are ivory towers, the Ivys even more so. Very insular, and frankly, very narrow in accepted views.
So I’m very skeptical of the value of an academic career when it comes to actually litigating. The two skills are not the same thing.
Remember, too – what is the job of the Dean of a law school? It amounts to two things, closely related 1)being the public face of the school, and 2) talking alumni out of copious amounts of money. That’s pretty much it.
Yes, she may well be very capable. It’s not necessarily an automatic disqualification, of course. But nothing prepares like experience. Nothing.
And as you’ve probably noted – I do not genuflect at the alter of Harvard et al. It’s quite prestigious, of course, but aside from the status, I’m not convinced that their grads, as a whole, are any more ready for practice than the grads of any number of quality schools.
“…which is that no experience is better than the bad experience of a uber-political CON like Ted Olson.”
Why can’t we get someone who is experienced and is not a political nut?
No experience is no good.
GMC, might I suggest you learn just a little more about this Ms. Kagan. Did you know that she clerked for Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall?
And what about her time at Williams & Connolly?
Williams & Connolly LLP is not organized into formal departments or practice groups. Litigation is the expertise of the firm’s attorneys. Advocacy is their skill. And good advocacy can be brought to bear in any kind of case. That is the firm’s conviction, and that is one of the secrets of the firm’s success.
http://www.wc.com/practice.html
Like I said, fair questions, GMC, but I think you’re fishing for a reason to object.
He should have done the bush thing, and only met with friends, and kept the others out of the loop.
I think it WILL be interesting to see how the right wing pundits treat him now.
“We experienced litigators are the only ones that know anything.”
It’s how the folks who graduated from “draw Winky and get admitted” schools maintain their anti-elitist elitism.
“CapnAmerica” –
I always chuckle at the “draw Winky” law school reference. Thanks for that.
There are so many of those, you know.
And, under the guise of teaching contracts or torts some law schools exist merely as trade schools; teaching how to pass the bar exam.
So much of practicing law is fill-in-the-blanks. Accused people are mostly guilty and most parents want to leave their heirs a fair share of their stuff. Contracts are basically “if you do this, we’ll do that,” and torts are basically “you were stupid and should’ve known better” or “you are evil and the outrage isn’t what’s illegal but what’s legal.”
Ultimately every legal case becomes a matter of “pound the facts, pound the law, or pound the table.” It’s “Being a Gladiator for Wimps.”
I’ve always admired the Brits for making their lawyers wear those silly wigs.
It’s a constant reminder of their absurdities.
So when exactly did you pass the ‘bar exam’ MH?
Former Solicitor General Charles Fried, now a Harvard colleague of Kagan’s, exclaims “Nonsense!” when asked if Kagan’s lack of appellate experience is a deficit. “Anyone who tells you it’s a problem is trying to maintain a guild lock on Supreme Court arguments.”…
Fried himself had not argued before becoming deputy solicitor general in February 1985 — a few months before he was elevated and confirmed as solicitor general….
… Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus — currently visiting at Harvard — the appointment of Kagan represents a “return to the mold” of earlier solicitors general, most of whom arrived from academia or the bench with little or no appellate experience.
It was not until Seth Waxman’s appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1997, Lazarus says, that a new trend began of drawing SGs from the ranks of private firms, where they had honed litigating or appellate skills….
MH–
The United States passed one million lawyers long ago.
Do we really need one out of 350 people doing this job?
No. But, hey, humanities majors have to do something. I got accepted to law school in my home state years ago, but instead went to graduate school in a field I was really interested in.
Lucky for me, it worked out. But I had to pay my dues for a number of years, heigh ho . . .
I knew an attorney from a large law firm in Dayton, Ohio. He told me that the Harvard appeal has been lost for some time.
The reason why is that law firms who hire junior partners and train them in their own philosophies. Someone who is too high opinion of themselves because they went to a certain university will most likely not be a team player.
The other reason is that many of the Harvard grads get admission by a very political and ‘money belt – deep pockets’ fast track.
Artificial blue-blooding if one wishes to call it that…
The best lawyer I know has been a friend since some kid brought over a Parker Brothers or Milton Bradley box and opened it up.
The kid who brought the game would unwrap Monopoly or Parcheesi or Sorry or Clue or whatever it was and tell you how the game worked. My friend, the potential lawyer, would read the rules printed on the inside of the box.
For a good lawyer it’s all about the rules.
Doesn’t matter if the rules make sense or not; they’re the rules.
Thanks, Capn, MH. I always suspected for all the gifted writing, you were simply overstuffed, self-aggrandizing fools.
Your posts over the last 6-7 posts have proven that to be the case.
So much of practicing law is fill-in-the-blanks. Accused people are mostly guilty and most parents want to leave their heirs a fair share of their stuff. Contracts are basically “if you do this, we’ll do that,” and torts are basically “you were stupid and should’ve known better” or “you are evil and the outrage isn’t what’s illegal but what’s legal.”
Ultimately every legal case becomes a matter of “pound the facts, pound the law, or pound the table.” It’s “Being a Gladiator for Wimps.”
Wow.
So much ignorance stuffed into so few words.
There are valid criticisms of the law (I’ve got a list, and unlike you, I suspect MH, I’ve actually got a couple things changed), and valid criticisms of the profession.
This, however, is pure ignorance.