Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the podcast: strategies and secrets. Author and fellow at the Claremont Institute Charles Kesler stops by to discuss his book I Am The Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism. Then, National Review’s (and the co-host of the Beltway Buzz podcast) Robert Costa stops by discuss his off the record chat with the President. Should conservative journalists agree to such an arrangement? It’s debated on the show, but tell us what you think in the comments.
Music from this week’s episode:
Do You Want To Know A Secret by The Beatles
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
EJHill is on deep background.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
There’s no reason for conservative columnists to go off the record with a socialist president. If information gleaned cannot be used it is useless.
So, congratulations. You, too have become window dressing and cover for the President. “See,” he says, “I do listen to my critics. In fact, just the other day I had a whole bevy of conservative journalists in for coffee and tea!”
Then you can go back to sniping at Ted Cruz and all the others that won’t play the “insider” game that has worked so well for us since… never.
This might seem fine in the incestuous world of DC journalism but I, for one, would never accept to go under those conditions or would just piss off everyone in DC for violating it afterwards. Providing anonymity to sources is one thing, allowing the President or any politician to swear you to some priestly confidentiality is another.
I really can’t explain why I got so bothered with the segment with Mr. Costa, but I did. I kept thinking, “What is it to me that he got to chat with the President, off the record?” If something important , or interesting happened, it would seem that the reporter exists to relay that material. I can go to the White House, myself, and not be told anything, why do I need to check in with Mr. Costa to not be informed of what took place?
@troy – I read the autobiography of Benji at 15. Thus started my love affair with the American ideal….
All off the record reporting should be suspect.
If I’m a member of the DC ruling class and I don’t like Ted Cruz, I can call up a reporter, tell them off the record that Ted Cruz is a monster, and the reporter will dutifully write his article:
“Privately, republican leaders can’t stand Senator Cruz…” Tada, the meme is out there and I have no fear of attribution or retribution or accountability to my constituents.
“Senator Cruz, reports say members of your own party can’t stand you. How do you respond?”
If you are going to report something off the record, you better ask the subject why they won’t go on the record, and justify your unsourced reporting to your readers.
Thanks be for Lileks and his poorly contained contempt.
When Lileks asked Costa, “What was the point of this” for Obama? Costa replied, “Outreach.”
Looks like Obama “reached out” and patted Costa on the head, and then Costa rolled over . . . to get his belly scratched.
I’d ask whether Costa got his belly scratched, too, but that’s probably off the record. For the record, I’d like to know whether any pro-Cruz journos were invited?
I’d ask whether Costa got his belly scratched, too, but that’s probably off the record. For the record, I’d like to know whether anypro-Cruz journos were invited? ·16 minutes ago
If you are a “conservative” journalist, and suddenly you are getting invites to appear on NPR and MSNBC and talk to the President, you should start to wonder why.
I loved the out music. It took me a few seconds to get the significance, mostly bc I was singing along, but when I did, it really made me smile.
Btw, where’s our announcement on the meetup location!
Of course they should go, because they are grown ups. A small as the possibility is, there is the chance that President Obama would listen to reason. As angry and as frustrated as conservatives are, a chance to speak with the President and offer him counsel is always worth taking.
Of course I have a firm belief in a benevolent and interventionist God and the efficacy of prayer. We pray for wisdom for our leaders. Perhaps this is how the wisdom is delivered?
As to who reads us in the “corridors of power?” Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Daryl Issa.
Is Mr. Costa lacking a humor bone? How could he pass on the opportunity to say :
“ Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
I repeat this friendly advice: When one’s warning against a danger has been ignored, one must be careful that a desire to be vindicated by events does not lead one, perhaps unconsciously, to attempt to influence events to bring about the result one had warned against. For acting against friendship, one will be properly despised even if the advice was correct. ·5 hours ago
Well said, as a general caution, although I don’t think it applies to anyone on the podcast today. They’d all rather be wrong in victory, it seems to me.
Btw, your words capture perfectly how many of us Romney supporters felt post-primaries, as (it seemed) his every utterance was parsed by ABR’s to find evidence of malfeasance, weakness, etc., even as his opponent was then Obama.
Restraining one’s ego and the “I told you so” impulse is a virtue and very difficult to do.
I find this attitude astonishing. President Bush held off the record meetings with conservative journalists and pundits, including Mark Steyn. Are we all going to get all upset about this too?
I’d ask whether Costa got his belly scratched, too, but that’s probably off the record. For the record, I’d like to know whether anypro-Cruz journos were invited? ·3 hours ago
In the early 1980s I was a reporter/feature writer for a three-county daily on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. My city editor would not allow me to be a judge in an ugly dog fundraiser for the local animal welfare group. I might have to report negative things about the group, he said; better not to mix brews. I had no problem with it, and immediately knew he was right. Since then, though–and long before Mr. Costa was in college–the line between the person being covered and the person doing the covering has disappeared, and the overlap is awkward. Everything is about personalities and events. I don’t imagine that this meeting with the president will negatively affect Mr. Costa’s political reporting and analysis (which I like listening to on his podcast). But to not be able to talk or write about, not even in generalities, policy differences and viewpoints discussed during those 90 minutes makes the meeting less than useless for a reporter, except in a social sense.
Cruz’s efforts around the shutdown were primarily an exercise in Ted Cruz promoting Ted Cruz.
Go ahead, name five journalists that meet your criteria.
I’d ask whether Costa got his belly scratched, too, but that’s probably off the record. For the record, I’d like to know whether anypro-Cruz journos were invited? ·3 hours ago
Right!
Didja happen to notice that Obama invitedonlyconservative journos who had gone on recordopposingCruz’s efforts around the shutdown?
Didja happen to wonder why? ·11 hours ago
Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Byron York also attended the meeting with the President and tweeted the following:
I’d ask whether Costa got his belly scratched, too, but that’s probably off the record. For the record, I’d like to know whether anypro-Cruz journos were invited? ·3 hours ago
Right!
Didja happen to notice that Obama invited only conservative journos who had gone on record opposing Cruz’s efforts around the shutdown?
Didja happen to wonder why?
“Whether we shall win or lose this round, we notice on our side who tries to help and who, in midst of battle, stands on the side of the field screaming disheartening things about those actually engaged in the fight.”
Exactly. Since Ben Franklin has already been mentioned “We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” In other words, if you’re a squish and you haven’t got the spine or the stomach to stand up to the vile punk defiling the White House with the pestilential exhalations of his diseased mind and rotten character, kindly keep your misgivings to yourselves and stay of out the way of those who do have the spine and the guts for the job.
In his write up of his impressions of Obama’s off-the-record tea party, I hope Mr. York will not fail to note that the only conservative journos invited were ones who had previously gone on record against Cruz’s efforts to defund.
I have no idea what Obama’s litmus test was in deciding who got invitations. The point of posting the Tweets was to give some insight into why a conservative journalist would agree to an off the record meeting with the President.
Good? In what way? Good for whom?
And what in particular do you better understand about “the WH perspective” that you did not understand before?
Did you happen to notice and were you equally impressed that the only conservative journos Obama had over for tea ones who had previously gone on record against Cruz’s efforts to defund?
A good thing? Good for whom. How? Was it good for you to hear Obama tell you how right you were to have opposed Cruz’s efforts? Or was it good for Obama to hear to you tell him how you opposed Cruz’s efforts? Or both? What else made this meeting “a good thing”?
Is there an echo in here?
My aim was to respond to York’s tweets, and not at all to suggest you were wrong to post them.
But really, Blue, do you really have “no idea” why Obama chose the 5 he chose?
(Such innocence would be almost admirable in this cynical age.)
Bill Kristol would have been a more obvious choice than Costa or Parker, except that Kristol has had the gall to suggest that the GOP might win this thing and need not panic or throw in the towel.
I have no idea what happened at the WH. I have seen local officials give off-the-record comments and background comments. They were usually things which are important to know and not necessarilly secrets, but which for diplomatic reasons cannot be stated outright. Example, the official statement is “the city believes the ordinance conforms to the state constitution and the powers granted in the city charter. Our lawyers are committed to defending the ordinance for as long as necessary and the city will continue to enforce the ordinance.” The off-the-record explanation is that the ordinance was modeled after another city in the state which already went to the state supreme court and won -so the city’s plan was to keep defending the ordinance in court and issuing the citations until the plaintiff either gave up or ran out of money.
I think it’s simply awesome that 5 right-wing-ish journalists now have a better understanding of Barack Obama. Simply. Awesome.
Too bad 5 professional reporters can’t actually help anyone else have a better understanding of Barack Obama because they promised not to tell anyone about how their new understanding was changed by the meeting.
Can’t imagine why a reporter would want to, I don’t know, report on events.
Perhaps the real unforced error is the one wobbly conservative pundits repeatedly commit when they chant, “The Republicans will be blamed!” That negative talk does no good.
Lest you fear you might lose the reward most dear to a pundit’s heart(i.e., the chance to say, “I told you so!”), please rest assured that we in the rank-and-file have kept careful note of who has expressed which opinion, as well who are the fighters, who are the genteel armchair generals, and who are the panicked naysayers.
Whether we shall win or lose this round, we notice on our side who tries to help and who, in midst of battle, stands on the side of the field screaming disheartening things about those actually engaged in the fight.
I repeat this friendly advice: When one’s warning against a danger has been ignored, one must be careful that a desire to be vindicated by events does not lead one, perhaps unconsciously, to attempt to influence events to bring about the result one had warned against. For acting against friendship, one will be properly despised even if the advice was correct.
I feel no need to listen to Obama on anything. When someone lies, you don’t listen to them.
I’m feeling an impulse to tell Mr. Costa that the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary and then see if he looks it up.
Edited 1 hour ago
That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t yield information though.
Look, if someone wants to have a conversation with you, I say have the conversation. I don’t see any hard in it. He’s the president, he might almost have something interesting to say.
Look, I trust guys like Krauthammer and Boba Costa. That having been said, I am also glad for James Lileks’ cynicism. I am glad to have someone with a mind (and experience) like Lileks’ on our side; and the same goes for Charles Krauthammer and Bob Costa.
Too bad 5 professional reporters can’t actually help anyone else have a better understanding of Barack Obama because they promised not to tell anyone about how their new understanding was changed by the meeting.
Can’t imagine why a reporter would want to, I don’t know, report on events. ·October 10, 2013 at 10:35am
Edited on October 10, 2013 at 10:35am
Right. I can understand opposition politicians agreeing to an off the record meeting as a way to gain mutual understanding and rapport, but it seems to me that journalists would find the very idea repulsive: they’re supposed to be in t he business of broadcasting the facts and understanding they cover. The only possible purpose is political, and the only one to truly benefit is Obama.
Disappointing.
Costa was quite unimpressive. What a suck up to power.