What ever happened to the notion of "Conflict of interest"?

http://www.RolandWBurris.com ^

[publius321]

I find this Obama summit at George Will’s home to be rather odd. The Times suggested that the dinner was arranged by Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod. It doesn’t matter who arranged it, the fact that Will, Krauthammer, Krystol and Chris Lowery went into this meeting knowing it was “off the record” is somewhat disturbing.

It seems that these days in the public and private sector - there is no longer such a thing as "conflict of interest" or "avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Here is a column in this regard called - Will, Krystol & Krauthammer are now “Almost Famous”

at http://www.TableOfWisdom.com If you’ve seen the movie “Almost Famous” - you might agree that some of these journalists could learn something from it.

I wrote a colomn in this regard called - Will, Krystol & Krauthammer are now “Almost Famous” at http://www.TableOfWisdom.com

If you’ve seen the movie “Almost Famous” - you might agree that some of these journalists could learn something from it.

[kesg]

The notion of “conflict of interest” doesn’t apply to Demcorats. Is this a trick question?

[DannyTN]

The notions of “Conflict of Interest”, “Rule of Law”, “Fair play”, and “Fair elections” only apply to Republicans, not democrats.

To make it fair, “Freedom of Speech” only applies to Democrats not Republicans.

[muawiyah]

Frankly, I have only the slightest bit of understanding of why Will, Krystol & Krauthammer would "sit down to dinner" with the top lieutenants of a political party virtually overrun with antisemitism in the rank and file.

Did they hope to change some minds, or were they merely making a deal to be murdered last.

[publius321]

Yes, in a way it is a trick question because we all have known that it doesn’t apply to Democrats but this post is about the conflict of interest in Will, Krystol and Krauthammer having a top secret, private dinner with Obama, the man we are counting on them to cover.

It could be that you gave a “trick answer” if you are implying that they are actually Democrats. Although, I don’t think that’s what you meant.

[SpaceBar]

Conflict of interest to liberals is interpreted as experience.

[kesg]

This is what happens when I don’t read the actual article or excerpt. :) I had just read something about Vitter being the lone vote against Hillary because of her conflicts of interest. Sorry about that.

No, I don’t think that Kristol or Krauthammer are Democrats. [Note: I’m not so sure about Will these days.] And I don’t think it is necessarily a significant conflict of interest for them to have a private dinner with Obama or any other newsmaker. Especially when they disclose it afterwards.

[Wegotsarah.com]

Mr. Burris makes a good point- but with respect, he misses the main point. They are not journalists---they are "Washngtonians" first and foremost. It's been said often enough here on FR, and is common knowledge elsewhere-these people will say and do virtually anything to get invited to just this type of dinner. Here's the proof.

Incidentally, WashPo (Kurtz) reported that George Will tried to set up this dinner before the election. Put a skirt on George, you're the new Katherine Graham.

[abigkahuna]

Kristol, et. al. are not journalists, they are commentators. There is no conflict of interest with sitting down with the president-elect to have dinner. I mean come on, think about it--

So they discussed information on "deep background" or whatever. Big Deal. Maybe Obamy wanted to find out what these dudes think about this or that.

As much as I dislike socialist Obama and take what commentators with a grain of salt, I see nothing sinister with the president-elect sitting down to dinner with folks that may not always agree with him. Hell--might even be re-freshing for Obama to get away from all the "yes-men."

Once again, I don;t like Obama, I don;t like the left wing of the Democrat party, I politically detest Pelosi, Reed and a whole host of other maroons--that aside, Obama is now my president. I will fight against what I believe are wrong decisions and actions, but he is still my country's president.

I will not stoop to the level of the left that would proudly wear t-shirts with Bush's pic stating "Not My Prresident". Wrong-o bubby--Bush was your president whether you voted for him or not--same holds for all of us conservatives. For good or ill, Obama is our country's President.

Now, lets help him to not screw things up... :)

[OB1kNOb]

I can’t find “conflict of interest” listed in the Obamunism handbook.

[BohDaThone]

Presidents have always talked to people (including journalists) "off the record"; sometimes to really get advice, or knowledge; sometimes to try to disarm or seduce them; sometimes just for show. The only way to know which is to see what happens in the days ahead, on both sides .

-- there is no requirement that a person coming out of a meeting with Obama has to say "I think you are scum" in order to be credible for the next 4 years!

The only really bad thing I can think of about the meeting/dinner taking place (remember, RR had dinner with Katherine Graham and her friends and he still did kind of OK as President) is that it is a sign that Obama is not a total fool. It was good politics of him to have the dinner, and it shows that he must be considered very wily and dangerous as a political adversary.

But it is also true that over the next four years he can do things that are atrocious, or very bad, or kind of bad, or maybe not quite so bad. There's nothing wrong in hoping he moves toward the latter and trying to get him to do so.

[anniegetyourgun]

Yes, he is our president - and he owns the media, Congress, higher ed, lower ed, the judiciary, Hollywood, the GOP, etc. Therefore, all we can do is hope he doesn't move to gays in the military, FOCA, card check, trillions in debt, etc.

In short, we get hope - while he gets change. Welcome to our president - and our one-party system.

[The Duke]

Don't forget "Appearance of Impropriety".

[neocon1984]

(1) There is no conflict of interest here.

(2) I would be flattered by an invitation to meet any POTUS.

(3) I would very much like to meet Obama so that I can take the measure of the man using my own powers of judgement.

(4) If Krauthammer’s ego is anything like mine, I suspect he hoped to influence Obama’s thinking, not vice versa.

(5) George Will is simply hoping that Obama can help him get better seats for the upcoming baseball season

(6) As Vito Corleone said, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

the best post on this topic!

[supercat]

The notion of “conflict of interest” doesn’t apply to Demcorats.

I don't see a conflict of interest here, but would note that generally, in LiberaLogic:

• If someone, for fear of a potential conflict of interest, recuses himself from a committee, tribunal, or other such body, such recusal constitutes prima facie evidence that the person is a crook (i.e. so crooked that he had to be recused).
• If someone refuses to recuse himself, regardless of any apparent conflict of interest, that is prima facie evidence that one is an ethical person (since one didn't have to recuse oneself).

Pretty nifty, eh?

[the invisib1e hand]

What ever happened to the notion of "Conflict of interest"?

It was written out of the rule book shortly after Decency.