The Messiah dined with various Beltway/Big Apple conservative scribes Tuesday night. The participants are publicly mum on the subject. Privately, several of Obama's new friends are eager to spread His good news. Someday, the writers, as writers are known to do, will pen slightly differing versions in National Review, the Almanac of American Politics, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Though the scribes will undoubtedly denounce my account as apocryphal, I have the exclusive, gospel-truth, inside scoop of what was said and done at the dinner.

Obama sent two of his advance men to scout out a location where He and a dozen friends could break bread, drink wine, and discuss important issues. As it turned out, the advance men settled on columnist George Will's Chevy Chase manse. Obama arrived, and George Will, in a self-abasing tone rivalled in its grovelling only by his chance meeting with the great Cal Ripken years earlier, explained: "Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed." Rich Lowry rang the dinner bell. The dozen or so surrounded Obama at the elongated table. And then Obama addressed His new apostles:

"Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you." Michael Barone, David Brooks, Paul Gigot, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Larry Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, and George Will each took a slice of Wonder Bread and ate it. Heavy stuff--the moment, not the bread.

The meal needed just the right drink--my sources tell me it was grape soda--and Obama was up for the occasion, just as he was when he fed that whole stadium full of people in Denver (Or was it Berlin?). Chalice raised above head, He pronounced: "Take this all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

As the Apostles sipped from the Holy Grail of Fanta, they reflected on their many sins. Michael Barone had judged the Chosen One guilty of "condescension and snobbery." Bill Kristol had compared Obama unfavorably to another prophet, saying that He was "the opposite of Lincoln." Charles Krauthammer had dubbed one of His sermons a "fraud" and "sophistic." They needed His forgiveness if they wanted to work in the City of God for eternity, or at least for the next four years.

Obama informed the apostles that one of their number would betray Him (To Matt Drudge, one presumes?). There were many potential Judases in this crowd. David Brooks's face expressed disbelief. Larry Kudlow and Paul Gigot looked at each other dumbfounded. Peggy Noonan--who had quit her job to follow the Lord less than four years ago, only to discover that he was a false god and expose him in the Wall Street Journal a few months later--dropped her jaw. Obama, ever the prophet, warned: "All of you shall be scandalized in me this night." David Brooks retorted, "I will never be scandalized in thee." The One said to him, "Amen I say before thee that in this night before the cock crow thou wilt deny me thrice."

Alas, the prophecy was not entirely fulfilled. The Chosen One did not rise from the dead a few days later, but instead was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. That did nothing to diminish the fervor of his votaries. God. President. What's the difference to some people?

This CNBC transcript is from the Lew Rockwell Blog and demonstrates perfectly what Dan speaks of. What a sham the "conservative" (neocon and neoliberals really) "intellectuals" are now more than ever.

CNBC’s Melissa Francis: I HAVE TO ASK LARRY [Kudlow], I’M DYING TO HEAR ABOUT IT, YOU HAD DINNER LAST NIGHT WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA. WHAT WAS THE TONE LIKE? WAS HE TRYING TO WIN OVER THE CONSERVATIVES? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS?

THERE WERE ABOUT TEN OF YOU THERE, RIGHT?

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: THIS WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD DINNER AND I’M GOING TO KEEP IT OFF THE RECORD IN TERMS OF DEEP CONTENT, BUT PEGGY NOONAN WAS THERE, PAUL GIGOT OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, BILL KRISTOL, MYSELF, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SOME OTHERS. NINE OR TEN OF US. I DON’T THINK HE’S TRYING TO WIN US OVER, BUT HE’S TRYING TO CONNECT WITH US AND ENGAGE WITH US TO HIT GREAT CREDIT.THIS WAS A VERY CORDIAL DINNER.

Francis: HE IS CHARMING, RIGHT?

Kudlow: HE IS CHARMING, HE IS TERRIBLY SMART, BRIGHT, WELL-INFORMED, HE HAS A GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR. AT THE BEGINNING WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE LIVING ROOM, YOU KNOW, WE’RE ALL WAITING —

Kudlow: INTERESTING THING. THIS IS JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, HE IS SO WELL-INFORMED, AND HE LOVES TO DEAL WITH BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE, AND I’M NOT GOING TO DIVULGE WHAT WAS SAID THERE AND I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS, BUT HE ENJOYS THE BACK AND FORTH, AND HE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, TOUGH, MEAN, INSULTING, SNARLING, NONE OF THAT STUFF, AND WE WEREN’T EITHER.

THIS WAS A GOOD CONSERVATIVE GROUP AND WE JUST HAD A GREAT BACK AND FORTH, AND HE WANTS TO KEEP THE DIALOGUE GOING WITH CONSERVATIVES. I WOULD SAY I AM HONORED TO BE AT THAT DINNER. I WAS HONORED TO MEET HIM. HE IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN, AND I WISH HIM ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD BECAUSE WE’VE GOT SOME ISSUES TO DEAL WITH.

Francis: WHAT DID YOU EAT?

Kudlow: I CAN’T REMEMBER. I WAS SO FOCUSED ON HIM. I WAS SITTING ACROSS FROM HIM –

Francis: YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EAT. MAYBE YOU DIDN’T TOUCH ANYTHING.

Kudlow: THE FOOD WAS EXCELLENT. I PROBABLY DIDN’T EAT A WHOLE LOT. IT WAS ALL VERY INTERESTING, AND HE’S A GOOD MAN, AND WE WILL SEE HOW HE DOES. THAT’S ALL I CAN SAY. WE WISH HIM THE BEST.

Kramer actually says he can't remember what he had for dinner two nights ago? Seriously is this just pathetic or actually very disturbing?

And how he apparently trails off on his thought that when Obama walked into the room they "were all waiting . . ." Huh larry? Were you all waiting with bated breath? Did Peggy Noonan swoon in a dead faint? Did anyone get heart palpitations? Where were you going with that thought?

And finally, when will "smart" people ever stop being fooled by stooges who "love to deal with both sides of an issue"? That isn't at all a sign of intelligence but (in a politician with the non-existent record of Obama) more likely a sign of lack of conviction, and thus possibly a cold calculating Machiavellian libido dominandi.

This introductory dog and pony show with a malleable group of supposed conservatives was nothing about ideas or discussion of differing political philosophies. In my opinion, it was staged for the national press to present an Obama who will work with Conservatives (Republicans?) in the spririt of bi-partisanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's get real here, Obama is a megalomaniac ideologue who truly believes that government is the solution to everything and that only he, as the Messiah, can deliver that solution to the extent where people have to be spoon fed what he knows is good for them. Whether they know it or like it.

Contrary to the way the media and some of the pundits are portraying him to be, I don't believe The One is a sheep among wolves. Why else would a supposedly good and true person associate and surround himself with so ethically void and dishonest persons?

It takes one to know one and our new leader appears to know a lot of them but is smooth enough to convince many people that in a political cesspool, he remains clean.

If I were invited to this dinner, I would go; I would stand a little anxious to meet the man; I would probably be impressed with his presence, style, and quickness.

I think it is good (and not just smart politically) for serious politicians to make gestures of interest and respect towards the leading public intellectuals representing the opposition. I think it is good for the opposition to accept the invitation, and to admit when their opponent is impressive, smart, charming.

I have no idea to what extent Obama is an Leftist ideologue or an intellectually open politician, who might end up being more middle of the road. I know that his attitude toward government is not mine. His attitude toward problems, and pragmatic fixes, and government ability to fix problems and to inspire nations with mobilizaing world-views, is actually much closer to the attitude of these conservative pundits than it is to me.

No, no, there isn't much of a problem with Obama here, or with the diners. He didn't invite neocons, and they didn't ask to be invited. He invited the leading intellectuals of the opposition, the leading conservatives -- they happen to all be neocons now.

Rather, the problem is that the ruling party has the same ruling attitude as the "opposition," which disagrees only half-heartedly and in details: problems needs government, needs power, needs leadership, needs inspiration . . .

"Little Horn" do you suppose, Dan?

I do not find Obama as disturbing as the way many fawn over him. He is our elected President, not the Omega.

Be well,

Sponge

"Let's get real here, Obama is a megalomaniac ideologue who truly believes that government is the solution to everything and that only he..."

Once again, you spout baseless opinion in a defensive and paranoid fury. Back up your opinion with substance. Oh wait, you can't because he actually IS reaching across the aisle, rather than being the radical socialist communist left-winger that you have been shouting about for months. Please, back your self up or get a grip. Baseless opinion is the antithesis of what we need now.

Horse,

I hope you are right. However I fear that Obama will be as partisan as W. was. From what I have read, most of Obama's votes have been for more big government, so Dan's opinion does have some basis in fact.
Please keep in mind that Mr. Flynn was the first conservative I know of to be critical of Bush after 9/11. That was when it was almost illegal to be crtitical of W. For that Mr. Flynn will always have my respect as being less partisan than most.
Horse, I was very concerned with the blind allegiance to W most had back then, the almost Ceasarian following that W. developed. I am similarly concerned with Obama doing the same. Populism is great, but too much of it leads to power grabs. I want effecient government, (and frankly, the left and right should realize we need both systems) not bread and circuses.
Either way, welcome to the "Era of Bad Feelings"-no matter what, hate the opposition.

Be well,

Sponge

Amen sponge. Blind belief in anyone is a bad idea, and to be uncritical is probably worse. I don't defend everything the left does, nor do I attack everything the right does. I think W did good things in Africa, but they were overshadowed by everything else. I agree that we need a blending of both oversight/regulation and free markets to be successful in economics. Greenspan blamed the failure on an 'unforseen variable' but even a thrid grader knows that people are greedy (the variable in question)

This kind of idea could be spread across other departments of the government as well.

Ditto, Xantippe

If you have confidence in your side of the argument, there's no reason not to hear the other side out. Often that will just give you a better insight into exactly what is wrong with the argument that the person is actually making. Then you're making arguments against what that person actually said, and not what "people like him" have said.

It was far more effective to argue that Obama's "guns and bibles" comment was an understated Marxist pessimism and quasi-nihilistic, simply because it was.