Newsweek makes much of the fact that President Obama invited two vocal critics of his administration over to dinner, Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz. Newsweek writes:
Mindful of his predecessor, Barack Obama seems to be trying harder to make sure he hears all sides. On the night of April 27, for instance, the president invited to the White House some of his administration’s sharpest critics on the economy, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a roast-beef dinner, Obama listened and questioned while Krugman and Stiglitz, both Nobel Prize winners, pushed for more aggressive government intervention in the banking system.
But is Obama really all that more open to dissenting views than Bush? After all, Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz are both considered to be on the extreme left of the economic spectrum. In addition, every economist on Obama’s economic team is atleast left-of-center, with many considered to be far left. The dinner would have just lead to Obama hearing yet another argument from the left.
It would be tantamount to Bush inviting William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer over for dinner to discuss the Iraq war. Would you describe such a meeting as Bush ‘demanding fresh thinking and avoiding the sycophancy that comes with the Oval Office.’? I certainly would not.
If Obama really wants to break his economic bubble, he should invite economists from the right-of-center over for dinner. There certainly is a plethora of economists who disagree with him and his economic team, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here - just to give a few.


Yes, inviting over a couple of economists for dinner is nothing to give Obama rave reviews over. But that is not only your point, it is the point of the Newsweek article.
As the article says:
And the article ends with:
Doh! Good catch. Serves me right to read an article half way, get annoyed, and blog about it without still reading it further. I’ll try not to let that happen again.