With most pundits predicting a GOP takeover, cue the debate about whether a divided government will produce some much-needed compromise or grind things to a halt. In the New York Times op-ed pages today, David Brooks argues that “the road map for his recovery is pretty straightforward,” while Paul Krugman’s main takeaway is, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

A lot of the debate rests upon the rhetoric of Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who’s pretty much a shoo-in to assume the role of Speaker of the House, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who recently said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” If this is truly the plan, notes Krugman, then there’s little incentive for Republicans to work with the president on any issue that might make him look like an effective leader.

Brooks, on the other hand, thinks Obama can regain the high ground with independents if he keeps pushing the message that Republicans’ calls for spending cuts are half the answer. “Instead, he will have to go out and do his own thing,” Brooks writes. “That means every day reinforcing the following narrative: the Republicans are only half right. They want to cut things; I want to cut but also replace things. They want to slash government; I want to restructure it. They want destruction; I want renovation.”

The x factor, it seems, is the Tea Party. Will it mount new campaigns and challenges against Republicans in Congress willing to reach across the aisle? And will Republicans cave to its demands at the first signs of discontent? Krugman certainly thinks so, and he predicts a government shutdown as early as next spring.

Correction: This post initially attributed the quote about making Obama a one-term president to Rep. John Boehner. It was actually spoken by Sen. Mitch McConnell. We regret the error.

Surveys showed public opinion drifting rightward on issue after issue: gun control, abortion, global warming and the role of government. Far from leading Americans, Democrats were repelling them. Between 2008 and 2010 the share of voters who considered the Democrats too liberal surged from 39 percent to 49 percent, according to Gallup surveys.

Prospects for the 2010 election are grim. Election guru Charlie Cook suspects the G.O.P. will retake the House. N.P.R. polled voters in the 60 most competitive House districts currently held by Democrats. Democrats trail Republicans in those districts, on average, by 5 percentage points. Independent voters in the districts favor Republicans by an average of 18 percentage points. [...]

Instead of building faith in government, the events of 2009 and 2010 further undermined it. An absurdly low 6 percent of Americans acknowledge that the stimulus package created jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS survey.

Brooks is just one of many conservative critics of the Obama administration who ignore economic conditions and assert that public disapproval of the Democratic Party is due solely to public revulsion at the liberal policies. In his analysis, Brooks completely dismisses the economy as a factor in the public’s reaction against Democrats — only “Kool-Aid sippers on the left” put forth such arguments, he writes — but as any political scientist will tell you, the economy matters most when trying to explain public approval.

Tangible economic growth — things voters can see and understand — does wonders for majority approval, and the opposite is true of poor economic performance. Take Bill Clinton’s presidency, for instance. As John Judis detailed in The New Republic last year, an early-term recession pushed his disapproval ratings to 50 percent, but as the economy picked up in his second term, voters rewarded him with high approval:

Likewise, the recession that consumed Reagan’s early years led to a sharp increase in his disapproval rating (a point Salon’s Steve Kornacki made by taking Brooks’ column, and replacing every mention of Obama and Democrats with Reagan and Republicans):

The same is true of Obama and the Democrats; their approval ratings have fallen at the same time that joblessness has grown. Of course, none of this is to say that the economy is the sole explanatory factor; sometimes, the public really is reacting against the majority ideology. But on the whole, you can’t understand public approval without looking at economic performance. Brooks’ outright refusal to consider the economy is why his column goes from being mildly interesting — Faust analogies are pretty uncommon in punditry — to completely off the rails.

In a peculiar little “New Year’s Resolution” dialogue today with Gail Collins, New York Times columnist David Brooks writes, “If you’re willing to give me nuclear power” — which the liberal Collins conceded as her resolution — “I’m willing to follow Lindsey Graham’s lead and do a little bit on the cap-and-trade bill, which is an imperfect piece of legislation, God knows, but still probably good for the country.”

This coming from one of the three or four most prominent conservative voices in print media — but a prominent conservative who doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence in his knowledge of the climate policy debate. He writes in the same piece that last night, “I learned from Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund, my favorite environmental group, that the cap-and-trade bill, which I thought was dead in the senate, actually is close to getting enough votes to pass.”

Given the ease of persuading Brooks and the reach of his writing, his is a pretty good ear to have.

In The New York Times today, op-ed columnist David Brooks blasts the Democrats’ House-passed stimulus package with the charge that it doesn’t meet the “timely, targeted and temporary” criteria pushed by supporters:

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

Fast-forward a few hours, and you’ll find Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, telling Fox News pretty much the same thing:

I’d have a very hard time voting for what came over from the House. While there is much in it that’s laudable and good, there are other areas of the package that I think, really, are very questionable in terms of whether they’d stimulate the economy. Some of the programs that are given money only have 10 percent spent out in the next two years. Look, I think that would just be a mistake.

One of the tests is that programs have to be temporary. Another test is timely. And some of these things that are in the package just don’t meet those tests.

Conrad says he wants more money targeting the foreclosure crisis, including an increase in the tax credit — currently $7,500 in the House bill — for new home-buyers.

Strap in. This debate is just beginning.

The objective in launching these sorts of parleys with your opponents is two-fold. First, to see if they can be placated, and whether the price of doing so is acceptable. And second, to visibly demonstrate to the broader population that you’ve taken every reasonable step at reaching out to these adversaries — so if they rebuke you and you counterattack, you look like the reasonable party and they look like the rejectionists. It’s generally a sound strategy, and it’s achieved real results.

Am I talking about Iraq? Sure. Afghanistan? I hope so. But the lesson also applies to Barack Obama’s dinner with Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will.

Speculation swirled all over the EIB: Obama asked for ideas to save the economy, Rush had some good ones on Monday, and Tuesday he’s mysteriously in Washington… coincidence?

Sadly, Sam Stein reports that “Limbaugh was definitely not in attendance during the dinner affair.” That begs the question Patrick Ruffini asked: “How representative are Will, Kristol, and Brooks of conservative media?” If you add in Krauthammer, two of them are Fox News “all-stars” who talk to the Fox audience at least once a day. If you strike Will and Brooks from the “conservative media,” then you’re defining it down to the print media organs of the right and to talk radio. And it would be amazing if the Obama White House gave them the access that he’s giving the wiser elites of the movement.

This is for real, folks. The bloggers are going to love this one.

Boy, you’ve got that right.

The PEOTUS departed Hay-Adams at 6:17 p.m. and at arrived at 6:34 p.m. at [address redacted]. Thanks to the good work of Hans Nichols (of Bloomberg and “Daily Show” fame), Montgomery County property tax records showed this is the home of conservative columnist George Will (valued at $1.9 million, according to the 2008 levy).

Wow. President-elect Barack Obama’s at George Will’s house? Whatever for?

Your pool has been told it’s a dinner party.

It gets better.

And, thanks to an enterprising photographer, a shot through a window showed op-ed stalwarts William Kristol and David Brooks are also part of this unlikely gathering of tight, right suits.

Oh, to be a fly on THAT wall.