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.