As we blogged about on Saturday with regard to a main stream media participant starting to "get" the tea party, David Brooks of the New York Times shows evidence of the fog lifting but only partially.
Brooks has captured the essence of the Tea Party with those paragraphs. But he can't bring himself to endorse the Tea Party itself after so eloquently portraying the dismay and disgust of average Americans for the current political mess. He somehow believes that sending Tea Party endorsed candidates to Washington will only exacerbate the current mess and that somehow, "centrists" who are passionate will solve the problem. What? In fact, only those who are passionate about the issues of debt and spending will make a dent and centrists, as well as liberals, have shown a deafness to those concerns over the years.
This isn't a theoretical exercise, either, with regard to centrists being able to tackle our spending problems. A large segment of that centrist population on Capitol Hill was known as Blue Dog Democrats and they ably demonstrated just how "passionate" they were towards debt and spending with the passage of ObamaCare.
Brooks has always seemed to have had an aversion to some of the populist characteristics of conservatism but the fact that he has at least correctly acknowledged the source of the frustration means he's about half-way there.
Read more, here, from B-Daddy.