From the token "conservative" at the New York Times:
On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today.
In the first place, they do not see themselves as a group of liberal crusaders. They see themselves as pragmatists who inherited a government and an economy that have been thrown out of whack.
Uh-huh. Brooks goes on to explain what he was told by the administration (I'll leave it to you to read what Brooks found out). In the end, Brooks concludes:
Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation.
So how is it that Brooks could be so taken in so easily by a bunch of left-wing idealogues who are smiling at him while they are lying through their teeth? Even Krugman isn't as enamored of Obama and his team as Brooks is.
Isn't it about time to drop the notion that Brooks is a conservative? I wouldn't even call Brooks a moderate at this point. He's an idiot.