Can someone get me David Brooks' crack pipe?

You may know David Brooks as the token NY Times conservative who knew Barack Obama would be president one day for the crease in his pants. I'm starting to think that his metrosexual bromance with The One is really starting to become intoxicating..... to this point that he's now a crack whore lighting up the BO bong on a dime.........

Take his column today.........

The fact is, Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy — from his book “The Audacity of Hope” to his joint-session health care speech last September — he always describes a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs. He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market.

He has tried to find this balance in a town without an organized center — in a town in which liberals chair the main committees and small-government conservatives lead the opposition. He has tried to do it in a context maximally inhospitable to his aims.

But he has done it with tremendous tenacity. Readers of this column know that I’ve been critical on health care and other matters. Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues. He is inadequate on the greatest moral challenge of our day: the $9.7 trillion in new debt being created this decade. He has misread the country, imagining a hunger for federal activism that doesn’t exist. But he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.

Liberals are wrong to call him weak and indecisive. He’s just not always pursuing their aims. Conservatives are wrong to call him a big-government liberal. That’s just not a fair reading of his agenda.

Let's take some of his points ad infintum.

1) Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. What exactly is on Obama's resume that indicates The One has reformed anything? By the way reform means "to change for the better". Outside of winning elections, his next achievement will be his first.

2) Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy........ He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market. Yeah, he talks a good game but let's take healthcare. In a few speeches, he's mentioned that the other side has some good idea yet how many of them have actually ended up in the health care bill being proposed by the House of Lords?

3) He has tried to find this balance in a town without an organized center. Once again, where's the beef? On exactly what domestic issue has he taken even on iota of a conservative practical thought? Even on the war issues he had to tack right........ but only after he realized that he was an adult and that his lefty positions were a total loser for everyone.

4) But he has done it with tremendous tenacity. You mean the tenacity that allows the House of Lords to write the stimulus and health care bills? I realize that my education is of a public nature but I would define that as tenaciously passive.

This guy is clearly delusional. I want what he's smokin'.

Read the whole thing and laugh your ass off.