She's not going to let that one go unremarked upon

Remember my three-takes-on-the-meaning-of-the-shutdown post from yesterday, and how George Will had penned one of the takes?

Well, Sally Zelikovsky at The American Thinker doesn't think much of his construct:

To suggest that the Tea Party has common ground with the one person and administration that stands diametrically opposed to everything they hold dear -- limited government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, individual liberty, and free markets -- is a reductio ad absurdum. One wonders if the author is completely out of touch with the people who make up the Tea Party or is just filled with his own disdain for it? I hope the former.

Then, to describe this supposedly shared disdain with the qualification "within the Framer's institutional architecture" makes me further wonder where George Will has been for the last five years? The Tea Party reveres the Constitution, the Framers, and their infrastructure for constitutional governance. The Tea Party actually promotes the "practice of politics" as long as it takes place "within the Framer's institutional architecture." It's... what we live for! And, it's what we've been ridiculed for as well.

We've endured five years of left-wing mockery and scathing condescension characterizing the Tea Party as patriotic throwbacks to an outdated constitution. The fact that random tea partiers can quote directly from the Federalist Papers -- and understand what they are saying -- is a testament to their reverence. Moreover, many tea partiers want to repeal the 17th Amendment so the Senate would go back to being chosen by the states -- not the popular vote -- so that this process is brought back into alignment with the original "institutional architecture" set forth by the Framers!

I had that problem with it, too.