Bush adoration, 2005

Today almost everyone, including the Republicans, including the conservatives, including the careerist extraordinaire David Frum, is negative toward President Bush. The consensus is that he has ruined conservatism and consigned the country to leftist Democratic rule. But let’s consider how Frum and Republicans were talking about Bush just three years ago. Below, in a flash from the past, are comments at Lucianne.com responding to David Frum’s worshipful response to President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address. To grasp the quality of Frum’s hysteria, note in the cut line from his article how Frum describes Bush as being “bold on … marriage.” In fact, Bush in that speech issued exactly the same bland, emotionally cold, pro-forma boilerplate on marriage he had issued before, and of course he never invested an ounce of political capital in building political support for an amendment barring same-sex marriage. What we see in Frum’s February 2005 article and in the L-dotters’ cheerleading is not the politics of a self-governing people, but the overwrought expressions of personality cult. Yet in 2008 Frum, one of the cultists, speaks of Bush as though he were worthless.

Bush At His Best

National Review Online, by David Frum

Posted By:Dreadnought, 2/2/2005 10:18:02 PM

Double or nothing: that was the theme of the president’s dazzling speech. Bold, bold, bold—bold on social security reform, bold on controlling the growth of government, bold on legal and tax reform, bold in daring to mention nuclear energy, bold on social issues including marriage, bold on judges, and bold on foreign policy and the war on terror…

Comments:

Reply 1—Posted by: Midwest Mom, 2/2/2005 10:22:40 PM

This was absolutely fabulous. My husband and our teens and I were on our feet cheering along with everyone else. I loved how some members of congress had purple ink-stained fingers held up (I think Rep. Jindal of Louisiana??).. Mrs. Bush looked great as always and when Mrs. Norwood and the woman from Iraq hugged, well, that’s when I lost it. I felt the president was very confident and you could tell me meant and believed in what he said. Hilary and John whats-his-face looked like they were swallowing vinegar…

Reply 2—Posted by: Dimpled Darling, 2/2/2005 10:32:43 PM

I don’t believe the ‘loyal opposition’ will sleep well tonight. They know the President says what he mean and follows through. They also know the people favor SS reform. There’s going to be a huge donnybrook coming.

(I’m betting on the president.)

Reply 3—Posted by: TwoSistas, 2/2/2005 10:33:22 PM

I loved this speech. I think he totally hit it out of the ballpark. He was strong, confident, compassionate, emotional and a little confrontational. He was the best I’ve ever seen him.

All the pundits were wrong as usual, and I’m sure they’ll put out some poor poll numbers (as usual).

It won’t be the first time he’ll be misunderestimated.

Reply 4—Posted by: JAN, 2/2/2005 10:34:34 PM

This speech even surpassed the Sept. 20, 2001 speech. It was full of hope, resolve,and vision for the future. We can chart our own future if we stay the course, AND WE WILL.

Reply 5—Posted by: saryden, 2/2/2005 10:35:38 PM

President Bush just keeps getting better and better. I took a nap this afternoon so I would be alert for this important speech..

and I woke up thinking, I can do that without anxiety because we have a Good Man in the White House. He does not disappoint!

Thank you, God.. and Laura, and 41, and Barbara, and all who have helped W develop into the wonderful person he is!

Reply 6—Posted by: HPmatt, 2/2/2005 10:37:33 PM

I am really considering placing GWS ahead of Ronald Reagan. It’s hard to imagine, but he really was incredibly inspiring! I loved his comment about all the troops around the world and they were there on ‘his’ orders—truly humbling.

G-D bless you Mr. President.

David B. writes:

Do you recall that several years ago, I said that Bush gets more worship than Ronald Reagan did? The thread on “Bush adoration, 2005” gives an example. The poster called HPmatt says, “I am really considering placing GWS [sic] ahead of Ronald Reagan.”

It is true that the reason Barack Hussein Obama has a chance to win is because of GWB’s failures, especially Iraq. Ironically, if Obama had run against Bush in 2004, he would have lost badly. GWB still had a fair level of popularity four years ago.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Send