This isn’t about Frum and his seeming hard on for Rush Limbaugh, or maybe it’s just to drive hits to his asinine columns. But when he crows about his “conservative credentials” it’s there where he shows not only why he’s an idiot, but not much of a conservative either.

“On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word—we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.”

Again, this is from his prior column, but even after being shown by the first paragraph is inaccurate – Obama admitted in his own words to drug abuse and other vices – he’s still addicted to BIG tobacco – Frum can’t bring himself to a correction.

Here’s where he joins the democrats in a comprehension problem.

“All of this began even before Obama took office. In his broadcast on Jan. 16, Limbaugh told listeners he had been asked by a major publication for a 400-word statement about his hopes for the new administration:

I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “OK, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails.” … See, here’s the point: everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff: “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here … I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: “I hope the administration’s liberal plans fail.” Or (better): “I know the administration’s liberal plans will fail.” Or (best): “I fear that this administration’s liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do.” If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh’s words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being “headlined” was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh’s face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

Then, exacerbating the wound, Limbaugh added this in an interview on Sean Hannity’s Jan. 21 show on Fox News: “We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president.” Limbaugh would repeat some variant of this remark at least four more times in the next month and a half. Really, President Obama could not have asked for more: Limbaugh gets an audience, Obama gets a target and Republicans get the blame.”

Again, as conservatives we want NO PART of Obama’s far left agenda to succeed. Half-baked moderates – such as Frum – may differ, but no conservative worth his Reagan wants universal health care, or an expansion of government far greater than that of FDR.

As I said before I don’t listen to Rush on a daily basis, but I did fully understand the context of those statement. Nevertheless that isn’t even the point. As if liberals didn’t hope that Bush fell on his ass. Heck, ask Leahy, he’s still trying to bring him down.

Frum continues the rest of his screed with the same tired-assed “We gotta change to get with the times” crap. Again, Frum runs the New Majority website – I’ll skip the link – which is just another “revisionist” RINO site tying to remake the conservative movement into a hybrid liberal system with a elephant.

No thanks, and I would suggest that the true conservative movement is alive and even thriving and has a great opportunity to define itself as never before. Frum’s point that the connection between big government and today’s most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did, shows again not only his panic and shortsightedness, but that his so-called “bonifides” are crafted in paper only.

Bush’s so-called “narrow” victory 2004 was by 3.5 million votes, but it would have been more if he had not meshed his conservatism with “compassion”, or ideas of big government spending. Had he towed the line of strict fiscal discipline the public’s perception between him and Kerry would have been much greater.

Conservatism didn’t begin with Reagan, he just wore the mantel after so many refused. Conservative principals of small government, low taxes, strong military, and the freedom of men and women – along with the belief that anyone can be anything they want to be, are not “fluid”, but are etched in stone in the founding of this country. Perhaps transplanted Canadians such as Frum miss that point, but it’s true none the less.

America is now witnessing the complete failure of policies of the first far-left liberal to ever occupy the White House. Now more than ever conservatism has the answers to the present crisis – which was created incidentally by left-wing policies such we’ve seen in the sub-prime mess.

What will bring America out of this mess is Americans doing what they’ve done every time they had their backs against the wall is get up, fight back, adjust, and move forward. It’s what founded this country, it’s what will take us from the current slumber. This of course calls for a leader that will sound the charge and inspire people to their own greatness, not scare them with threats of “calamity”.

Frum likes to talk about being with Reagan in 1980, yet he belies this by failure to remember the lesson Reagan taught during that campaign. When the entire country mired in the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, but not quite sold on Reagan, asked how each planned to take the country forward from double-digit inflation and runaway spending.

Carter responded with much of the fear and loathing that we’ve heard so far from Obama. Then Reagan famously responded that government wasn’t the solution to the problem that America faced, it was the problem in the firs place.

America responded that election – in spite of a a recession, hostages in Iran, inflation, by giving Reagan the White House in a landslide.

Now as Obama prepares to lead this nation into a worse than Carter depression and bankrupt her for generations to come by already proven failed socialist policies, the opportunity for contrast could not be more clear. Let there be a strong conservative candidate arise from the ashes of Obama’s folly and we’ll have the White House back in 2012. By that time people would have had enough of liberalism as a solution for good.

One thing is for sure, the Frum’s aren’t part of the solution but a major part of the problem of this party and why they – not Rush – need to be eradicated.

Technorati Tags: David Frum, RINOS, Conservatism, Rush Limbaugh