Um, it's 2005

What can I say? I'm just in the point-out-incredibly-dumb-mistakes mode and can't seem to escape it.

I somehow wandered over to David Frum's blog on National Review online. And here's what I find:

"It is a weird thing to say about a president who has given some of the most eloquent speeches of the twentieth century, but George W. Bush has a serious communications problem – and it may be getting worse."

It's 2005, folks. The twentieth century ended just over four years ago. Unless George W. Bush made some damn fine speeches as governor of Texas or during the 2000 campaign, Frum's wrong.

Maybe he meant to say "twenty-first century." If that's the case, well, then what's the big deal? It's a bit bombastic to talk about the most eloquent speeches of a century that's just four years old.

Or maybe Frum still thinks it's the twentieth century. Now that I think about it, this is the most plausible reading, since Frum wrote "a president who has given..." If he were talking about an already completed period of time, he would have said "a president who gave..."

Frum's confused. So am I.

Okay, not really. It's pretty clear what Frum's doing here, whether or not he's aware of it.* It sounds awfully impressive to include Bush's orations among "the most eloquent speeches of the twentieth century," so Frum just expanded the century by a few years and hoped that no one would notice.

I noticed.

Amateur, bush-league hackery. Coming from someone who worked in the Bush White House? Shocking, I tell you, shocking!

*Then again, maybe he did just forget when the twentieth century ended. In which case he's just dumb.