This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by the historically illiterate American people
By Simon Maloy

As we noted yesterday, one of the favorite parlor games of media conservatives is to yell and stamp their feet, complaining that President Obama hasn't yet done that magical "something" that will overthrow the Iranian mullahs and usher in a new age of liberty and democracy in the Middle East. Rush, for example, bemoaned that Obama hasn't yet done anything to "hold to account a bunch of tyrants rigging an election," without explaining what the president can do in that regard. Charles Krauthammer got into the act this morning on the Washington Post op-ed page, much to the chagrin of Joe Klein. We can't speak to whether Obama is taking the right course of action, but what's interesting to us is the wide variety of responses to the Iranian situation from the right. Rush and Krauthammer want Obama to do "something"; Henry Kissinger and Nicholas Burns think Obama is handling things just right; Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) thinks the protesters in Iran are oppressed like the GOP House minority; and Bill Kristol wants to bomb North Korea (but to be fair, that's also his response to rush-hour traffic). It's a wide spectrum, and we can't wait to find out where Limbaugh guest-host Mark Davis falls on it.

And Davis got right to it, saying that the country is at war, and Obama won the election, and you don't have to like that but that's the way it is. That being said, Davis continued, Obama's "pernicious" Cairo speech, which was a "bizarre Sermon on the Mount," emboldened the mullahs of Iran and let them know that the American president would do nothing to thwart them, but would rather offer this kind of malignant neglect. Davis said that he wants a president who stands up for American interests, and the reason he said that, he explained, was that "I don't know if we have one anymore." According to Davis, if you fail to "speak truth to evil," then you can't combat it. So, Davis, it seems, falls firmly in the Rush/Krauthammer "why hasn't Obama done the magical something" camp, saying that Obama should "speak truth to evil," whatever that means. For years, Davis continued, we have told the people of Iran, the youth who are sick of the theocracy and want out of the revolution, reach out and grab that brass ring of democracy, fight those mullahs, and we'll be there for you. Well, that's exactly what the people of Iran are doing, and they get nothing but silence from the president.

That, coincidentally, is pretty much exactly the argument Krauthammer laid out this morning, and here's what Joe Klein offered in response: "[I]t seemed clear to me when I was in Iran -- and even more clear, given the events of the past few days -- that the protesters realize that they have to do this on their own. And that an American endorsement would taint their movement, perhaps fatally." Anyway, Davis soldiered on, attacking Obama for saying that we can't be seen as "meddling" in Iranian affairs. We're perfectly happy to "meddle" with Israel, said Davis, but we have to stay hands-off in Iran because the narrative for this president is that the sheer force and magnetism of his personality will melt Ahmadinejad into a soft, cuddly toy. That's the dangerous narcissism of this president, said Davis, who explained that we've had garden-variety liberals to deal with before, but Obama thinks he's infallible, more than human, and that's pathological. Davis then encouraged everyone to go read Ralph Peters' saber-rattling column in the New York Post.

Davis then noted that George W. Bush gave a speech in Erie a couple of days ago and "shared some of his values," but these comments were headlined as Bush attacking Obama. We'll point out that he did attack Obama as advocating "therapy" for terrorists. Anyway, Davis noted that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Bush's comment, and Gibbs said that we had that debate in November and "we won." Davis said there's "rank arrogance" at work here -- elections have consequences, Davis acknowledged, but the notion that winning in November makes them perpetually infallible and not to be criticized, that's kind of sick. Well, that's not at all what Gibbs said; he said that the American people had the opportunity to choose between the Bush way of handling the war on terror and the Obama way, and they chose Obama. Anyway, leading into the break, Davis said that the "half-comic, half-tragic irony" of this is that the criticism of the Bush administration was that it was unwilling to admit mistakes. The policy and the personality flaws of this president, said Davis, make things very interesting.

After the break, Davis noted that the U.S., according to The Wall Street Journal, "is moving ground-to-air missile defenses to Hawaii as tensions escalate between Washington and Pyongyang over North Korea's recent moves to restart its nuclear-weapon program and resume test-firing long-range missiles." Davis wondered what the limits on the rules of engagement are in this situation, but he would love a little shooting practice on a Korean missile, just to make clear to North Korea that they can't mess with us. But that, said Davis, "yanked" him "back to reality of who the president is. You know, I mean, thank God for Secretary [Robert] Gates, who I'm batting about .500 with. I'm glad he's there as opposed to, you know, Defense Secretary Cindy Sheehan, which I suppose we could've had there briefly. I'm glad he's there rather than some other leftist hack from the Obama cabinet gene pool." The reason he's "batting .500" with Gates, Davis explained, was his decision to allow the media to photograph the coffins of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Davis touched on this topic during one of his prior guest-hosting stints, and we encourage you to revisit his unique opinions on the subject here.

After another break, Davis took his first caller, who wanted to know whatever happened to the days when Reagan was in there with Gorbachev talking about missiles and nuclear nonproliferation. Davis said that the key moment for him was the meeting in Reykjavik, when Reagan refused to disarm the SDI. That was one of the great successes of American foreign policy, said Davis. As for nuclear nonproliferation, Davis said, Obama has the wrong idea that all nukes are bad. Then the caller said that in World War I, the RMS Lusitania was attacked by the Germans. Then the caller got confused for a bit before finally settling on his point -- who gives us the right to be the world's dictator of who gets to have nuclear weapons? Davis says the right to have a nuclear arsenal is tied directly to the way in which you intend to use it. The world has nothing to fear from the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but there was plenty to fear from the Soviet arsenal and there's plenty to fear from an Iranian nuclear arsenal. Then the caller went off the rails while trying to discuss regime change, confusing Davis and us. Davis responded by saying that the American public "did get war weary" with the "noble quest of trying to put a pebble of democracy into the pool of the Middle East and have the concentric circles work their way out." Davis added: "It is working today despite the middling will of a war-weary, historically illiterate American people."

After the break, Davis announced that the Washington Examiner's Byron York will be on the program in the next hour to give only one side of the story regarding the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. Then it was on to the next caller, who said that Congress, the White House, and union people need to give up their health coverage and enroll in the government plan, since they like the idea of a public option so much. Davis said that members of Congress are always talking about how Americans should have the same health care that they have, but that will never happen.

One more break and Davis was back, saying that you should not believe it when Obama says that you'll be able to keep your health plan if you like it. When a public option becomes available, said Davis, companies all over the country are going to dump their health plans onto the government, and that's the purpose of ObamaCare -- to make the life you live and enjoy a product of government benevolence.

Greg Lewis and Lauryn Bruck contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 1

Outrageous comments

DAVIS: This is a quote that Rush has talked about a lot in the -- it was Evan Thomas of Newsweek who issued these horrific words: He's kind of like God. He's more than being American. He's above being American. He's sort of looking at all sides of the world and refereeing all of this. Well, God help us and save us from that.

I want an American president who looks out for American interests. And I know that's self-evident. It's kind of generic talk-show guy, "I want an American president stands, who up for American interests." But I do. And the reason that those are words that deserve to be said is I don't know if we have one anymore.

I - the president is just umbilically tied to certain elements of globalization, the moral equivalencies from that Cairo speech, in which he seemed to say to the murderous lunacy of that portion of the Islamic faith, "Hey, you've done some stuff to us; we've done some stuff to you; call it a push."

Well, guess what? No, the failure to speak truth to evil -- when you fail to speak truth to evil, you cannot in fact combat it.

[...]

DAVIS: There's a guidebook sitting around somewhere that says if a missile gets within X miles of us, we take it out. What is that number? I don't want to know what that number is, because that's one of those national security things that, quite frankly, we don't have a right to know. But I do wonder what it is, and I hope it's a really big number. And by that, I mean, if this Korean missile -- I mean, I don't know what it would be.

I mean, that's plenty of thousands of miles between, you know, the launch site of the missile in North Korea and the coastline -- and any westernmost coastline of Hawaii, whatever westernmost island would be at issue there. But I wouldn't let it get halfway. I wouldn't let it get a quarter of the way. I would hope that our guidelines are very, very broadly drawn.

I would love a little practice -- a little shootin' practice on an actual Korean missile, not for the sake of it, not just to go, "Ha, I'll show you Kim Jong-Il," but to make clear that we will not be trifled with. And as I say these things, as these words come out of my mouth, I'm then yanked back to reality of who the president is. You know, I mean, thank God for Secretary Gates, who I'm batting about .500 with.

I'm glad he's there as opposed to, you know, Defense Secretary Cindy Sheehan, which I suppose we could've had there briefly. I'm glad he's there rather than some other leftist hack from the Obama cabinet gene pool.

Vox populi

DAVIS: In fact, as history has borne out, America did get war weary. We did indeed grow tired of the noble quest of trying to put a pebble of democracy into the pool of the Middle East and have the concentric circles work their way out. It is working today despite the middling will of a war-weary, historically illiterate American people. We -- as best I could tell, we got tired of the war after about a year.

This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Davis' lack of trust in the Postal Service under Obama
By Greg Lewis

Before the second hour got started, Mark Davis reminded us via Twitter that The Washington Examiner's Byron York would be joining us for a chat about fired IG Gerald Walpin. And, true to his word -- or tweet, or whatever -- York called in to explain the story so far, which Rush has previously attempted to explain (citing York), leaving out some important details and repeating falsehoods about the Walpin affair. Davis added his own unique brand of colorful commentary to the discussion. Responding to York's accusation that Obama violated the Inspector General Reform Act, Davis exclaimed that Obama "now gleefully rapes those guidelines and gets rid of Mr. Walpin in a neck-jerking period of time."

As they were discussing the Walpin story, Davis insisted that they address the "Michelle Obama angle," and York helpfully obliged, explaining that the White House denies she has any involvement, that there's no evidence indicating her involvement, and that it's the subject of non-credible internet reporting. He added that Walpin says he doesn't know anything about it. That's some "angle"...

All in all, Davis took away this from York's phone call: "Now, the important thing -- and this is important, and it's also important to hit this break on time, so here's where we'll go next. It is impossible for such stories to exist in a vacuum. The things that are happening already is of the people who are in the tank for President Obama, from the White House to its sycophant followers, are insisting that this is absolutely nothing. The people who are not fond of the presidency, of this president, are suggesting that this is Travelgate and maybe even Watergate 2.0."

After the break, Davis moved on to Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) exchange with Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, who, during a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier this week, addressed Boxer as "ma'am." That prompted Boxer to ask that Walsh address her as "senator" instead. Davis played the audio of this exchange and declared that it was "singular in its cloying narcissism." Then Davis took a caller who was as equally upset over this, expressing his opinion that Boxer probably has a "dripping disdain" for people in the military. Davis then explained that he can't "climb inside her head and read her mind" (though he had just accused her of harboring a "cloying narcissism"), but so many Democrats have disdain for people in the military, which was at least part of why Boxer called the man out.

After another break, Davis came back with a new dose of crazy, this one courtesy of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Bachmann told The Washington Times that she would refuse to answer personal questions in the 2010 census "because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond" the number of occupants in your household and because of the involvement of that insidious conservative boogeyman, ACORN. As TPM's Eric Kleefeld noted: "[W]hat Bachmann just announced she would do is a crime punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. But hey, there's something to be said for civil disobedience." Davis, however, decided to join Bachmann's cause, offering a dissertation on whether Bachmann's "thwarting of a law" should be picked up as a movement of civil disobedience. Davis pondered Bachmann's argument about what the Constitution says about the census -- just because it only requires the government to count the number of occupants in your household, does that mean it shouldn't count anything else? Davis noted that he hates answering census questions -- it's none of the government's damn business. But, Davis explained, we need to craft a basis for our civil disobedience -- these aren't exactly the lunch counters in 1961 (though some might say otherwise).

Davis then briefly explained that an executive upholding laws has a lot to do with trust. For example, Davis trusted Bush to conduct his warrantless wiretapping program. However, Davis doesn't trust Obama to "pick up his mail." We think we get it: Warrantless wiretapping, which is confirmed to have repeatedly and unlawfully invaded the privacy of innocent Americans, is A-OK. But the ACORN invasion of privacy that hasn't happened, but will happen, according to the voices in Michele Bachmann's head? To the ramparts!

Anyway, after another break, Davis briefly opined on Bush's comments earlier this week in Erie about President Obama. Davis said that he would like to see Bush out there sticking up for his policies, but is conflicted by his feeling that previous presidents should not criticize their successors -- although he claimed that etiquette was "trashed" by Jimmy Carter.

Davis rounded out the hour with one more caller, who claimed that there was more lawlessness going on in the Obama administration than ever. Davis noted that the Walpin case is a great example of this, and then Davis launched into a professorial lecture about constitutional theory, explaining how conservatives are strict constructionists, but liberals foolishly view the Constitution as a living, breathing document. Davis endeavored to explain the alleged weaknesses: "There is no right to these things in the Constitution or anywhere else, and that is one of the fundamental logical flaws of the left, one of the just the intellectual weaknesses -- that if they want something badly enough, it becomes a right."

Simon Maloy, Lauryn Bruck, and Zachary Pleat contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 2

Outrageous comments

BYRON YORK: So, last year, a law was passed that required that if the president wants to fire an IG, he has to give Congress 30 days' notice, and he has to give cause -- why he is doing that firing. And this was called the Inspector General Reform Act, and it was co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama.

DAVIS: Who now gleefully rapes those guidelines and gets rid of Mr. Walpin in a neck-jerking period of time.

[...]

DAVIS: Now, the important thing -- and this is important, and it's also important to hit this break on time, so here's where we'll go next. It is impossible for such stories to exist in a vacuum. The things that are happening already is of the people who are in the tank for President Obama, from the White House to its sycophant followers, are insisting that this is absolutely nothing. The people who are not fond of the presidency, of this president, are suggesting that this is Travelgate and maybe even Watergate 2.0.

[...]

DAVIS: There is no right to these things in the Constitution or anywhere else, and that is one of the fundamental logical flaws of the left, one of the just the intellectual weaknesses -- that if they want something badly enough, it becomes a right.

This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Cash for Clunkers-inspired drug use
By Greg Lewis

Davis kicked off the final hour of the week with more talk about the census, explaining that conservatives had to find a "responsible" reason for refusing to participate in the census, and not adopt the "if it feels good, do it" attitude of the left. Needless to say, it was amusing for us to hear Davis discuss how to "responsibly" find a way to promote Michele Bachmann's theory that ACORN is going to use the census to steal her personal information. Anyway, Davis took a caller who explained what happened when he refused to respond to the census: He was threatened with fines (not surprising, as that is the punishment). Davis was thrilled with the way the caller stood up to the government and said that "if we all do this," then these people will go away, adding that someone will be the "Rosa Parks of this movement." But he then explained that he wasn't directly comparing the Montgomery Bus Boycott with Michele Bachmann's ACORN Is Coming To Get Me Census Boycott. "They can't come get all of us," said Davis.

Davis went ont to explain that the "sticky part" of the census issue is privacy. He argued that there is no "constitutional basis" for Roe v. Wade because the right to privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Before Davis could grant us the small mercy of a commercial break, he took a quick call from a listener who explained that he was going to plead the Fifth Amendment so he wouldn't have to answer the census. "I love me some Fifth Amendment," exclaimed Davis.

After the break, Davis was still harping on about the census. He reminded us that he's still looking for a firm basis for conservatives to resist the census. He also explained why the previous caller's attempt to use the Fifth Amendment wouldn't work.

Then Davis teased an upcoming discussion on the new "Cash for Clunkers" legislation: " 'These People' in the Obama administration or the Democratic Party in general -- it sounds so good: money to help you buy a car; money to help our air get cleaner because it helps people buy cleaner cars and more efficient cars. What could be better?" He continued: "I got a great idea; it's called not giving people money for smokes, crack, and beer. Details in our next -- 'cause that's exactly what it is. You tell people, 'Hey, here's $4,500 that you don't have to spend on a car.' Well, nothing frees up money for the slovenly among us like cash for a clunker. Buy a better car and you got $4,500 in taxpayer money that you can go out and spend on whatever kind of debauchery and self-abuse you wish."

The next caller also wanted to talk about the census, explaining to Davis how he would refuse to give out his personal information to ACORN because it is a "fraudulent" organization. Davis agreed, saying that there would be no way to tell what the ACORN yahoos would be doing to the census.

After another break, Davis really tore into Cash for Clunkers. While he stipulated that there are some people who can't quite afford a new car and would be legitimately helped by the bill, Davis said that for every one of those people, there would be three miscreants whose misbehavior would be facilitated by it. The legislation, Davis explained, "helps your shiftless cousin buy more meth, because he won't have to use that money ... on buying a Ford Focus." Davis later expanded on this sentiment:

DAVIS: The way in which it will work in countless examples is people whose cars either don't work or barely work, and they're maybe doing a little less crack cocaine or maybe smoking a few -- fewer cartons of smokes, or maybe not quite filling the fridge as full with beer because they're saving for the car they gotta have, because if they don't have it, they'll get fired and then they'll really be up the creek. Guess what? No worries, mate!

Here comes $4,500 of taxpayer money, so you can head to the liquor store. You can go to the meth lab. You can get that carton of Lucky's. Go ahead. That $4,500 frees up your budget.

So the operating theory here is that cash-for-clunkers is a bad idea because there are three times as many crack-addicted, meth-smoking alcoholics in this country as there are upstanding citizens of lesser means. Three times! Not only is this an insulting caricature of the poor, it ignores the reality that cash-for-clunkers programs work. A similar German program has been a runaway success, boosting car sales by 20 percent in one month and accelerating the country's push toward a modernized fleet of cleaner cars. But we guess it's easier to smear poor people as substance-abusing layabouts than it is to come up with real arguments.

When he was done linking car subsidies to drug use, Davis took a call from a self-described active Republican in Maine who thought it would be wise for the Republican Party to stand up for equal marriage rights under the 14th Amendment. The caller argued that the Republican Party would be doing itself a favor by adopting the position that no one has the right to deny marriage. Davis was having none of it. "That's insane," he said. "Using that very argument, I can marry my dog. Using that argument, I can marry five women. And I'm not -- and, please, no angry gay people." Davis explained that there is a way to be friendly to gay people and still oppose gay marriage, and that he would elaborate after the next break.

Davis came back from break to strongly insist to his audience that homophobia has nothing to do with his decision (well, if you have to insist...). Anyway, Davis argued that if you allow gay marriage, then it would mean that men and women are the same, which is "antithetical to the human existence." But, as Davis informed us, men and women aren't the same -- they're different.

Davis then took a couple more quick calls about the census before calling it a day, and, frankly, we were thrilled, as a body can take only so many comparisons between the census and lunch-counter discrimination. We'd like to think that Rush wouldn't have committed so much attention to such an inane topic, but a perusal of the Limbaugh Wire archives -- which we highly recommend -- would probably show otherwise. Have a great weekend, and see you back here on Monday.

Simon Maloy, Lauryn Bruck, and Zachary Pleat contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 3

Outrageous comments

DAVIS: As with a million other things from "These People" -- capital T, capital P -- "These People" in the Obama administration or the Democratic Party in general -- it sounds so good: money to help you buy a car; money to help our air get cleaner because it helps people buy cleaner cars and more efficient cars. What could be better?

I got a great idea; it's called not giving people money for smokes, crack, and beer. Details in our next -- 'cause that's exactly what it is. You tell people, "Hey, here's $4,500 that you don't have to spend on a car." Well, nothing frees up money for the slovenly among us like cash for a clunker. Buy a better car and you got $4,500 in taxpayer money that you can go out and spend on whatever kind of debauchery and self-abuse you wish.

[...]

DAVIS: Congress passed the "cash for clunkers" measure late last night as part of the -- I love this! You know what it's part of? Because everything makes such sense in Washington, it, of course, is part of the war spending bill: $106 billion for funding the war, one billion of that helps your shiftless cousin buy more meth, because he won't have to use that money on getting a -- on buying a Ford Focus.

[...]

DAVIS: The way in which it will work in countless examples is people whose cars either don't work or barely work, and they're maybe doing a little less crack cocaine or maybe smoking a few -- fewer cartons of smokes, or maybe not quite filling the fridge as full with beer because they're saving for the car they gotta have, because if they don't have it, they'll get fired and then they'll really be up the creek. Guess what? No worries, mate!

Here comes $4,500 of taxpayer money, so you can head to the liquor store. You can go to the meth lab. You can get that carton of Lucky's. Go ahead. That $4,500 frees up your budget.

[...]

CALLER: What I'm suggesting is the Republican Party could do itself and the country a big favor by seeking to establish some credibility and taking the position that there -- no one has the right to deny any citizen of this country the right to the institution of marriage.

DAVIS: But that -- except for one thing: That's insane. Using that very argument, I can marry my dog. Using that argument, I can marry five women. And I'm not --

CALLER: That's another question.

DAVIS: -- and, please, no angry gay people.