This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by the four unfit Supreme Court justices
By Simon Maloy
Happy Friday, everyone. Yesterday, you'll recall, Rush talked at length about an Investor's Business Daily editorial alleging that the House health care bill makes private health insurance “illegal.” As we pointed out, that claim is ridiculous on its face, and a quick perusal of the bill shows that IBD crudely ripped portions of it out of context to make this false allegation. But it's worth expanding on this point. Investor's Business Daily editorials do not have a reputation for accuracy, and they often traffic in absurd and offensive smears. For example, during the 2008 campaign, IBD wrote that then-candidate Obama was in communication with Colombian terrorists and suggested that an Obama presidency would “put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests.” We talk a lot about the conservative media “echo chamber” and the integral role Rush plays in it, and you couldn't have a better example than this -- Rush jumped on an easily debunked falsehood from a disreputable source, presented it as God's honest truth, and disseminated it across the nation. We saw the same thing a few weeks ago, when Rush read a sloppily written American Thinker column on the air that smeared Obama as an “African colonial.” That's the power of the echo chamber, folks -- turning fringe lunacy into mainstream discussion.
And speaking of fringe lunacy, Mark Davis is sitting in for Rush today. OK, that's perhaps a little harsh and not entirely warranted, but we were desperate for a segue... Anyway, Davis got things going by saying it has been a busy week, but he wanted to talk some more about the military smoking ban from last week. Davis noted that the Pentagon rejected it, so they made the right decision, but there are plenty of other bad ideas coming down the pike.
Davis said there have been two things we've been talking about the most this week: the Sotomayor hearings and health care. Davis wanted to begin with health care because “it's the greater scourge.” The Constitution means more to Davis than his health care plan, but we're just trading Souter for Sotomayor, he said, and there's not a whole lot conservatives can do about that anyway. The health care debate, though -- there's an opportunity for some very interesting things to happen. Davis said that his congressman, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), is a doctor, and he addressed Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in his committee yesterday, saying that he wasn't an automatic “no” vote on health care, but there was never any attempt to get him on board. And listening to Waxman say that we need health care reform immediately, said Davis, is a fine illustration of the MO of these people -- just ram it down our throats. They know that if their plans get scrutiny, that will not serve the president's agenda well.
There was phony urgency on the stimulus, said Davis, and there was phony urgency on the Bush bailouts. Davis said he was sitting in the Oval Office with other conservative radio hosts a couple of weeks before then-President Bush left the White House, and Bush was more than glad to address things like immigration and the bailouts, but there's a decorum that says, “Don't argue with the president in the Oval Office.” Bush talked about his conversations with Henry Paulson and the impression that he got was that we had to move quickly on this, and Davis wanted to ask Bush, “What if they're wrong? What if the solution makes the problem worse?” But he wasn't going to get up in the president's grill on that. The point, said Davis, is that this urgency argument is bipartisan.
With the economy swirling around the toilet bowl and people worrying about their futures, Davis said, you can get them to sign on to anything. What does this have to do with health care? Well, said Davis, 60-70 percent of America was so freaked out about the economy that they were enthused or ambivalent about the stimulus, but health care is different. Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they have right now. Could it be better? Sure. Is our system without flaws? Of course not. But they're satisfied. And here come these people to turn that on its head with government care. And they talk a great game, said Davis, like when the president says you can keep your plan if you like it. But that's if it still exists after government care is phased in.
So, said Davis, if you take some Republicans with spine and some of the Blue Dogs who aren't fully drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid, you might have a bipartisan coalition that can defeat this idea. And with Sotomayor, these hearings have revealed that she is not sufficiently driven by the Constitution to be on the Supreme Court, and that provides a reason for any Republicans with guts to vote against her.
Back from the first break, Davis said that we knew ahead of time how the Sotomayor hearings were going to play out -- Republicans would give her a hard time, Democrats would usher her way through. Davis stated his belief that conservatives lament liberal appointees' tendency to depart from the tenets of the Constitution, while liberals lament conservative appointees' tendency to cleave to the Constitution. Davis looked at the hell that Alito and Bork went through -- what was that based on? Did Ted Kennedy ever say to Bork that he wasn't adhering to the Constitution? No. When we look at Sotomayor this week, Sessions and Graham and Kyl have been grilling her on how true she is to the Constitution. With Alito, said Davis, the Democrats were trying to paint him as a bigot. When you stick to the Constitution, you're not automatically going to get conservative results, said Davis, but he doesn't want conservative results from the court, he wants constitutional results.
After another break, Davis touched on Sotomayor and the “wise Latina” comment. What we've seen is the classic confirmation conversion, said Davis, where you realize that the things you've said and the ways you've ruled can be problematic. Davis added: “I really can't make it any clearer than to say the wise Latina -- it's kinda funny. I don't want to call it a remark. A remark is off-handed, an off -- you know, a remark is something you blow off sometimes without thinking. She thought about this, thought about it thoroughly, and delivered it frequently. The wise Latina statement -- if it's not racist, then the word has no meaning.” Remember, Davis was just saying that it's the conservatives who focus on Constitutional issues, whereas the Democrats paint opponents as “bigots.” Anyway, Davis said he is more than willing to be thrilled at the ascendency of a Hispanic nominee, but that person's head and heart have to be true to the Constitution first. Sotomayor has said this “wise Latina” thing repeatedly, and that is the definition of racism. The confirmation conversion changes nothing, said Davis, and the only people willing to nod and say she's OK now are desperate to have her on the court.
And look at Ricci -- even Davis' dog knows that was a poor decision. What could have possibly been in that test that would have made it impossible for the black guys to pass? Was there some special powder on the paper that clouded their thinking? No, they probably just didn't study enough, and Davis would say that about white guys who failed, too. But, said Davis, Sotomayor was “willing to strip the white folks, like Frank Ricci, and, ironically, the Hispanic folks who passed, on the altar of this muddled thinking. The Supreme Court she seeks to occupy has now overturned that. It was 5-to-4, proving not only that -- not only is she unfit for the court, but so are four of its sitting members.” To any Republican looking for reason to vote against her, Davis said, they've been coming thick and fast. All you need is the guts to vote against her. Sessions has been a hero to Davis, and the rest of the Republicans have been fantastic, but tough questions mean absolutely nothing unless you have the spine to vote no.
Another break and Davis was back with his first caller of the afternoon, a gentleman who totally agreed with what Davis said about liberals and conservatives and the Constitution, but was unclear as to what a pure interpretation of the Constitution looks like. Davis said that when he looks for original intent, he knows that those very words foster disagreement because the words used in the Constitution are open to debate. But when you go to things that are cut and dry, like the Second Amendment, you have to jump through some pretty serious hoops to say that it does not guarantee the right to possess weapons. Our first priority has to be that we look at the actual words of the Constitution. The caller said we have to remember that the Founders wrote these words in a much different context. Davis agreed, fantasizing about going back in a time machine and bringing the Founders to 2009 and sitting them down for a screening of Sacha Baron Cohen's Brüno. Their heads would probably explode, he said, but after some therapy and maybe a little medication they would agree that it constitutes free speech. Just because they wrote it in the context of the late 18th century doesn't mean that we have to view it through that lens.
After more breaks, Davis closed out the hour with a caller who said he used to be a public school teacher, and they changed testing requirements in the schools back in the '80s because there were racial iniquities. For example, said the caller, there was a question about sailing regattas that they changed because white kids were far more likely to know what a regatta was. Davis said that math questions about regattas don't change the mathematical element of the question, so that's stupid. We could use nonsense words and the questions would still be the same.
Greg Lewis and Zachary Pleat contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.
Highlights from Hour 1
Outrageous comments
DAVIS: I really can't make it any clearer than to say the wise Latina -- it's kinda funny. I don't want to call it a remark. A remark is off-handed, an off -- you know, a remark is something you blow off sometimes without thinking. She thought about this, thought about it thoroughly, and delivered it frequently. The wise Latina statement -- if it's not racist, then the word has no meaning.
[...]
DAVIS: So, here she was, willing to strip the white folks, like Frank Ricci, and, ironically, the Hispanic folks who passed, on the altar of this muddled thinking. The Supreme Court she seeks to occupy has now overturned that. It was 5-to-4, proving not only that -- not only is she unfit for the court, but so are four of its sitting members.