It's part of the denialism on the right that is now excoriating Obama for not interjecting himself into the Egyptian Revolution immediately. His Cairo speech - yes, Cairo - contained the following passage:

Let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

Sure, Obama did not produce the hyper-utopian rhetoric of Bush's second Inaugural and the solipsistic surrealism behind it. Nor did he over-reach in the early days of the Egyptian revolution. But that was the point - and consistent with his Cairo speech and careful distance from the Green Revolution. Because American public support only helps dictators claim - as Khamenei and Mubarak did - that domestic revolutions are foreign plots.

But it seems to me that on the current right, Obama cannot win. As staunch conservative Heather Mac Donald points out:

If Obama had given [that] speech, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and the rest of the knee-jerk venom squad who are petulantly faulting the Obama Administration’s cautious response to the Egyptian revolution would have frothed at the presumption of such grandiose rhetoric.

It isn't news that Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin are petulant partisan hypocrites. Nor has Mac Donald ever bought into their brand of "conservatism". But her commentary is yet another sign that prominent voices on the right (thanks, Mitch) are rebelling against these entertainers who do so much damage to the country and to sane conservatism.

Who's next?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.