Many, many have written on this, but I like Keith Koffler’s summation the best, as I think he does a remarkably good getting to the core point about the latest twist in Fast and Furious.  He also manages to highlight why I like Rush:  Rush is not afraid to identify and accurately predict the evil that lurks in the heart of Progressives.

Rush let ‘er rip against the media this morning regarding its utter failure to investigate any aspect of Obama’s life, even as it subjects Republican candidates to the most invasive investigations and demeaning tactics imaginable.   It’s a long riff, but every bit of it is interesting, and you’ll probably be nodding your head and saying “amen” as you read it.

From there, Rush went on to the usual double standard, which is that Republican candidates have to have “think tank” level knowledge of every subject, including foreign policy, whereas Obama got, and continues to get, a free pass.  It was with regard to that free pass that Rush posed this question:

Can somebody tell me in one or two sentences what Obama’s foreign policy doctrine is?  I’m serious.  Can anybody call this program at 800-282-2882 and tell me what Obama’s foreign policy is?  What is the guiding principle of Obama’s foreign policy?  What are our nation’s objectives in Obama’s foreign policy?  Does anybody have the slightest clue?

Rush, I’m not going to call, but I am willing to take a stab at the guiding principle behind Obama’s foreign policy, and I’ll do so in two sentences:  Obama’s foreign policy principle is to weaken and demean America, while overtly and covertly supporting both Leftist and Islamic regimes.  Because ordinary Americans would be repulsed by this policy, he hides it behind an amalgam of passivity, on the one hand, and ambition, distraction, uglification and derision, on the other hand.

That was fun.  Do you guys want to give it a try?

Herman Cain (photo by Gage Skidmore)

I caught literally two minutes of Rush this morning, but I heard him say something very important, which I’ll summarize here to the best of my abilities:  Herman Cain succeeded in Florida because he’s the only Republican primary candidate relentlessly attacking Obama.  The others are so busy with their internecine warfare that they’ve dropped the ball.  Voters care much less about Perry’s this, Romney’s that, or Santorum’s nothing at all, than they do about what the Democrats are doing to this country.  Cain is the only person who seems to understand that fact and to be using the primary to answer voter concerns.

I think Rush is right.  (Isn’t he always?)

What do you think?

I love the old Lerner and Lowe song:

What a day this has been,
What a rare mood I’m in,
Why, it’s almost like being in love….

As I get older, though, the song has become somewhat bittersweet. One of the shames about growing older is that emotions don’t feel as strong. It’s nice that I don’t cry as much, but I don’t laugh as much either.  My intensity is simply reduced.  Sometimes, though, something will happen that punches through the emotional carapace age has created.  (For those who don’t know me, I’m not that old.  Haven’t hit 50 yet, but it’s in striking distance.)  If you’re unlucky, the emotional punch is something rotten, such as the death of someone close to you.  On a lucky day, though, that moment comes when two thinkers you admire tremendously give you an accolade on the same day.

I woke up this morning to discover that my post about Rush Limbaugh had been Instalanched.  I was thrilled.  A nod from Glenn Reynolds has two pleasures:  someone whose intelligence and world view I admire has looked approvingly on my work and I get lots of hits.  I may blog obsessively (that is, I’d write even if no one reads), but I’d be a liar if I denied the pleasure I get from traffic. As far as I was concerned, my day was already off to a healthy start.

And then, just as I was about to leave to take my Mom to an appointment, I suddenly got a slew of emails from the many wonderful friends I’ve made since I’ve started blogging, and all said the same thing:  Rush is talking about your post.  “Oh, my God,” I thought, “they’re kidding.”  Higher rational brain kicked in.  Twenty different people who have no connection to each other cannot be kidding.  “Oh, my God!  Oh, my God!  Oh, my God!”

And — here’s the bad part — I can’t do anything about it.  Because I’ve got to go, I can’t sign into my blog, which has crashed anyway.  And because my mother needs my undivided attention, I can’t listen to Rush on the radio, nor will I have access to the KSFO archives on which I rely so heavily.  I’ve had my biggest moment ever as a blogger, and I’m completely paralyzed.

But there is a good side to that.  Had I instantly gone on line and instantly been able to participate fully in my own exciting moment, the thrill would have been over as quickly.  As it was, while driving and sitting with my mom (very pleasant experiences on their own merits), I was also able to nurse a little excitement.  I knew something big was out there, but I just had to wait patiently, take care of things, run errands, etc.

So here I am at home, almost four hours after this whole thing started, and I’ve finally heard Rush reading from my post.   And I’m excited all over again.  I wasn’t kidding in my post when I said those nice things about Rush (i.e., it wasn’t just a publicity stunt).  I’ve come to believe that Rush is one of the most brilliant conservative commentators on the scene.  I trust my analysis about Rush’s ability precisely for the reasons I mentioned when I opened this post:  I’m not young anymore, and I don’t rock ‘n roll purely with my emotions.  I’m an analytical person who avoids the highs and the lows.  I hear Rush with my brain, not my heart, and my brain tells me something very good is going on there.

Given the respect I feel for Rush, you can imagine how utterly delighted I was to hear him read the words I wrote, and say my blog name aloud.  He may not know me, but I’ve spent enough hours in his company to know him, and I am mighty flattered.  As they said in the old days, and don’t say much anymore (shame, too, ’cause it’s a great expression), “Praise from Caesar is praise indeed.”

UPDATE:  Two post scripts I want to add here.

First, I cannot thank enough those of you who sent me your congratulations and your kind words.  For the last six years, I’ve lived in two different worlds simultaneously:  the corporeal world, which is made up of family, work and friends; and the cyberworld, which is made up of politics and those friends I’ve made through my blog.  Although I’ve met very few of my cyberfriends face-to-face, I value these friendships every bit as much as I do the corporeal friends I meet and greet on the street.  (Whoo, and she’s a poet too.)  That means that, when you write to me to congratulate me, or to say nice things about me, I value those words as much as I would if I were in the room with you.  So thank you, and many cyberhugs (which you should really appreciate, because I am so not a huggy kind of person).

Second, since I’ve had this launch, please believe me that I will take seriously this opportunity to write more thoughtful posts, and not just ruminate about the wonders of Las Vegas, as I did all last week.  But really, I do think Las Vegas was deserving of some posts.  Barack Hussein Obama may diss it, but I think it’s an awesome place, one that has something for everyone, even a tee-totalling, non-gambling, non-smoking mom with two kids in tow.

If you’d been around in 1894, you would instantly have recognized the name “Svengali.”  He was the chief villain in George du Maurier’s blockbuster novel Trilby. The Svengali plot-line was a simple one:  Trilby was an innocent (and tone deaf) laundress and model living in fin de siecle Paris.  Svengali hypnotized her into bec0ming a great singer and the toast of the music world.  When he suffered a heart attack during one of her performances, his spell over her broke, and she was left standing on stage, bewildered and humiliated.  Since then, we use the word “svengali” to describe a person who steals the will of another with evil intent.

It’s become increasingly clear to me that liberals view Rush Limbaugh in precisely that light.  And no, I’m not making the obvious point that the Obami and the Democratic party fear Rush’s bully pulpit and consistently demonize him.  I’m talking about the rank-and-file’s fear that even listening to Rush for a moment or two causes a person to lose the will to be a liberal.  Those liberals to whom I speak shy away from him, not because they disagree with what he has to say, but because they fear he will convince them that he’s right.

The following is a talk I had just the other day while driving in the car with a liberal friend who, having voted for Obama, is now deeply regretting that decision:

Me:  How would you like to do something completely different?  Let me put Rush on the radio.

Her:  No, no.  I don’t want to do that.

Me:  Come on, you’ll like him.  He’s not at all the way you’ve heard him described in the other media.  He’s very well-informed, quite funny, and amazingly prescient.

Her:  No, no.  He’s too arrogant.

Me:  Nah.  That’s just an act.  Give it a try, for just a few minutes.

Her:  No.  I can’t listen to him.  [Then, as a sop:]  I watch Fox sometimes.

So here we have a woman who realizes that she made a mistake voting Democrat this election, who is open to conservative news (I believe her when she says she watches Fox), yet who assiduously avoids any contact with Rush.  Incidentally, this was not a one time-0nly conversation.  I had virtually the same conversation with two other regret-filled liberals.

The belligerently liberal ones are equally averse to exposing themselves to Rush.

Me:  I challenge you to listen to Rush for a half hour.

Him:  No.  He’s an idiot.

Me:  Have you ever listened to him?

Him:  No.

Me:  Then how do you know he’s an idiot?

Him:  He is.  He’s a wacko.  He doesn’t know anything.

Me:  How do you know that?

Him:  Are you trying to make me mad?

Me:  No.  But I do think that you should listen to him.  At least then you’d have first hand knowledge of what he says and whether you agree or disagree with it.

Him:  I’m not going to waste my time.

And so on, ad infinitum and definitely ad nauseum.

During the 1990s, when I was an unthinking liberal, I knew Rush was out there, but he existed on the periphery of my existence.  I read Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and laughed at how “stupid” Rush was, but I actually didn’t care about any of the core issues at stake.  I had no interest whatsoever in finding out what Rush was like, because nothing he said really mattered.  I was working hard at my career, getting married, starting a family, and was therefore disinterested in things political.  The world seemed to be rolling along just right, with a Democratic president and a booming economy.

To give myself some retroactive credit, though, if a conservative had challenged me back then to listen to Rush, I would have done so — because I would have been certain that Rush was a big joke, and that I could have laughed at him just as Franken did.  I might have expected to be bored or offended, but I wouldn’t have been worried about being mesmerized and brainwashed.

And then came September 11, 2001 and I started paying attention.  I began to be concerned about what was going on around me.  This concern led me to start reading anything I could get my hands on about all sorts of subjects.  I read blogs, both liberal and conservative.  I opened my mind to the possibility that my attachment to the Democratic party was wrong — a possibility helped by the fact that I found myself agreeing with the major political decisions George Bush was making, both regarding national security and the economy.  In other words, once I realized that my old political staples were failing, I started looking for new information.  I wasn’t scared of the new information but, rather, was curious.

Both my old attitude (“Sure, bring silly Rush on, ’cause he’ll be good for a laugh”) and my new attitude (“There’s something out there I need to learn about”) make it impossible for me to understand the resistance, shading into fear, that my friends and family show when confronted with the possibility that they might hear a minute or two of Rush’s mellifluous tones over the airways.  They don’t seem to recognize either the possibility that they might laugh at a fool or learn from a wise man.  Instead, they seem genuinely afraid that any exposure to Rush will corrupt them irreparably.  Like poor Trilby, they’ll be seduced into an unsustainable way of being, only to find themselves suddenly abandoned and exposed.  To them, Rush is no mere conservative; he is Satan incarnate, a tempter who will destroy their liberal souls and leave them in an endless conservative Hell.

It’s quite a high compliment to Rush that ordinary liberals believe he has extraordinary powers.  It isn’t every conservative radio or talk show host who is perceived as so compelling and seductive that he can destroy people’s world view in an instant.

It’s also very frustrating to me because, in a funny way, I agree with my liberal friends that Rush can rejigger their world view very quickly.  The only thing is that I don’t believe Rush works his magic through hypnotism and trickery.  Instead, I think Rush’s real magic lies in his ability to view the political world as a vast chess board, one on which he can see multiple future moves; his prodigious memory; his well-informed mind; his logical analyses; and his funny persona.  He convinces by appealing to our rational mind, our sense of humor, and our knowledge of the world as it is, and not as some Ivory Tower liberal tells us it should be.

So, whether by cajolery or challenge, I’m still trying to get my liberals to listen to Rush.  For all the wrong reasons, they’re right about one thing:  he will change their minds.

UPDATE:  Welcome, Instapundit readers!  As you may know, for a conservative blogger, being Instalanched is pretty much the blogging equivalent of going straight to Heaven, without any stops in between.

UPDATE II:  Is it too late to say welcome to Rush Limbaugh listeners?  Ironically, I was away from my computer while this whole excitement was going on, and never got the chance to say hello.  I’m back now, and I’m still pretty darn excited.  I hope those of you who stopped by come and visit again.

Rush was taken to a Honolulu hospital in serious condition with chest pains.  I hope it’s nothing more than angina or indigestion.  He is a national treasure, something that becomes especially obvious when he has guest hosts sitting in, as he does now, during the holiday season.  No matter how good they are, they’re not as good as he is.

Hat tip:  Brutally Honest

UPDATE:  Since I’m getting links for this fairly bald little post, I feel as if I should add something.

The something I’d like to add is that I came late to Rush Limbaugh.  Throughout most of his broadcast history, my only knowledge of him came through the MSM and, especially, through Al Franken’s nasty attack on him which I, then a liberal, thought was the funniest book ever.

It’s only in the last few years that I’ve actually listed to Rush without having my opinion of him created and filtered by the Leftist media.  I’ve learned in those years that Rush is extremely well-organized mentally, which is a gift in someone who hosts a daily three hour radio show; he has an extraordinary knack of explaining, simply and correctly, current political events and political thinking; he’s incredibly funny, with the ego derided by the Left being a pose, rather than a personality trait; and he’s remarkably prescient, no doubt because of his his brains, analytical ability of fund of knowledge.  He is, as I said originally, a treasure, and it would be tragic if something were to happen to him at this pivotal moment in American history.

Last week, I commented on Thomas Frank’s weird defense of Obama’s attack on the media.  Basically, Frank’s whole defense was that Nixon was worse. I don’t know about you, but to say “my guy isn’t as bad as the guy I, a liberal, consider the worst, most paranoid president ever,” doesn’t strike me as a ringing endorsement.

Now comes Maureen Dowd, taking on Rush Limbaugh’s contention that Obama is an inexperienced narcissist who is in well over his head.  Dowd’s defense:  Rush is mean and, by the way, he had an Oxycontin addiction.  Oh!  And by the way, Bush was also immature.  The only thing she actually says in Obama’s defense is this little bit of psychobabble:  “The 48-year-old Obama is skinny and getting skinnier, but there’s nothing childish about him. He more or less raised himself and came to terms with his Oedipal demons on his own, and he radiates a hard-won maturity.”  So there!

Distill her argument and you get this:  Obama is a skinny guy with a bad childhood and it’s unfair for mean journalists to pick on him, never mind that Obama himself desperately wanted the job as most powerful person in the world.

Do these people really think that they’re making intelligent arguments when they write this way?

You’ve already heard about the fact that, in order to block any chance of Rush having an ownership interest in an NFL team, liberal talking heads (including Al Sharpton) and the MSM attributed manifestly false quotations to Rush, in order to accuse him of being a grotesque racist.  However, before visiting PowerLine, I hadn’t seen the photograph CNN used of Rush.  It’s interesting that, not only did they use a false, slanderous quote, the CNN “newsies” also used an antiquated photo of Rush from a time before he slimmed and trimmed:

He looks fabulous now (as you can see below), but they sold him to the public as someone who looks like a bloated plantation owner:

UPDATE: Contrary to CNN’s fondest dreams, Rush is not Jefferson Davis “Boss” Hogg:

UPDATE II: I have it on very good authority that Bill O’Reilly used exactly the same mean-spirited picture of Rush. (I wouldn’t know since O’Reilly has never piqued my interest.) The Radio Patriot suggests that, in Bill’s case, it may be simple professional jealousy. If that’s the case, Bill should give it up. He’s not in Rush’s league, so there’s no competition.

In a comment I left at an American Thinker article regarding the administration’s attacks on Rush, I noted that, based on my pre-conversion history, those who hate Rush the most have probably never listened to him.  Instead, they base their hatred on what they are told about him.  My hope was that, with Rush so firmly in the headlight, people who are not ideologues but who are just complacent would tune in to see what the ruckus was about — with some of them learning something about Rush and about conservatism.  Seems my hope was well placed.

Hat tip:  Andrea Shea-King of Radio Patriot (and if you link over, check her side bar for a very cool picture of a proposed portable teleprompter for the Big O).

Thought to be extinct, Marinicus Republicanus is emerging from its long dormancy and beginning to make itself known.  Tonight, I attended an enthusiastic rally of at least 100 people crammed shoulder to shoulder in a beautiful home in Marin. People were informed, excited, and refused to be intimidated by the polls.

Melanie Morgan, former conservative talk show host and founder and chairman of MoveAmericaForward.org, was the big draw.  As you might guess given her career, she’s a great public speaker — clear, vivacious, intelligent and amusing.  She has one other quality that completely endeared her to me:  she’s petite.  Indeed, she’s what used to be called a Pocket Venus — a lovely woman from head to toe, only on a someone smaller scale (although at about 5’2″, she’s still taller than I am).

Melanie’s speech touched upon a few main themes, familiar to all conservatives:  Obama’s “spread the wealth” socialism, his frightening unpreparedness for attacks against the US (both because of his inexperience and his temperament), the huge risk of a complete Democratic takeover of the government (a government that will be far to the Left of anything Roosevelt, Truman, Carter or even Clinton envisioned), and the death of the conservative media.

As to the last, Melanie warned those assembled to make no mistake:  The very first thing an entirely Democratic government will do is pass a bill with the Orwellian title of “Fairness Doctrine.”  This will mandate that any radio or TV show that has political content must give equal time to both Democrats and Republicans.

While I can guarantee you that this “fairness” won’t be imposed against MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN, the Democratic controlled FCC will come down like gangbusters against Fox News, Dennis Prager, Rush LImbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, and any other national and local conservative shows you can think of.  The FCC will warn any station carrying these shows that, unless they start airing Air America too (or like shows), they will lose their licenses.  And the radio stations, unable to afford the financial black holes of liberal talk radio, will go with the obvious response:  they’ll take conservative radio shows off the air.  Progressives will still have MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN (since Democrats profess to believe that these networks are “objective”), but conservatives will have . . . nothing.

But that’s not entirely true.  Conservatives will still have the internet, whether written or podcasts.  And I think conservatives should start having guerilla radio.  During World War II, resistance fighters and local partisans all over Europe set up underground radio stations that beamed real news — not Nazi propaganda — to those who still wanted the truth.  Heck, even in the last Harry Potter book, the good guys set up secret radio broadcasts aimed at keeping community alive and thwarting the Death Eaters.

Don’t you love the idea of a secret Rush Limbaugh radio show?  Because it will be illegal, it will immediately gain the same cachet as other illegal activities, such as marijuana use or underage drinking.  College students will start having parties in darkened dorm rooms, behind locked doors, as they chase the elusive Rush across the radio dial.

Before long, these same college students, their minds finally stimulated by an alternative to the Marxist doctrine taught in their classrooms, will be taking to the streets, demanding that the government “Free Rush Limbaugh.”  It will be exciting.  There will be riots.  Nancy Pelosi will barricade herself in her San Francisco mansion as deeply committed college students mount 24 hour a day protests on her street.

As the streets become maelstroms of free speech protests, the MSM will be forced to report on the story, complete with dire warnings about the dangers to youth from illegal conservative radio.  Concerned parents, anxious to know what kind of ideology is sparking their childrens’ behavior, will “try” rush (although few will admit to this kind of mental inhaling).

To their horror, most of them will find themselves agreeing with him.  Some will have to go into therapy.  Many will go into deep denial.  But some, those who have a youthful rebellious streak, will begin covert listening operations as well, and find themselves hanging out at skate parks trying to have the boarders give them info about the next place and time for a Rush broadcast.

After that, heck, anything can happen.  Stick around long enough, and by 2012 or 2016, we may have a successful Palin-Steele, or Palin-Cantor, or Palin-Jindal ticket, that can start the long, painful work of undoing all the damage done to America by several consecutive years of unbridled socialist . . . um, Democratic rule.

UPDATE:  BTW, Melanie Morgan’s own blog is here.