The New York Times profile piece, which will appear in print this Sunday, is as good as Rush Limbaugh could reasonably expect.

As for the rest of us, there are some fun surprises. One is that the writer couldn’t seem to find many liberal critics, although a number are interviewed. Rush has been accepted as part of the landscape, a mountain that cannot be moved to improve the view. Another: The writer doesn’t seem to wonder why Rush makes more money that the top three nightly news anchors combined. Is it that he is serving an large audience that they have neglected? It is strange that the writer doesn’t wonder about this. Maybe he was afraid of where that thread would lead.

Still, it is well worth reading. Here are two interesting nuggets:

Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identify themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners.”

Limbaugh’s audience is better informed than NPR’s? That’s got to be a surprise on the Upper West Side.

And Limbaugh’s take on Bill O’Reilly: “The man is Ted Baxter.”

As for the writer’s incessant baiting him on Sean Hannity, it reeks of editor-inspired bear poking.

Still, I suspect, that the full story about Rush is yet to be told. He has some 20 million listeners but is deeply private. He is breezily ebullient on the air but almost modest in person. He is an intellectual and a jokester. He went from being Hillary’s most effective critic in the 1990s to her biggest booster in 2008. He is the wealthiest man in the history of radio but still keenly feels his decades of loserdom.

There remains a biography to be written.

It had to happen. Almost every Independence Day some newspaper publishes a column taking the hair-shirt liberal position that America doesn’t deserve to celebrate July Fourth.

Yes, most liberals are as patriotic as any one else. Their criticism is a sincere desire to improve the country they love–a point some conservatives overlook. Love begets criticism. Ask any wife.

And, then, you run across the rump of the remainder. People who actually write “America has sinned” and should seek “penance” for its misdeeds, like this writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Or this one over at The Progressive.

Like the perfume of an empty vase, why do certain liberals always reach for religious language?

Chris Satullo is an official columnist for the Inquirer, which, until recently, won more Pulitzers than any other big-city daily. Now it publishes this:

So put out no flags.

Sing no patriotic hymns.

We deserve no Fourth this year.

Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation’s birthday next rolls around.

His complaint is that foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield do not get exactly the same rights as Americans accused of committing violent felonies. To him, this is unconstitutional and a stain on our national honor.

Maybe it is a desperate bid for attention. Or maybe it is a revealing peek behind the curtain. You read it and decide.

A slow and subtle change is affecting campuses across the country as, one-by-one, Baby Boomer activist professors fade into retirement. The New York Times seems to be mourning this development.

On the other hand, I see it as a hopeful development.

Their younger replacements will not be conservative Republicans, but moderate Democrats. These Obama Democrats do not have the same aversion to free speech that Baby Boomer activists, who wrote the politically correct speech codes–the strictest in the 400-year history of the American university– that have suppressed student dissent on issues ranging from affirmative action to foreign policy.

And they are not absorbed by mindless symbolic fights. If the military wants to come to campus, fine, let ‘em set up right across from the feminist booth. Anyone who wants to talk to them can. As for the cultural fights–what books are assigned, topics studied–we’re unlikely to see major changes, but subtle ones.

Slowly as the moderates come in and the activist retire, the pendulum will swing. The remaining liberal lions will no longer be seen as the “conscience of the campus” but as the crazy pony-tailed man who won’t shut up.

The New York Times puts it somewhat less hopefully:

But a new study of the social and political views of American professors by Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia and Solon Simmons at George Mason University found that the notion of a generational divide is more than a glancing impression. “Self-described liberals are most common within the ranks of those professors aged 50-64, who were teenagers or young adults in the 1960s,” they wrote, making up just under 50 percent. At the same time, the youngest group, ages 26 to 35, contains the highest percentage of moderates, some 60 percent, and the lowest percentage of liberals, just under a third.

When it comes to those who consider themselves “liberal activists,” 17.2 percent of the 50-64 age group take up the banner compared with only 1.3 percent of professors 35 and younger.

“These findings with regard to age provide further support for the idea that, in recent years, the trend has been toward increasing moderatism,” the study says.

The Independence Day column is a staple of American journalism. It comes in two flavors: A look back at our heroic Founding Fathers with a call to remember their wisdom or a look back at a battle with the idea that we remember that so many died for our freedoms.

Bill Kristol, writing for the New York Times, pens a nice July Fourth piece that attacks no one, except indirectly King George III.  Usually, liberals turn up their noses as these kinds of columns. It is an appeal to sentiment or an attempt to gloss over America’s shortcomings or whatever.

(Ordinary people might take progressive criticisms of America a bit more seriously if liberals also found a few moments every year to honestly praise our country. If one both critiques and praises, one’s views are more likely to be seen as considered judgments rather than the reflex spasms of an over-conditioned lab rat.)

But, for some reason, harmless columns like Kristol’s cannot be left alone. There is something in the head of the liberal blogger that keeps returning its tongue where a tooth used to be.

“Exhibit A”: some blogger named Attaturk over at Firedoglake.com can’t resist jumping when the bell goes off in Pavlov’s lab.  Kristol’s column sets him raving. This poor sod scours the Declaration of Independence for a few stray lines he can twist into an anti-Kristol, anti-Bush, anti-Neocon rant.  Here’s a sample:

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power…

Just like our own George III. Don’t you dare question his “generals on the ground”.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States

Just like our own George III has done in Iraq.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

Just like George III has done in the GITMO that Kristol loves so much.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Hey, Blackwater gives a lot of money to George III…and it’s management loves watching you on Fox News Sunday Bill.

It isn’t the cheap shots that rankle, it is the ignorance of American history.

Why were American colonists complaining about putting military power over elected government, denying trial by jury and so on?  At the time, Americans and Britons were one people with a shared constitution that guaranteed those rights. Taking away those constitutional rights made us foreigners…
The cases that the blogger is trying to apply these sacred words to involve foreigners with whom we are actively at war.

We have no shared constitution with them and, if we did, they would reject it as they do all democracy–as “man’s law.” These foreign fighters consider the sharia to be their only law.

Firedoglake is even more thoughtless than the column cliche it condemns.

Sometimes it is hard to know if Senator John McCain realizes that he is actually running for president.

The Orange County Register asked him if he knew the price of gas. He didn’t and seemed annoyed by the question. Here is the question asked and his answer, in full:

When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?
Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

The blogger Outside The Beltway points out why McCain’s ignornance matters.

The price of gas is the number one issue on the minds of just about every voter these days. It’s an issue that virtually transcends class. Most of us know, to the penny, what we’re paying for gas and where the cheapest gas is in our area. (Both my wife’s car and mine require high octane gasoline. The station where I generally buy has been stuck at $4.32 for quite some time now. Prices vary radically from block to block, with some charging as much as $4.65.)

If anything, Outside The Beltway is being generous. In fact, McCain’s answer tells us a number of other worrying things about his campaign.

Poor Staffing. McCain should not have been surprised. The price of milk, eggs, and, yes, fuel, are standard campaign-reporter gotcha questions. This has been clear since the 1992 presidential race when then-President Bush was ambushed on a radio station about the price of milk. Most campaigns give the candidate daily numbers on these items, adjusted for the region that they are visiting, to prevent precisely these kind of out-of-touch news stories.

Poor Candidate. McCain must know that gas prices are driving the average American to distraction. Couldn’t he have seized the opportunity to “feel their pain”? The question was suggested to the Orange County Register reporter by a reader, someone obviously vexed by high fuel prices.  Saying the Secret Service pumps my gas, as McCain did, isn’t exactly a soothing response.

Poor Policy. McCain reversed his stand opposing offshore drilling, but still doesn’t want to drill in ANWR because that part of Alaska is “pristine.” And the beaches of California and Florida are not? This is an incoherent policy. And he wants a gas tax “holiday” for the summer. So New Englanders can freeze because of the high cost of home heating oil in November? Another incoherent policy–and one designed to hurt him in states he desperately needs to win.

What Could He Do Instead? Call for suspension of the federal tax on fuel until oil returns to $60/barrel, roughly where it was when the Democrats took Congress in November 2006. That would provide long-term relief and show that he cares about the minivan-driving mom who still has to take her children to school, to practice, to the supermarket and home. He could even propose that states suspend their fuel taxes until oil prices decline, or else deny them federal highway money. Suspending the state and federal levies would save motorists about 80 cents per gallon. Freezing the greedy grab of government is the only way to reverse gas prices in the short term.

As for those who say all 80 cents won’t trickle down, well, they’re wrong. Those studies look for immediate effects. Gas prices shoot up quickly and decline slowly. But at least 40 cents per gallon would be realized immediately and the rest of savings would accrue over the next few months. Besides, that argument is really about the efficiency of cutting gas taxes, not the overall effect. Gas prices would go down and voters would see that McCain and the lawmakers that join will him are at least doing something helpful.

Instead he tells us that the Secret Service pumps his gas. What kind of message does that send?

Rep. Chris Cannon–who has a 96 score (out of 100) by the American Conservative Union–was beaten in a primary challenge today in Utah’s thrid congressional district.

His challenger, Jason Chaffetz, said Rep. Cannon wasn’t conservative enough.

As the nominee in this heavily Republican district, Chaffetz is expected to easily win election in November.

Chaffetz wants to shutter the Department of Education and return education policy to the states, to deny the children of illegal immigrants automatic citizenship and return the GOP to “its core conservative principles.”

What does this mean? Two things immediately spring to mind:

The Republican brand is not dead. The only landslide defeat the party has endured in the last 30 years was the 2006 congressional elections. And the White House party usually loses the sixth-year midterms. Indeed, the frustration of the conservative base with the GOP may be that the party is not conservative enough.

And while two primaries hardly make a trend, the Cannon-Chaffetz race comes after Maryland liberal Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was defeated by a conservative candidate.

Finally, I had lunch the other day with a recently retired Republican congressman. He had a reputation as a staunch conservative. Gas prices came up. I suggested that the federal tax get suspended not for two months as McCain proposes but until oil falls to $60/barrel–roughly where it was when the Democrats came into office in November 2006. I added that federal highway funds should be conditioned on states also suspending their fuel taxes.

He was horrified. I know gas prices are making people angry, he said, but the government needs the revenue…

Whatever. The people need the revenue. This is why the conservative base is unhappy. The rebels all took jobs with the palace guard. That’s what Chaffetz’s victory means.

So John McCain’s former captor, a Vietnamese communist, says he would vote for his former prisoner–if he was an American, according to the BBC.

He calls McCain “my friend.”

Without irony.

If the Obama campaign is clever–and it is–it will use this story, through a surrogate, to call McCain’s war record into question. (The communist officer denies that McCain was ever tortured. Instead, the Navy pilot was summoned for little chats. Right.) With a Cheshire Cat smile, the surrogate will say: “Well, it is his word against McCain’s. But the Vietnamese official is not running for president and has no reason to lie…”

The left side of the Blogosphere will eat it up.

Of course, the idea that McCain was not tortured by the North Vietnamese is ridiculous.

But the silly season is about to begin…

Barack Obama’s biological father left him when he was two years old and, as the presumptive Democratic nominee writes in his first book, it left an un-fillable hole in his life.

Years after his father had died in a car accident, Obama sat down on the red dirt beside his grave and “talked” to him. It is one of the most moving scenes in his first book, Dreams from My Father.

When, on Father’s Day, Obama took aim at deadbeat dads, calling on them not to abandon their children, I was moved. He’s right. There is a crisis of fatherhood in this country and fatherless children commit a disproportionate number of crimes and give birth to an outsized number of out-of-wedlock children. And that restarts the cycle.

Obama deserves credit for departing from liberal platitudes. He realizes that the inner-city doesn’t just need more money, its residents need more love–from fathers who know how to tame boys and  inspire confidence in girls.

But not everyone was happy with Obama’s brave words. Here is a thoughtful criticism of Obama, by an Obama supporter and men’s rights activist.

While the sentence “is the greatest way to render narrative,” Librarian of Congress James Billington tells the Washington Post, “We are moving toward the language used by computer programmers and air traffic controllers,” he says. “Language as a method of instruction, not a portal into critical thinking.”

Of course, he is right. Aside from commands, the ability of ordinary people to speak or write clearly and concisely is fading away. If you doubt me, ask a recent college graduate to show you her blog or a memo she wrote for her boss.

Even commands contain a certain inarticulateness. Amtrak commands that you “take all of your personal belongings with you as you exit the train.” Really? Am I to leave my impersonal belongings behind? Why use the word personal in that sentence at all?

In the same article, a professor blames the Internet. Yes, millions are reading billions of lines of unedited prose.

But is the Internet itself to blame or is it a mirror reflecting a national image of poor grammar? I suspect if one could open a representative sample of private letters, the quality of writing would be little better.

President Bush recently told my pal, Sarah Baxter, at the Sunday Times (of London) that he wants to get bin Laden before he leaves office.

Here are some random thoughts and observations, culled from conversations with White House staffers, intelligence analysts and others:

Bin Laden and Bush agree on one thing. Both prefer he is killed, rather than captured. Every intelligence analyst that I have spoken with says this. I would have presumed that bin Laden would be an intelligence treasure trove. Yes, but his capture would lead to stepped up attacks by al Qaeda. And last week’s Supreme Court ruling means that the archterrorist might have constitutional rights that would make holding him a legal nightmare.

Here politics and policy align. Surely, Senator McCain would approve. It would be the kind of “October Surprise” that would help him win the White House. For McCain to win, he needs every state Bush carried in 2004. Iowa and New Mexico are on a razor’s edge for the Republicans–a bin Laden capture or killing might tip the balance. It might also help reduce the size of the GOP losses in Congress, which are expected by Republicans to be substantial.

It might actually happen. Since 2007, U.S. Special Forces have been operating in Pakistan’s wild tribal areas.  Previously, their forays were brief and furtive. Now the operational tempo has increased and seeking high-value targets inside Pakistan no longer has the allure of forbidden fruit. It seems normal, like Afghanistan. And, yes, the American teams hunting bin Laden have the permission of the Pakistani government–no matter what its leaders tell its public. Plus, the U.S. embassy tip line in Islamabad is actually generating leads, although how solid no one will say.
Most Likely, it will be a Predator strike. While Hollywood might prefer black-clad SEALs fast-roping down into bin Laden’s cave lair, bin Laden’s end will, most likely, end with both a bang and a whimper. An anonymous signal intelligence officer will notice something unusual in a satellite photo. It will match up with a tip gleaned from a local by an American commando. Another analyst will put the two together. Electronic ears and eyes will focus and strain. And wait. Then a tired uniform staring at his monitor will notice something unusual is happening 6,000 miles away. An entourage of SUVs has turned up in a poor village. The database reveals that some of the turbaned heads emerging from the SUVs match those of senior Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. And then, for a flash of an instance, bin Laden emerges from the shadows to greet them.  That moment of incaution will cost him his life. A Predator is dispatched and the lawyers are called to see if it is legal to hit a mud-walled house that contains both the man who ordered the deaths of 3,000 Americans and, perhaps, some women and children making the terrorists tea. Unheard, the Predator circles overhead as the military lawyers and intelligence officers debate. And, in the next knot in this string of good luck, the lawyers agree. A Hellfire missile ignites from under the unmanned drone’s wing and races toward the mountain hut. The screens go white as the rocket explodes. In the wreckage, the camera detects many male bodies. In a few days, the military may be able to confirm the kill–if signal intelligence picks up mourning on al Qaeda web sites or cell phones or if a recon team is able to secure the area and take DNA samples. Meanwhile, the president is told. Like everyone else, Bush has to wait in silence until the news is confirmed. If it isn’t, it was just another false dawn in the war on terror. But, if luck holds, it is the big moment–the one that makes a legacy.