WND and the WSJ discuss Rush's recent conversion to slightly critical of Our Leader. See this post for Rush's remarks with links to the underlying stories.

From WND:

Limbaugh has not been an outspoken critic of the president on this issue in the past. Neither has he focused much of his broadcast attention on the border and immigration issues during his nearly two-decade career as a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. Instead, Limbaugh is perceived as a champion of many Bush policies.

But, clearly, Limbaugh sees Bush as out of step with the public in his continued calls for implementation of a guest worker program...

As one might suspect, the WSJ is a bit more "nuanced" in their treatment. However, at least they don't try to smear Rush or call him a crypto-Nazi. From John Fund (opinionjournal . com/diary/?id=110006230):

...Rush has 20 million listeners a week, so if he decides to attack President Bush's plan to regularize immigration flows through a guest-worker program, he could help kill the idea...

[...at about this point he enters stock WSJ open borders mode, albeit "nuanced"...]

Approaches like [Political Human Sacrifice], or Pat Buchanan's idea of a reverse Berlin Wall, are neither desirable or politically possible to implement (barring another major terrorist attack that is the work of illegal aliens). But the pressure to "do something" on immigration is mounting. While no incumbent is likely to lose his seat on the issue, three pro-guest-worker incumbents from Arizona and Utah faced primary challenges last year. As a result, many congressmen don't even want to hear about Mr. Bush's plan.

A clear-eyed analysis would tell them the political clout of anti-immigration activists is limited. The best showing by any of the anti-immigrant primary challengers was by state Rep. Randy Graf in Arizona, who won 43% against Rep. Jim Kolbe, a gay Republican who has always had difficulties with social conservatives. And more than 44% of Arizonans voted against Proposition 200, the initiative denying public services to illegal aliens, even though the state's border with Mexico has become the crossing point of choice for smugglers...

...Even though the political impact of anti-immigration sentiment can be exaggerated, Mr. Bush would be wise to take steps to ensure that immigration doesn't become what crime and abortion became for the Democrats: wedge issues that drove many voters to the other party. He will not come close to passing a guest-worker program until he proves his bona fides in areas of legitimate concern on immigration...

...Immigration is certainly more complex than many border-control advocates would have you believe. But supporters of rational reform that would regularize the flow of immigrant labor should recognize that it must be accompanied by measures to address the legitimate concerns of Americans who worry the federal government has completely lost control of the borders. Many voters don't trust any plan coming out of Washington, whether it's by Mr. Bush or anyone else. It's that concern that is driving Rush Limbaugh and other supporters of the president to send up political warning flares...

How "nuanced." Note the use of three instances of "anti-immigrant." And, referring to "reform" as "regularization", the same term used by the Bush and Fox administrations.

I sent the following response (see the links at the end of the article; there are no reader responses at post time and most reader responses to WSJ open borders articles are quite critical):

Rush finally speaking out about an issue that millions of Americans have been concerned about for years could certainly give the open borders advocates at the WSJ a run for their money. Perhaps that's why the article is so "nuanced": throw a few bones to the 75% of the American public who oppose illegal immigration and perhaps we could finally get our new and improved bracero program. Hopefully Rush supports real reform and not the quasi-"reform" offered by the WSJ.

Also, could I suggest you update your style guide? The article uses "anti-immigrant" three times, when what's being discussed isn't "anti-immigrant," simply anti-illegal immigration.

And, I note you use "regularize" twice. That's the euphemism used by the Bush and Fox administrations to refer to "massive illegal alien amnesty."