Here is an interesting exchange Rush Limbaugh had with a caller yesterday:
CALLER: I just wanted to point out I've been a longtime Bush supporter, and when he gives a speech like he did this morning it makes me feel good. He gives good speeches. However, when it comes to immigration issues I think he's wimped out, just like I think he wimped out when he selected Miers instead of a qualified conservative for the Supreme Court. I just think I haven't heard the term wimped out, and that's a Marine term, and I just feel bad that I think he has wimped out.
RUSH: Well, I don't think he has, but I think that's the impression that people have, like you have it, but more problematic is that the Democrats will think it. That's what they think. You're precisely making my point. I don't think he made the choice because he's wimped out, but the perception is that. That's not good. Let's face it, when you take a look at a number of issues over the past five years, the president signed campaign finance reform, we weren't happy about it, let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, we weren't happy about that. Immigration has been sort of a big question mark and mystery to a lot of us, as you say, not happy about that. But the war, the war on terror is something that we totally support the president on, because it's crucial, it's important, particularly when the Democratic Party decides to abandon a unified stance as a nation on the war on terror, then that causes universal support for the president. It is support for the war, and he has not wimped out on any aspect of it, by perception or by reality. He's not wimped out on the war whatsoever. I mean, some people think, "Okay, let's just go in and nuke these people and be done. Let's go into
CALLER: Well, it seems like there are terrorists coming across the border, Mexican border, and he should get a little stronger about that. That's what we're concerned about, especially in California. A lot of conservatives in California are really worried about terrorists coming --
RUSH: You're preaching to the choir on this, my friend. I've said that this is the issue that holds the greatest threat to continued victories and elections by the Republicans. If they don't get their act together on this, they don't understand exactly how people in California, and it's not just border states anymore, but California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, how they feel about this. Because I'm with you a hundred percent on it, but my point is that despite being disappointed on those things, Kennedy writing the education bill, signing campaign finance reform, all this spending, it is the war that has kept us unified in our support for George W. Bush because of its crucial nature, because he's great on it, he's right on it, and we also see the Democrats parting ways with the country trying to use the war as a wedge, which in effect gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which just makes us livid. And so that further cements support for the president. Then comes the Harriet Miers pick, and some people said, "Okay, the war, fine, that's what's held us together here, but, you know, we might not have been this supportive of President Bush all these years, if it weren't for the war". And so people want to see the George W. Bush of the war on terror in some of these other issues. You want to see it on immigration. A lot of people want to see it on budgets. A lot of people want to see it on different things. Supreme Court nominees, what have you. I think that's one of the reasons the speech is so timely today because it will shore up his support. It's why I say also that when the president's right about something, and when we agree with him, we've got to be unabashedly supportive. This war on terror is a crucial thing.
So is the Supreme Court. So I disagree with you that he's wimping out on these things. I think he's got a different philosophical outlook on them. I don't think he's wimping out on immigration, wimping out on some of these things, it's just he's not as ideologically conservative as you are, George, or as I am. But when it comes to the war, ideological issue, this is about good versus evil, right versus wrong, which many of us look at as conservative versus liberal, good versus evil and right versus wrong. I don't think the president takes it as far as we do ideologically. So that leads to some disappointment too. The problem with your perception that he's wimping out is that Howard Dean thinks he's wimping out, too, and Harry Reid thinks he's wimping out. You don't want your enemies to think that you're wimping out. Unless you're setting them up and playing rope-a-dope.Syria, let's go to Iran, let's take care of business." But that's strategic. That's not having a wimpy policy. At least I wouldn't assign it to that.
I disagree with Limbaugh on this one. Bush is wimping out on spending cuts, illegal aliens, and now the Supreme Court. Rush said that Bush is “not as ideologically conservative as you are”. Doesn’t that then make him somewhat more on the left…and isn’t common for Limbaugh to argue that the left are wimps. Therefore I argue the President wimps out as he goes to the left. Limbaugh is wrong on this one.
And the reason Bush is wimping out is because he and his supporters do not stand up against the far-left propaganda of the MSM.
