The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 5-31-2016 | Rush Limbaugh

[servo1969]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Well, that's what you've all wanted. That's what everybody's been asking for I don't know how long. That was a press conference. That was a press conference. That was the kind of press conference Republicans voters have been dying to see for who knows how many years.

Greetings, my friends. Great to have you here, and great to be back. A short busy broadcast week. Rush Limbaugh back at it. It is 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program; the email address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Say what you will about Donald Trump -- how many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation. He took 'em all on, and the piece de resistance is some journalist said, "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump --" and, by the way, these people in the media, they may hate the guy, but they cannot stop covering him.

There are a couple things in the Trump Stack today that are gonna force me -- not force -- have, I should say, inspired me to do another in-depth explanation of why all this is happening. Why Trump is happening. Why Trump is working. Trump's relationship with the media, what is sustaining it. How it is that Trump is succeeding in getting a bunch of people that literally hate him to help him out. It's fascinating.

Folks, it's a fascinating case study in politics and sociology, psychology, pop culturism, post whatever modernism, it's an amazing thing, and I'm gonna do my best to explain it because it's fascinating to me. It's literally fascinating to me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to this Trump press conference, if you didn't see it, if you didn't hear it, we're working on audio sound bites now. We're an editor short today so we'll get them up as quickly as we can. We only got one guy editing. When we have two guys editing it would only take half the time it's gonna take now.

But, anyway, the piece de resistance -- you thought I lost my place, but I didn't, because I never do. Near the end of it a frustrated journalist (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, is it gonna be this way, are you gonna be attacking us after you become president?"

"Yes, it is. Because you are the most dishonest people, political press the most dishonest people I know. You know it and I know it. The press is dishonest, but the political press is especially dishonest."

And then Jim Acosta, I think it was, CNN (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, do you object to scrutiny? You seem like you didn't even like scrutiny, but you're seeking the office of president of the United States, how do you think --"

"I don't mind scrutiny. What I don't like is lies. You can scrutinize me all day long but you set up false premises. You state things about me that are not true. Then you run stories on that. That's why I'm out here trying to correct the record." And then Trump says, "By the way, I've seen you, you're among the worst. You're at ABC, right? You're the worst. You're a sleaze." And I'm thinking the people at home watching this -- (laughing) 'cause, folks, in the age of internet trolling, manners are out the window. It's a waste of time asking for manners here. Because, remember, in a war the aggressor sets the rules and I'm guaranteeing you that Trump thinks the media are the aggressors here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_smJ7r8cX4

He was asked even about that, "Are you gonna be critical even of Republicans trying to unify --" "If they attack me, yes. Somebody comes after me, maybe not as much if they're Republican, but I'm still gonna go after 'em, of course I am." But the media, the media totally wants Hillary Clinton to win, but they're so conflicted. The cable networks, since this thing ended, have been devoted to the press conference and how Trump was mean to them and how Trump insulted them and how Trump criticized them. And they're now doing all these introspective panel discussions on what does it all mean and what kind of deranged guy is Trump.

Even the New York Times. Folks, the New York Times has a story today. This is, in fact, the foundation of the great dissertation I have coming up to explain much of what's going on, analyze it. Well, not so much explain, I don't know how many questions there are, but I'm going to try to unravel why some of this is happening, what it really means for those of you who are just watching it casually.

But the New York Times headline: "Television Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime in the Era of Trump." Oh, yes. Five pages this baby prints out. And the New York Times has another story: "Hillary Clinton Struggles to Find Footing in Unusual Race." This is also related.

They've got two stories here on how the Times is actually apologizing to its readers for being unable to balance coverage in favor of Hillary. If Trump were any other Republican, they would have practically destroyed him by now and they'd be worried about rehabbing Hillary's image and building her up. But she's so unexciting, she's so dull, she's so scandal ridden, they've got nothing to work with. All they can do is try to destroy Trump, but they don't know how. Because they didn't make Trump, they can't destroy Trump.

And everybody dealing with Trump -- including Bill Kristol and everybody else trying to take him out -- is making the big mistake of trying to plug Trump into the age-old political handbook. Trump's not part of that. You don't deal with Trump in the standard, political handbook way on policy and issues and things like that. That's not the way to separate Trump supporters from Trump. It isn't gonna work.

"Television Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime in the Era of Trump." Let me tell you what the upshot of this story is. I'm not gonna read the whole five pages to you because I don't need to. I can make the complex understandable. I can tell you in one paragraph what the New York Times takes five pages to tell you. Ready? The upshot of this is Trump's constant access to media and Trump's unpredictability is frustrating Hillary and the Drive-Bys' capacity to shape and control the narrative.

They are unable to write the daily soap opera script as they have become accustomed to being able to do. They're unable to do it because Trump is so unpredictable. They'll write a script, they'll write a narrative for the day and Trump will go out and do an appearance and blow it to smithereens, at the same time blowing their plans. Then Hillary is frustrating, 'cause there's nothing to cover. All there is with Hillary is emails and shady financial dealings and Mao pantsuits and basic incompetence and boredom and a total lack of excitement.

So there's no way that they can write a narrative every day that destroys Trump and builds up Hillary because... See, the first mistake in the New York Times is worrying about granting Trump access. They're not "granting" Trump access. Trump is commanding access. Trump is taking access. Trump is dictating the daily narrative, as this press conference today on his donations to the vets and to various groups illustrate. What got all this started... Don't forget.

This all started when the Washington Post published an article last week right before the Memorial Day weekend -- which is a typical Drive-By Media trick. Whenever they want to destroy anybody or take a hit on somebody, they do it at a time when even if there is a response, nobody sees it, or very few. So the Washington Post published an article last week right before the Memorial Day weekend started in which they claimed, essentially, that Trump was lying about having raised $6 million in that fundraiser he held in lieu of going to the GOP debate before the Hawkeye Cauci.

And it turns out, lo and behold, that the Washington Post was right after all. Trump didn't raise $6 million for veterans groups, he only raised $5.6 million. Only raised $5.6 million. And, by the way, by the time he gets through, it will be over $6 million. Money is still coming in. Our buddy Jim Kallstrom of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, indicated to a very disappointed CNN that Trump donated $1.1 million to them last week or last couple of weeks ago. But, anyway, they started out with this.

They make some factual misrepresentations that Trump is lying about all the money he's raised for the vets. They claim that Trump claims he's raised $6 million or whatever it is and they go out and they're doing what they can to try to convince people that Trump's lying about it, that he hasn't raised that much -- and, even worse, that if he has raised that much, he hasn't passed it on. He's holding on to it. He hasn't donated it all. All of these insinuations and allegations were the Washington Post piece.

And Trump felt the need to correct the record today and did so in his own inimitable way, which basically attacked the media for dishonesty and corruption. And the thing is he stood there for, what, 45 minutes? I mean, he didn't hide, didn't run away from it, answered every question. He just took them on. They have no complaint. They can never say Trump avoids them. They can never say Trump does this or that to try to evade any kind of scrutiny, even though he got that question about scrutiny.

But the New York Times... This is actually kind of funny, I think, because they're worried that Trump's constant access to the media and his unpredictability is frustrating Hillary. Hillary doesn't know how to deal with this. Hillary doesn't know how to counterprogram Trump, if you will. Hillary doesn't know how to go out and write her own narrative of the day. Hillary doesn't know whether to focus on herself or to criticize Trump or to go after Crazy Bernie. She doesn't know what to do. And the press doesn't, either.

The New York Times is admitting here that their capacity, their ability to shape and control the narrative -- the soap opera script -- every day, is almost impossible because of Trump. And so the Times, in this story, is struggling to figure out some kind of Fairness Doctrine solution to the problem. I kid you not. They're trying to find a way they can balance this, because Trump is generating so much more coverage. They're not starting it. The press isn't. Trump's just out doing what he's doing, and they are compelled to cover it.

They cannot not cover it. But there is no... Hillary Clinton calls a press conference; it's no big deal. There isn't a mad dash by countless members of the media to get there and see what she's gonna say. There is no comparative excitement, unpredictability, drama, entertainment, you name it. There isn't any comparison. Now, not to say Trump doesn't have any competition, because he does. That's a crucial factor in all of this, too. Now, the Times here, they're hand-wringing. They're worried. They're complaining. (paraphrased)

"It's not fair! It's not fair! We can't control the media 'cause of Trump." The problem is -- and they don't want to say this, but the problem is -- that Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is interesting. And Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is funny. Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is different. Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is drama. Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is unpredictable. All of that means, you can't miss it.

You can't roll the dice and not cover it, hoping that it isn't anything. You have to be there, as the media, and you have to hope that he's gonna attack you as the media. But Hillary, on the other hand? Dull, totally colorless, mistake prone, scandal ridden, because Hillary doesn't have any natural talents. Hillary doesn't have any natural connection to people. Hillary doesn't have any charisma, magnetism. All of that has to be manufactured by the media.

Hillary needs to be hyper-scripted while, at the same time, have limited availability in a campaign that's about spontaneity and entertainment. This has become a pop culture campaign. Like it or not, that's what it is. And that's why so many in the political world are having trouble understanding it, dealing with it, being involved with it, defining it, what have you. But Hillary Clinton has this problem. The more she's seen, the more she's heard, the worse she does. This is not arguable.

This has been proven over and over again in polling data alone. The less she speaks, the less she's seen, the higher her numbers go. But with Trump out there all the time, spontaneous and entertaining, the press has to do something to keep her in the game. So they hyper-script her appearances, they hyper-script the coverage, all with limited availability because Hillary has to maintain some restraint. Otherwise, it's a potential total implosion.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The New York Times, also from over the weekend: "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism." There's even a photo of Hitler and a photo of Mussolini in the New York Times article. They never call Trump a fascist. They just claim that Trump's campaign and that Trump's rise to popularity is a sign of a growing global fascism. Do you think that story would ever be written about Barack Obama and any other governing world leaders today?

Here you have a guy who's nothing more than a candidate right now, and the New York Times, over the weekend -- the Memorial Day weekend -- with a story: "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism." Never mind that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton's positions are far more in line with the German National Socialism approach than Trump could even dream of being.

Forget, you know, that the Nazis were National Socialists. National Socialists! I mean, we're closer to having that currently in the White House than anywhere on the campaign trail right now on the Republican side. And now we find out that Hillary Clinton's campaign set up this veterans against Trump protest to begin with. We find this out after the fact. The media could have found out before it happened, but, no, no, no, no!

END TRANSCRIPT

[jennings2004]

Yeah, and we all wanted a conservative native born Canadian citizen with “sealed” records as our US President. NOT!

[Ann Archy]

Carl Cameron is a SLEAZY DEMOCRAT!!! He looks like a CHILD MOLESTER....he is UNWATCHABLE!!