![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APP-050619-Kathleen-Hall-Jamieson-CSPAN.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: We have some audio sound bites today. Mr. Snerdley, do you remember the name Kathleen Hall Jamieson? Kathleen Hall Jamieson is at the University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School. And she is one of the few academics to have analyzed this program over the years and for the most part gotten it right.<\/p>\n
Well, she was on C-SPAN over the weekend and analyzing this program within the realm of media that it takes place. And it\u2019s amazing. She gets most of it right again, which proves that it can be done. So I\u2019ll have those audio sound bites coming up for you.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: Okay, to the audio sound bites we go. Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She is a media analyst and scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, the Annenberg Center that analyzes media and stuff. I don\u2019t want to embarrass her here by singling her out. You know, people that I end up praising in the Drive-By apparatus fear for their reputations, and I\u2019m not trying to inflict any professional harm, reputational harm on Ms. Jamieson at all. But over the years — and she\u2019s one who studies media and writes about it, incredibly lengthy and in-depth studies of various aspects of media. Not just print, but broadcast and how they operate and who does it and who\u2019s a journalist and who isn\u2019t and what they report.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It\u2019s very thorough. And she is one of the few who\u2019s ever really taken the time in her studies to study this program and report on it and get it right. She\u2019s gotten closer to it — and it\u2019s not hard. I mean, all you have to do is listen here for six weeks and you can figure out what\u2019s going on. But she\u2019s one of the few who have done it.<\/p>\n
She showed up on C-SPAN2 yesterday, a program called In Depth<\/a>, and the host is somebody named Peter Slen. He\u2019s interviewing author and University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She\u2019s got a new book, Echo Chambe<\/a>r. His question, \u201cIn your book Echo Chamber, you suggested that if Rush Limbaugh, the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and key players on Fox News were confronted by a serious Republican presidential contender whose proposals and past deviated from Reagan doctrine, they would marshal against that So to translate his question: You write in your book that if a Republican presidential candidate came long here who was diametrically opposed to Reagan policy-wise and other things, that these guys, Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, would align against that candidate. Is that true?<\/p>\n JAMIESON: Proved incorrect. The natural impulse, and we were studying this in the context of multiple elections, for Rush Limbaugh was to maintain basically a traditional Reagan Republican perspective on the field and play an important role in helping to vet primary contenders for the nomination but then, once it got to the general election, to move behind the Republican candidate<\/p>\n RUSH: Okay. So let me translate. What she\u2019s saying here is that in her studies over the years of me and this program, that what I traditionally did was find the closest Republican candidate to Reagan and then while not endorsing, \u2019cause I never do that in primaries, help to vet other contenders on that basis. But then once the general election comes, whoever the Republican nominee is, is who Limbaugh gets behind.<\/p>\n She\u2019s pretty much right about that. So what this is being set up is how — she said proven incorrect. She was of the belief that I would be among those opposing Trump because he has nothing in common with Reagan in a lot of ways. The question from the moderator, \u201cRush Limbaugh often refers to his segments as entertainment.\u201d<\/p>\n JAMIESON: We did a survey at one point that gave people a list of individuals and asked which of these are journalists, and a surprising percent considered Rush Limbaugh to be a journalist. And I actually understand that at some level. Because what Limbaugh does is offers a great deal of accurate factual information that is the basis from which we can get a consensual argument on each side. So to that extent, he\u2019s performing a journalistic function.<\/p>\n RUSH: Translation — well, she got it right. She said I present both sides. In order to present my side to you, I present the left-wing side. I tell you what the liberal version of something is before giving you the conservative version, so you have something to compare what I\u2019m saying against what I oppose.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll play it again. Remember the context of this. The first bite doesn\u2019t quite get to what she\u2019s really — and let me see if the third bite — she\u2019s really stunned that I was not a Never Trumper, is really what this whole thing — she thought I would be among the Never Trumpers as a conservative who would be repulsed by Donald Trump.<\/p>\n And where she misses it on that, I think, is she expected me to become a Never Trumper based on ideology. To her Reagan equals prototypical conservatism. I mean, that is the standard against what everything is measured. If somebody doesn\u2019t measure up, then Limbaugh is not gonna support them. But what she\u2019s missing, and all of the Never Trumpers miss, is that the objections to Trump by the Never Trumpers is not ideological!<\/p>\n Trump is implementing many of the policies these conservative Never Trumpers have devoted their lives to and they still oppose him and it\u2019s not because of ideology. It\u2019s not for anything — it\u2019s personal. They just don\u2019t like Trump as a person. They don\u2019t like his manner, they don\u2019t like his mannerisms, they don\u2019t like his hair, they don\u2019t like the way he speaks, they don\u2019t like his basic existence. It doesn\u2019t matter what his ideology is.<\/p>\n I am remaining ideologically pure here while the Never Trumpers are abandoning their ideology. I don\u2019t know that she missed that or is not specifically looking for it. And I\u2019ve run into this a lot in the early days of the campaign. There were a lot of people who thought that I would be leading the Never Trump movement. Because Trump is not conservative and Trump\u2019s not talking about the basic conservative mantras like cutting spending and reducing regulations and so forth.<\/p>\n And I had to explain to people why I\u2019m not a Never Trumper and explain to people that the Never Trumpers are not Never Trump because of ideology. They\u2019re not abandoning Trump because he\u2019s not conservative enough. That has nothing to do with the reason they oppose him. To me that all just seemed trivial and trite. Particularly with what we\u2019re up against.<\/p>\n It\u2019s quite obvious Donald Trump was the only chance we had to stop the forward march of liberalism and everything attached to it. There wasn\u2019t one other Republican in the primary — maybe Ted Cruz, but he wasn\u2019t gonna win. There wasn\u2019t anybody else that was even gonna come close to opposing the left-wing Obama agenda status quo that Hillary Clinton stood for.<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t one person, there wasn\u2019t one person that was gonna have the guts to run against Hillary Clinton the way that needed to be run so that he could win, she would lose.<\/p>\n Anyway, I\u2019m up against it. Take a break. But I\u2019ll play the sound bite against so you can. Snerdley\u2019s in disbelief that she got that right, but she did. We\u2019ll back.<\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: The truth of the matter is that Donald Trump\u2019s policies are the most conservative since Reagan. I mean, Trump is much more conservative than Romney would have been or McCain. I mean, no question. McCain would not have even been a conservative. And Jeb, there\u2019s no contest here.<\/p>\n And the idea that the Never Trumpers abandoned Trump because he was not conservative, that\u2019s not at all why. The Never Trumpers are embarrassed of Trump. I tell you, Trump has shown that the Never Trumpers were never necessary, that all the money people donated to the Never Trumpers was worthless! What did they ever do that got results? \u201cDonate here to keep this organization alive so we can keep the conservative message front and center,\u201d and people sent money because that\u2019s what they did.<\/p>\n And here comes a guy that\u2019s actually gonna mobilize on these policies and actually try to implement them. And he\u2019s universally applauded and received well by these same people that have been donating, most of them, and what do the Never Trumpers do? They react in outrage at his manners or mannerisms.<\/p>\n But the idea that Never Trumper opposition to Trump is based on ideology, that he doesn\u2019t pass some conservative litmus test, that\u2019s not really what they\u2019re — It\u2019s a class thing. He\u2019s just not good enough, he\u2019s not decent enough, he\u2019s not sophisticated enough, he doesn\u2019t have the right pedigree for this. It\u2019s strictly class. It\u2019s strictly arrogance and an elitism coupled with a shock that somebody actually can implement this thing and didn\u2019t ask anybody for a dime to do it.<\/p>\n Now, the Kathleen Hall Jamieson bite, I was gonna play it again, but actually it goes with the next sound bite. We broke them up, but it actually goes together so I\u2019m gonna get to them after the break coming up. <\/p>\n BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n RUSH: Okay. Back to the sound bites. Mr. Snerdley could not believe this and wants to hear it again. Kathleen Hall Jamieson from University of Pennsylvania on C-SPAN2 last night, a program called In Depth. She has a new book called Echo Chamber. She\u2019s a media analyst and one of the few that\u2019s ever really taken the time to study this program and get it right. So the question that inspired her answer: “Rush Limbaugh often refers to his segments as ‘entertainment.'” Now, before I play the sound bite here, I\u2019m not the one that does that.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the left that does that, whenever they feel the need to discredit me. The next minute or the next hour I could be “the titular head of the Republican Party.” But I have never put myself in such narrow terms as “entertainment.” This program combines a whole lot of things in one presentation, and it\u2019s the only presentation where numerous things are combined: Serious discussion of issues, combined with irreverent satire or parodic humor.<\/p>\n You don\u2019t find those things combined except here, and that\u2019s why so many people have a tough time needing this program out. But Kathleen Hall Jamieson gets it.<\/p>\n JAMIESON: We did a survey at one point that gave people a list of individuals and asked which of these are journalists, and a surprising percent considered Rush Limbaugh to be a journalist. And I actually understand that at some level. Because what Limbaugh does is offers a great deal of accurate factual information that is the basis from which we can get a consensual argument on each side. So to that extent, he\u2019s performing a journalistic function.<\/p>\n He then puts his interpretation, his perspective — and I would say his “spin” — on it as do people on the left in comparable venues on the left, but what he\u2019s doing in the process is something that I thought was important. When he was doing it across the whole Clinton era, he was providing a coherent ideology for those who were trying to see what the opposition to Clinton looked like.<\/p>\n Reagan Republicanism was a coherent ideology, and to the extent that Fox and Limbaugh and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal were within that boundary, they were actually educating a large constituency to think from that perspective. And the question now as we make the transition to the Trump presidency, is: Is there coherence there that can be explained in a comparable kind of fashion?<\/p>\n RUSH: What she\u2019s saying is: With Trump there, has Reaganism been blown up and have all of these Reaganites — like me and the Wall Street Journal — just thrown Reagan overboard in our support for Trump. Now, a lot of people on the right happen to think this. But they are being imprisoned by things that they should not even be shackled by. For example, Trump is doing more conservative things than anybody since Reagan. He\u2019s talking more conservatively than anybody since Reagan. He\u2019s implementing more conservatism, and he is fighting liberalism more than any Republican I can remember.<\/p>\n What else is there? We\u2019re in a different era today than we were during the era of the Clintons. The Clintons were basically the setup for what was to come. We\u2019re now faced with what kind of country we\u2019re gonna be in the future, and the stakes have become — well, I think they\u2019ve always been great. But there is really only one person in politics that\u2019s got the guts to stand up to the left on a daily basis and do it, and that\u2019s Trump. Now, part and parcel of conservatism…<\/p>\n And I think this is where some of the Never Trumpers even fall short. But in my mind, if you go back and you listen to every day of this program for 30 years, in addition to conservatism out the wazoo, you know what you also get? Anti-liberalism. You get criticism — consistent, constant, correct, indisputable criticism of the left. Part of conservatism is opposing the left, and I think this is where so many on our side have dropped the ball. They don\u2019t see it that way.<\/p>\n They see conservatism as a standalone way of life that you promote. But in a context where conservatism is in a contest with liberalism, that\u2019s where they can\u2019t be counted on. Because they will not… These are the reach-across-aisle types. These are the (impression), “We must show the country we can work together.” Those of us on the conservative side right now know there\u2019s no commonality. There\u2019s nothing to reach across the aisle to compromise on. They have to be defeated!<\/p>\n These are the people that believe in open borders. These are the people that believe the country is incorrigibly corrupt from the day of our founding. There\u2019s nothing to compromise with these people on. So an inherent part of conservatism, to me, always has been opposing the left at the same time. Now, there have been those who have arisen and said, “That\u2019s all conservatism is anymore. Conservatism, you can\u2019t even find anybody to tell you what it is.<\/p>\n “All conservatism is, is opposition to the left.” Well, it kind of defines itself, then, doesn\u2019t it? If all conservatism is, is opposition to the left, that\u2019s pretty damn important to me — and it\u2019s pretty damned explanatory. It\u2019s not all that hard to figure out what conservatism is if it is opposition to liberalism, opposition to communism. Conservatism is not a series of litmus tests. (impression) “We believe in small government. We believe in tax cuts. We believe in cutting regulations.”<\/p>\n Of course we do, but those are not the defining things. Those are the results of what you believe in, but they are not paramount. It all depends on what we\u2019re facing at the time. And one of the biggest problems — and admit this, folks. One of the biggest problems that we\u2019ve had, you and me and all the people like us, is that the people we\u2019ve been voting for do not see the country as in any kind of a contest or any kind of a crisis.<\/p>\n They don\u2019t see open borders the way we see open borders. They don\u2019t see the attack on the American founding the way we see it. This has been one of the big bugaboos. This has been one of the big frustrating things. They campaign as though they do, and they got elected, and they stop opposing the left and they stop acting like there\u2019s anything at stake here. And it\u2019s not conservatism that\u2019s undergoing a transformation.<\/p>\n It\u2019s people claiming to be conservative who aren\u2019t, who are not following through on it, who are not championing it. You cannot champion conservatism while accepting liberalism. You just cannot do it. The objective of liberal is the elimination of everybody and everything opposing it. They have no desire to compromise. Walk across the aisle, shake hands, get along? That\u2019s not what they\u2019re about. They are about destroying everybody. They tried to destroy Mitt Romney, and there he is, still on their side.<\/p>\n They tried to destroy John McCain, and there he was still on their side. They tried to destroy George W. Bush, and they voted for Hillary. This, to us, is counterintuitive and doesn\u2019t make any sense. I mean, to cut to the chase. Supporting Donald Trump does not undermine or undercut traditional belief in and support for Ronald Reagan at all. Quite the contrary.<\/p>\n Conservative ideology is a definite set of things, and it\u2019s a definite set of beliefs. And we\u2019ve always been accused of being rock-ribbed, inflexible, we must always maintain these litmus tests, and if we don\u2019t, we\u2019re not really conservative. Well, screw that. Everybody has to adapt.<\/p>\n
\ncandidate.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APP-032818-RUSH-Anchorman.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/APP-031219-Never-Trump.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/APP-013118-Trump-Reagan.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/APP-100418-Liberals-Seek.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/APP-022019-Big-Voice.jpg\")
<\/p>\n