RUSH: Here’s Greg, Union, Maine, you’re next, and welcome, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush, for taking my call. You’ve been talking this morning about who’s been authorizing the release of the Steele dossier and similar questions like that.
CALLER: And I have a question for you that’s kind of in the same vein but a little bit bigger.
CALLER: The Democrats seem to have a strategy that’s developed for them by some central point of control. They don’t just all go off on their own, picking their own fights and how they want to argue with Trump or try to displace Trump. I was just wondering what you thought about that. Is there a central command and control for the Democrats? Who’s developing those strategies? Who would those people be?
RUSH: I think that in the House, it’s Pelosi. But this is one of the problems the Democrat Party is having right now. They have this bunch of young, really radical leftists, some of them not so young. But, I mean, they’re typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who simply want nothing to do with what they think is the tired, worn-out, old-fashioned, straight-down-the-liberal-middle-of-the-road Democrat Party. They are full, radical, left-wing socialists.
Pelosi does not control them. But she also does not extend them much respect. She doesn’t think that they really have the power and the force to challenge her ruling of the House of Representatives. Now, when it comes to Democrat media, all these montages that we’re able to put together where 50, 75 different journalists, pundits, and commentators will use the identical phrase over and over? It’s remarkable, and your question is, “Where his this come from?” and we don’t really know.
There are a couple of Democrat organizations. One of them is run by a former staffer for Dianne Feinstein that routinely sends out talking points for every issue that comes up, and we think… This guy’s name is Jones, I think. Daniel Jones. I forget the name of the group. But it’s coordinated from somewhere. But now that’s media response, media reaction. As to Democrat Party policy — say, on advancing legislation or what have you — I don’t know that there is a singular person right now.
But that’s never really been a big deal anyway because these people uniformly think alike, because they are all oriented around one thing, and that one thing they all have in common is hatred for us, hatred for conservatives. We are by far their number one enemy, and whereas the feminazis may not have much in common with the global warming crowd, they do have hatred for us in common, and that helps a lot in unifying their message, if it’s against us, which it usually is.
RUSH: We had a call, I don’t know, about an hour ago. It was from a gentleman who wanted to know if there is — and if there is, who — a singular person or organization that gives the Democrat Party its orders. Its marching orders, its talking points, its agenda on legislative items and that kind of thing. Is there one person? The reason he asked is because they’re all saying the same thing all the time, and he’s curious how that happens, and particularly in the media. You know, we have shared with you… We started it.
We started this whole concept of putting together montages of various journalists. The very first one (which has spawned millions of others by now) was where we put together the montage of 70 different journalists describing George Bush selecting Dick Cheney as his vice presidential running mate as “gravitas.” Now everybody does these montages, because on almost every issue, no matter what media — the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC — every one of these people ends up using the identical talking point or the identical phrase.
I was trying to think while I was talking to him. I remember doing a story that did explain this when it comes to Trump-Russia collusion. I searched the email archives, and I searched the RushLimbaugh.com archives, and I found it. Now, this does not explain the Democrat Party unity on issue after issue after issue after issue, but this does explain the total media unity and conformity on the concept of Trump colluding with Russia pre- and post-Mueller. Dossier 1.0, Dossier 2.0. I first came across this…
It was a long story by Paul Sperry, the well-known investigative journalist, and the piece that he wrote appeared at Real Clear Investigations. The headline is, “Trump-Russia 2.0: Dossier-Tied Firm Pitching Journalists Daily on ‘Collusion,‘” and I wasn’t able to read the entire piece because it prints out to something like 11 pages. So I had to highlight it, and we linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com. But while I was talking to the caller, I couldn’t remember. That’s why I had to go find it. Let me just give you a pull quote here just to be able to answer his question.
Beginning at the beginning of the Sperry piece, the headline: “Trump-Russia 2.0: Dossier-Tied Firm Pitching Journalists Daily on ‘Collusion’ — Key Democratic operatives and private investigators who tried to derail Donald Trump’s campaign by claiming he was a tool of the Kremlin have rebooted their operation since his election with a multimillion-dollar stealth campaign to persuade major media outlets and lawmakers that the president should be impeached.
“The effort has successfully placed a series of questionable stories alleging secret back channels and meetings between Trump associates and Russian spies, while [at the same time] influencing related investigations and reports from Congress.” The organization doing this “is a Washington-based nonprofit called The Democracy Integrity Project, or TDIP. Among other activities, it pumps out daily ‘research’ briefings to prominent Washington journalists, as well as congressional staffers, to keep the Russia ‘collusion’ narrative alive.”
Now, we originally did this story back on March 20th. It’s about two months ago. “TDIP is…” I don’t know if it’s actually run by, but one of the high-ranking people in it is a guy by the name of Daniel Jones, who is a former Dianne Feinstein staffer. He is a radical, angry, uber-leftist.” This organization, it has been discovered, was largely responsible for providing the talking points for every journalist in the world aligned against Trump, both before the Mueller report came out and after. That’s why there was dossier 1.0 and dossier 2.0.
Prior to the election, the whole point here was to keep Trump from being elected, and then dossier 2.0 was to get Trump impeached or thrown out of office. Now, we can only assume this group is still out there. Again, the name of the group is TDIP, the Democracy Integrity Project, and they have as their objective to create — and I’m sure they’ve got a gigantic mailing list of every Washington journalist that there is on the left, meaning every mainstream journalist, and they send their talking points out.
It’s an organization like this that was sending out talking points on Cheney providing gravitas. The thing that’s always amazed me about this is from the competitive standpoint. Here you have journalists at all these three networks and CNN and MSNBC, and theoretically, they’re all trying to stand out. They’re all trying to be different,. They’re all trying to advance their careers as individuals. How in the world do 85 or a hundred of them end up sounding identical? Why?
They have to know this. They have to know that everybody in their business is using the same talking point that they all sign on to. Another way to look at it is, let’s say that one of these organizations existed for talk radio and that on every issue there was some mystical group sending out talking points to every talk show host in the country, and every talk show host in the country was using these same identical talking points.
It wouldn’t happen. There’s no way that people doing talk radio want to sound like the next person doing talk radio. It’s the natural part of trying to be different in the arena of competition. And yet all these journalists have no problem soundings identical. So you have to conclude that of primary importance to them is purity and unity for the advancement of the talking points, the agenda, or what have you. But, man, it just flies against human nature. The fact that they are able to pull this off?
I mean, you take the anchor for CNN’s nightly news, NBC’s Nightly News, and they sound the same. I’ve always observed that no matter what you watch you get the same — and if you miss it one place, you can go to the next. I don’t just mean the same take, because the same phraseology, the same words. It’s always amazed me that these people all play ball in this regard. But I’ll tell you, folks, when you understand what socialism and communism are and when you understand that everything’s supposed to be the same and that the state or the cause is all that matters?
And then you look at what happened with Dan Rather when he was caught literally making it up about George W. Bush and the National Guard in Texas. And instead of other competitors taking advantage of Rather screwing up, they gave him a brand-new award and a new dinner in order to maintain the integrity of the business that they’re all in. That wouldn’t happen anywhere. Do you think Samsung wouldn’t take every advantage they can to knock Apple off the top slot or anywhere else in life where there is free and open competition?
But not in the news business. It’s the most amazing thing. There is almost a purposeful uniformity and a strived-for uniformity for the purposes of consistency. Look at the dossier story. This is something that’s still, just in a basic human sense amazes me. We have what we have all suspected from the beginning and what we now know: A totally manufactured, made-up hoax. Not, not a single mainstream journalist attempted to actually find out what the truth was and make a career for him- or herself in the process.
Not one of them. Instead, they all fell in with the Woodward and Bernstein model and tried to be part of a gigantic cabal that would get rid of a president. That’s understandable from the groupthink, but not one of them broke ranks? Not one of them was curious? Not one of them was suspicious that what they were being told might not be true? These are people who have been trained to suspect powerful people, to resist being manipulated by them — and instead, they became complicit. They became part of the story.
They took great satisfaction and pride in becoming part of the cabal that was trying to overturn the election results. I know. Don’t miss understand. I’m not naive. We’re talking media, and media is a bunch of activist political hacks. They’re not journalist. I understand this. I’ve said — but we’re talking hundreds of people. And not one of them tried to take advantage of an obvious competitive opportunity. Now, maybe they all knew that if they struck out in that direction that their editors would never publish, that the whole thing was a sting, that the whole thing was a setup, that Trump was being framed, maybe.
But it still boggles the mind, because these people, in their minds, are hustling and competing. They’re trying to be the first to the story every day. But they’re not. They’re all instead making insure that they are uniformly aligned. That’s why organizations like TDIP obviously exist, is to help that happen. So these journalists are not even reporters. They’re waiting for talking points from the approved organizations. TDIP being one. Media Matters being another. They’re waiting to be told what the take is. They’re waiting to be told.
Like, Trump’s gonna do his immigration announcement in 10 minutes or so, and I guarantee you, whether you read the New York Times or any of these other news agencies, the reaction to it, the opposition to it, the talking points about it are going to being identical. And they’re not going to be the result of any of these journalists having the slightest understanding of what he said. It isn’t gonna matter. They’re gonna wait for the talking points to be issued from whoever they trust, and that’s gonna be the media resistance to whatever Trump’s proposal is.
And then Democrat politicians will get the same talking points and journalists will go talk to them, and the media and what the journalists are saying and the politicians are saying, will be indistinguishable. It will be identical — and it just still amazes me! The quest for, rather than the resistance to uniformity. Why is Chuck Todd want to sound just like Jake Tapper, or why does Jake Tapper want to sound just like Wolf Blitzer?
Why do these people not care that they are interchangeable and it doesn’t matter who’s saying it because they’re all saying the same thing? Look what they have to do to stand out. What has the one guy who has stood out in all this done? His name is Jim Acosta. He has to be a creep. Not a good journalist, not coming up with a different angle, just being more outrageously insolent and mean — and that’s what gets him noticed, but not credible, good journalism.
Yet you talk to them and they think they’re the creme de la creme, the cream of the crop.