RUSH: I'm not surprised that only 7% of the American people think gay marriage is a top electoral issue. And if you think 7%'s low, then I need to warn you again to take extra care and caution in fighting off the media narrative every day. I know on this one it's been tough because it's been solid for a week. And the media has presented this as though it was a win-win for Obama. Only because checkbooks were opened. That's it. The cause of gay marriage, if you want to look at it as a cause, has not been advanced at all. That's one of the things about this that was amazing to me. And it was so obvious to anybody who listened to Obama, when he went out and finally evolved. It was a joke in and of itself.
The president has finished evolving and now has an announcement. And the president, after having finished evolving -- who speaks this way? When was the last time you told your wife you have evolved and now you see her point of view? You might have told her you see her point of view, but did you say you evolved? When's the last time you asked, "Honey, I need some more time to evolve on this. I'm still evolving." See how far that would get you. I mean you'd hear, "What the hell are you talking about, Bozo?" But Obama does it and the media swoons and then when he finishes evolving, CNN actually had an infobabe out there, the president was breaking news, "The president's evolution is complete now. The president has evolved, and he has an announcement to make."
His announcement was what? That he agrees that it ought to be a states right issues. Well, every state has voted it down. Thirty-two in a row. And he just basically in his statement agreed with that. He did say, "I think people of the same sex should be able to get married," but he didn't do one thing to move that forward in any way, but, boy, people opened their checkbooks. This is why liberalism is vacuous, it's empty. It doesn't require substance. All it requires is intentions. You can't examine their results. If you do that, you'll see it's a failure, liberalism is, each and every time it has tried.
Let me ask you this. Can somebody name for me another species that has evolved on gay marriage? Can somebody explain to me throughout thousands and thousands of years of human history, when marriage was not a union of a man and a woman, and simply the definition of a word? The definition of a word and then the actual arrangement, can somebody explain to me when marriage was not? So now here we are in the twenty-first century, somehow you evolve, you get to the twenty-first century, and all of a sudden that's the new norm, as though it always has been the norm, finally we've caught up with ourselves.
I'll make you another prediction. And, by the way, I don't want anybody to misunderstand anything here. I'm simply doing analysis. I looked at the television networks and the new series that they've ordered for next fall, primetime networks. The number of shows involving gay couples, gay married couples, is increased phenomenally. I mean it is going to be the primary focus of primetime entertainment next fall, in both comedies and dramas. Now, Snerdley just said, "Well, who's gonna watch it?" Well, according to you, a lot of people, 'cause you don't think that only 7% of the country seeing gay marriage as a top -- (interruption) 10 or 15? You didn't think it was gonna be a majority, you thought it was gonna be 10 or 15%. Well, I didn't.
Snerdley's response, "Well, who's gonna watch those shows?" Well, we'll find out, won't we? We'll see. Well, Dawn is saying they're gonna mix it in with other things. It's not just gonna be about gay couples. That's what I'm trying to tell you it is going to be expressly about. Because all the people who determine what shows are gonna be ordered and produced for the networks live in that world. They live in the world of liberalism. Remember, now, that is a minority point of view in America. It is a minority number of people, but what do they think? They think they are the majority. They think they are the mainstream. It's no different than when these networks decide, "Okay, let's go green this week," and they'll put their network icon, their logo up on the screen in green to try to convince viewers that they, too, want to save the environment.
It's all smoke and mirrors. It's simply marketing. This I think is gonna be taken a little step further. We'll see what kind of -- (interruption) well, I don't know. We have to wait and see. Snerdley wants to know if the public doesn't watch these new shows, will the public then be called names? If it doesn't work, you might have people say, "Well, the American TV audience is not quite sophisticated enough yet to appreciate the importance of our programming." (interruption) Well, okay. You doubt me. Can I ask you to consider what happens when you call a cable network to complain about their news coverage. What do they tell you? They tell you that you're an idiot and that you don't know how they run their business. You're not smart enough to know how the news business works. Look at CNN. CNN is sitting there -- you know, that TIME Magazine cover should actually have been that mother with CNN breast-feeding as the three-year-old. They're sitting there sucking. They've got 54,000 viewers, 25-54, in primetime. Fifty-four thousand in primetime, 350,000 viewers total in a national news network, and there aren't any changes forecast.
People ask me all the time, "Rush, your show wouldn't survive if your audience plummeted." That's right, it wouldn't. "Why do they, Rush?" Because it's a badge of honor. It's a badge of honor. They're sticking with the cause no matter what. They are not bending to the flakiness of the viewing public. They're not bending to the lack of sophistication of the audience. They may only have 54,000 viewers, but they're the smartest 54,000 in the country. It's what they tell themselves. And then when they get together socially, all the people at CNN, two things happen. The competing networks behind their backs laugh at 'em and point fingers and talk about what idiots they are, but when they're talking to them face-to-face, they praise them, guts, may even give 'em an award on two for not caving and instead being loyal to the cause.
Look at Hollywood. You know when they have a G-rated family oriented movie it's gonna go gangbusters, and it does, and many in Hollywood resent that, even though it's bottom line success. They still produce the stuff that hardly anybody watches but that they win awards for. When's the last Academy Award best picture that the mass public saw? When is the last Academy Award winner, best picture something, that most Americans have seen before the awards? You watch the Academy Awards these days and you look at the ten nominees now instead of five, and you count on one hand the number you have seen, not the ones you have not seen. These people can't take the politics out of anything they do.
So whereas the American people in this very own New York Times poll, only 7% say that it's a top issue for them in the presidential race. The same thing's gonna be reflected in TV ratings and viewings. I mean, how can it not? So we'll see. I could be dead wrong. We'll see what happens next fall when these shows debut and what the audience numbers are. But my only point is, it's not a mass issue, and it's a teachable moment again, as so many things lately are, because the media narrative and template is very narrow and they have the things they want to get Obama reelected, and whatever Obama decides to make the most important issue is the most important issue, and to you, too. If it's not, it should be, and we're gonna keep drumming it into you until it is. And that's what happened last week. And then when you see the news that only 7% of the American people think it's a top issue, "Wow, I don't believe it. I thought everybody --" Yeah, because you fall prey to the media template. It takes a lot of effort.