All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:55
June 23, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And here we are, folks, back at it.
Rushlin Boy behind the golden EIB microphone executing assigned host duties flawlessly while meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Great to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
I have always said, in an attempt to help people to understand things, which is really what this program is about.
One of the bits of advice that I've always passed on is always if you want to know where the culture is going, if you want to know where our society or culture is, if you want to know what's hip, what's hot, or what somebody wants to make hip or hot, watch advertising.
The reason is that advertising is designed to separate people from their money in many cases.
I mean, some advertising is image building.
Billboard advertising is image reinforcement largely, but but most advertising is uh is designed to separate people from their money.
You'll get beer advertising.
The reason beer advertising is always aimed at people that don't yet can't not yet legally buy beer, if you've ever noticed this.
The reason is by the time you're 30, you've made your beer choice for the rest of your life.
Surveys have shown that you're not you're not going to advertise as some 45, 50, 35-year-old person and get them to change their mind on their brand.
You've got to get them while they're still deciding.
And in that regard, it is stunning what has happened to Budweiser.
How dominant Budweiser used it.
The number of barrels of beer, the billions of barrels, millions of barrels every year produced, is so down, and I'm not trying to rip them.
It's it's just it it's it's itself is cultural and I mean Bud Light outsells Bud now.
This is not a criticism, these are just observations.
Advertising, particularly that which is designed to separate you from your money, is fascinating to me to see how people try to do it.
And I'm talking primarily television advertising here.
But even that is changing.
Advertising no longer can simply be judged on its effectiveness in selling a product.
Now there's always been image-based advertising.
There's always been brand reinforcement advertising, but that usually is certain types or venues, such as print ads, billet bulletin boards or billboards outside.
One of the real purposes of a billboard, let's say that you'd say in New York you listen a WOR, our 50,000 watch blowtorch affiliate.
And you're driving around town, you're driving a tri-state area, and you see a W O R billboard.
And what does it make you do?
It reaffirms your decision to listen a WOR.
That billboard's big.
It looks huge, and right there on it is W O R, the station you listen to.
It reinforces the decision you've made, and it makes W O R look huge.
That's what Times Square advertising is.
Times Square advertising is brand reinforcement, maybe some of the brand introduction, but in terms of actually, I mean, every advertiser will tell you that the end of the day they want to separate people from their money, trying to move the product, but there are very, very many different ways of doing this, and they they're all tied together.
So when I saw this story about Tylenol, I said, Well, this isn't about separating people from their money.
This is uh this is an entirely different objective here.
It's a CNN story, and it is about a 30-second commercial from Johnson and Johnson, manufacturers of Tylenol, and it opens with the question, when were you first considered a Family.
And then it depicts traditional heterosexual couples and families.
And then the ad asks the question: when did you first fight to be considered a family?
And this is followed by images of a lesbian couple at what appears to be a prom, a mixed race wedding, followed by a mixed race couple with a kid, and then a couple with adopted kids of different races.
And the ad ends with an image of two gay men doting over a baby as the voiceover says, family is not defined by who you love, but how you love.
And here we have a headache pill.
Here we have Snerdley, are you erupting over a caller in there again?
Are you or you're reacting to this story?
He is really fuming and spitting in there.
It's this story.
That's the point.
This isn't advertising anymore.
Because gay couple, gays are two percent of the population.
Yet here's Johnson and Johnson advertising Tylenol in a uh uh gay-friendly way.
This can't be about strictly moving the product.
This has got to be something else going on here.
Now, everywhere you look, and this has been the case for probably five years and maybe longer, practically every night on primetime TV, you can find at least one show.
And if you go to the movies, you can find a lot of those that depict gay people in uh uniformly as happy and normal and healthy, uh, be allowed to adopt children, they're smarter, they're more sensitive, understand their HIPAA, and it's a it's a major campaign that's been taken undertaken here.
And what this means is that politically active people who have this as one of their issues are now working in the media buying and creative departments of advertising agencies.
So that advertising normally designed to make you want to buy the product is now designed to make you feel good about the product.
Make you feel the product is well, here's the thing.
Well, I question is being asked of me, why just this social issue?
Why is it just about gay relationships?
Why don't they tackle other social issues?
Give them time.
But right now, the the uh the gay population that that populates media and entertainment, I mean, they they have the power to devise these campaigns, the creative, the production, uh, and all so now what appears, here's my point.
Now, what appears a standard fair in primetime entertainment program has now made the jump and is starting to pop up in advertising.
Again, less than 2% of the population is gay.
So this is not about attracting buyers, that's the which is uh to me a really interesting thing about advertising.
This is not about that.
This is political activism.
This is and they're free to do it.
I mean, it's a free country and it's Tylenol and Johnson and Johnson, and if they want to, if they want to take their brand, if they want to use Tylenol to push a particular political agenda, social agenda, have that just a heads up that that's what's happening here.
Now the traditionalists think companies should be advertising the quality of their products, what makes them better than the next guy's product, uh, not highlighting who sleeps with whom and why.
So but the point is, folks, you know, I've told you everything is political in America, and I this is another fundamentally key point to me, because it's young people that run around claiming they hate politics and they associate politics to the Republicans.
The Republicans are always doing politics because the Republicans are always the ones seen as disagreeing.
And Democrats are not doing politics, they're just sensitive good people.
They're just they're just moving along and and and and trying to make things go okay for people as the Republicans coming along and they're putting politics in.
And the politics is introduced to everything by the Democrats.
Everything is political, and now even Tylenol ads have become political.
So the lesson here, or the attempt here, is an ongoing effort on my part to have you be fully aware of how things are being made to happen in the country.
I've I've I've gone blue in the face espousing the belief that if more people could be made sensitive to the politics in everything, and in further be made aware that the politics is uber liberalism, that it wouldn't be nearly as successful.
But that what the left has succeeded in doing is making everything they do is to advance their political agenda, for there's not a single exception to that.
Everything, virtually any event, I don't care if it's the Confederate flag or if it's Obama out there making uh comments using the N-word, I don't care what it is.
Everything is to advance.
If a Republican says something stupid and embarrassing, that's a chance to advance the Democrat agenda.
Everything is about that.
And they get away with it because people don't think that.
They do not associate the advancement of the Democrat Party agenda with any of this stuff.
They just, this is what is normal, this is natural, this is what have you, and yet it's an assault.
It is an all-out political assault and political assaults have to be dealt with politically, and they're not being by the opposition to the Republican Party.
So, and it's you know, it's gradual, and it's in some cases it's uh it's stealth, and it's made to look uh harmless, and all this, and the fact of the matter is that it is deceitful in many ways, and it has uh ulterior motives, but at least you can assign the Democrat agenda as an ulterior motive, which I do.
Okay, brief time out here, we'll come back and more your phone calls in as the EIB network rolls on right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
Yeah, so I checked the email during the break.
Rush, how come you haven't talked about Hillary today?
Folks, I mean you want to talk about Hillary, I'll tell you about Hillary.
I'm bored.
I'm bored with Hillary Clinton.
The latest is that Hillary finally answered some questions about Peter Schweitzer's book.
And she gave answers that were totally just fabricated and made up.
The details don't matter, it's what the Clintons do.
So Peter Schweitzer has come along and has illustrated what she was not forthcoming about.
Look, Hillary right now is facing a daunting challenge, we're told from Bernie Sanders.
Now just sit tight for a second.
Bernie Sanders is exciting, a lot of people were told that drive-by's are telling us that wherever Bernie Sanders goes, thousands of people are showing up, and they're giving him standing ovations.
And he's drawing record grounds in Hollywood.
He's got big-time Hollywood big bucks people showing up.
I looked at a list of names at the at the latest Bernie Sanders Hollywood fundraiser, and I recognize two of them.
And they were said to be the big movers and shakers, and the people, the real progressives in Hollywood.
I mean, these are the real deal people.
These are not the Spielbergs and the Katzenbergs and the Geffins and so forth that line up with the usual Democrat nominee.
These are the real socialist bigwigs.
So I'm looking at the names, and I don't recognize very many of them.
And then the story about Bernie Sanders in Colorado and the standing ovation and crowds of thousands are showing up wherever he goes.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me, what is the day?
The June 23rd, 2015.
Let me just tell you, right here, right Now that I don't care what happens, the Democrat Party establishment will never permit Bernie Sanders to be the Democrat Party nominee.
The only question facing the Democrat establishment is whether Hillary Clinton implodes.
And then who do they get?
It is not going to be Bernie Sanders.
I don't care how good he does, I don't care what they say about his crowds.
I don't care what kind of news they manufacture about what a magical campaign he's running.
It came out of nowhere with all this massive support.
I'm just telling you, the Democrat Party is a party of close alignments and accords with major American banks, corporations, and CEOs.
The Democrat Party is not going to nominate somebody who genuinely opposes and dislikes them.
I mean, they'll get as much mileage as they can out of Bernie Sanders running around trashing CEOs and trashing corporate America.
But they're not going to nominate anybody other than somebody who'll be willing to get in bed with them.
Figuratively, literally, however you want to describe it.
One of the biggest myths in politics today is that the Democrat Party is the party of the little guy.
It is a huge myth.
A lot of people believe it.
All of the Hispanics believe it.
All the illegal immigrants believe it.
The African Americans believe it.
The Democrat Party is the party of corporate America.
It's happening right in front of everybody's face.
The Democrat Party is in bed.
All of this talk about the Koch brothers, that's if the Koch brothers were Democrats, they would be the leading donors.
I mean, the Democrats would love them.
The Koch brothers happen to be libertarians that donate to Republican causes and make some persona non grata.
But that's that's why.
Not that they're rich, not that they're big corporate guys.
The Democrat Party is owned and vice versa by Wall Street.
Wall Street exists for the Democrat Party, and vice versa.
So all of you who are having dreams about Bernie Sanders, you can forget it because the Democrat establishment, and there is one, is never going to permit it.
Their biggest problem, problem, their their biggest, oh just say, fear.
I don't even know that it's a fear.
But the thing they have to plan for is what happens if Hillary implodes.
And not because of Bernie Sanders, but because of her.
Because Hillary, this is another thing.
Hillary is, she's not in anywhere close what her reputation is.
She's not the smartest woman in the world.
She's not the best debater.
She's not the her biggest asset is her last name.
Her second biggest asset is that there is a big capital D by her name.
And if those two things are not enough, she's going to implode, and then who they go get, and who they have waiting in the wings to maybe pick up the pieces if Hillary implodes.
And everybody knows this is impossible.
Some people think she's in the in the process of imploding even as we speak.
But the biggest safeguards that that Hillary has are her last name and that D. Just the demographics and the electoral college dispersion, electoral votes, uh, anybody with a D next to their name on a ballot is guaranteed of a certain number of electoral votes.
Attila the Hun could get them.
So then if it it if if Hillary implodes now, now what are we talking about?
See, that's where I start getting interested.
If Hillary's the nominee, we'll know it soon enough, and when the Republican debates start, we'll have a pretty good idea who's going to be best aligned to defeat her.
We can't, we can't beat her right now anyway.
So getting involved in the day-to-day of this seems just a little bit premature to me.
Would they go to Biden?
Remember, they're going to be, if Hillary implodes, they don't have a bench, folks.
There's nobody if Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren is out, she she pulled herself out, they don't want her, I don't know which, but she's not there.
And that's another Democrat Party, I don't care what it, they're not gonna let somebody like Elizabeth Warren actually sit in the Oval Office and go after the biggest source of money the Democrats have.
The biggest source may be the gay activists in Hollywood, but I guarantee you, if if they're if they're if they're first, then second is Wall Street and the banks and big corporations.
And if that shocks you, it shouldn't.
I'm telling you, one of the biggest myths in the world, again, is that the Democrats of the party, the little guy, the blue-collar unions and so forth.
I mean, they've got them, but that's not why they exist.
So if it's not Hillary, who they go get?
Somebody on the phone yesterday said gore?
They're gonna have to go and get somebody if she implodes and get somebody waiting in the wings in case it happens.
Not that they're expecting it, but you have to plan for everything.
Yeah, the Taylor Swift and Apple thing.
I didn't get to that yesterday.
Snerdley is reminding me that I was gonna give us the skinny and the Taylor Swift and Apple thing.
The latest in terms of skinny.
Uh my little buddies out there on uh on some of the tech blogs think that this is Snerdly has been a giant contrived publicity stunt committed by Taylor Swift and Tim Cook.
It's been a giant, and they're pulling the wool over everybody's eyes.
That's the latest development.
My little buddies in the tech blogosphere, yeah.
No, no, it's it's it's it's not complicated.
If Bernie Sanders were better at hiding his socialism, he'd have a much better shot at it.
But he's just too blatant.
He's he's too upfront about about their intentions, his intentions.
And so the uh I mean he's they'll use they'll use Bernie to keep Hillary sharp and to satisfy the base.
Uh and there is in the Democrat base, I mean, they're lunatics.
The Democrat base is a fringe group, and I think Bernie Sanders, a lot of them think Bernie Sanders is nirvana, and Hillary's not.
I mean, a lot there's not unity in this party for Hillary in any way, shape, matter, or form.
That doesn't matter.
They're not gonna let Bernie Sanders be the nominee of that party.
Just do not doubt me on this.
Try this headline.
Cybercast news service, Obama, within our children's lifetimes, on our current pace, the oceans go up, maybe two, maybe three, maybe four feet.
Just was it just yesterday?
Was it Friday?
We had a story that human beings born today will witness the death of the species.
Yesterday we had the story that we're in the sixth phase of extinction.
And we are literally the walking dead.
And I've been asking, how much of this stuff does it take before kids start to be affected by it, but young people start to be genuinely affected by all this apocalyptic crap?
And now the president joins the fray.
Speaking at an event held in a private home in San Francisco Friday night, Obama warned well within our children's lifetimes at our current pace, the oceans go up, maybe two, maybe three, maybe four feet.
There are two things in particular these days I'm spending a lot of time thinking about.
The first is the changing nature of the economy, the other, he said, is climate change.
Obama laments distorted impression of Muslims.
Is another headline.
This is in the Hill.com.
Obama laments Distorted impression of Muslims.
I wonder if he laments the distorted impressions of conservatives.
What is it about Muslims that he the impressions of people have that he doesn't like?
What are these distorted impressions of Muslims?
Is it the beheadings?
Is it the tossing of homosexuals from the roof?
Is it kidnapping little girls and giving them as sex slaves to other soldiers?
Is it burning people in cages like ISIS does it?
What is it?
What are these distorted impressions he's talking about?
It's probably those.
You know what?
Those are probably the distorted impressions he's talking about.
They really bother him.
Okay, Taylor Swift and Apple.
Look, let me let me make oh, oh, oh, one more thing.
The governor of Virginia is the punk.
Terry McCallough, former campaign head honcho Clinton Gore.
No, no, not Clinton Gore.
Yeah, yeah, Clinton Gore.
What the hell?
He's not the governor of Virginia, and he's just announced that the state of Virginia is going to phase out car license plates featuring the Confederate battle flag.
The state will no longer allow specialty license plates for the sons of Confederate veterans groups that feature the flag.
So you see, this is going to encompass the entire South.
Dylan Roof didn't do anything in Virginia.
Did he?
No.
Okay, Taylor Swift and Apple.
Here, look at Apple has a streaming music service starting.
They're behind.
There are two people, two companies doing this, Spotify and Pandora.
It may say there's another one called R D I O Radio, but Spotify and Pandora, the two big ones that are mentioned.
Apple wants to get in on this because Apple has a history of music in their DNA with iTunes and reviving the music industry essentially with digital downloads for 99 cents of singles and albums starting in the early 2000s.
But they've been bypassed now because there's a trend.
People are not buying individual songs and downloading, they are streaming.
And these streaming companies, nobody's making a lot of money in it.
And one of the big challenges here is paying royalties to the performers and the writers and the producers, and in paying the labels.
I mean, there's a lot of people that need to get paid, and a lot of people who don't think they're being paid fairly.
So Apple comes along, and they, the short version of this, are gonna inaugurate their streaming service on June 30th.
But they're gonna have a lot more than their streaming service.
They're gonna have a 24-7 online radio station populated by three DJs who are supposedly experts in finding brand new music and giving brand new artists exposure and all that.
And then they're gonna have individual stations, much like on Sirius or XM, where the Sinatra channel, the top 40 to 60s channel, the 70s channel, they're gonna do that, but they're gonna have their own channel.
All that's gonna be free forever.
Beats one is the 24-7 radio station, and the other channels, the the station's free.
But the streaming service is gonna cost 999 a month.
But Apple is gonna offer the first three months when you sign up, ill Freebook.
And they announced that they will be paying no royalties during those three months.
Well, the artists and the labels and all kinds of people began to balk, and the independence, the art like Adele, is on an independent label, and they said we're not we're not making a deal with Apple, and there isn't gonna be any Idel music on this streaming service because we're not giving our product away.
We're just not gonna do.
We can't afford to give our product.
We'll go out of business.
We can't afford three months, 25% of the year not getting paid.
So Taylor Swift came along on Sunday.
She wrote on Tumblr and then linked to it on Twitter about how disappointed she was in Apple.
And when now she was going to withhold her latest album released late last year called 1989, sold later 9 million copies so far.
She's gonna give them their back catalog, but she's not gonna give them the nudest, the latest album.
And she wrote about how unfair this is and how she, you know, she could do it herself because she's been very lucky and she's earned a lot of money.
But a lot of these people can't do it.
They can't go three months without being paid.
And she thinks it's horrible.
Apple's got 200 billion dollars in the bank.
And it's obscene, she thinks that they would be doing this and asking people to give up their livelihood.
And she turned around and said, Apple, give us free phones if you want to, if you want to find out this is anyway.
Apple responded.
I mean, within hours.
And acquiesced to practically everything Taylor Swift demanded.
Apple came out and said, we will pay royalties for the three months.
We were never going to see to it.
These artists weren't good, but they were.
Taylor Swift still hasn't announced whether or not she's going to let Apple have her latest album for their big launch on June 30th.
The thing about this is the standard royalty rate, as I understand it, is 70 cents out of every dollar goes.
To the label, the artists, the performers, the writers, it gets divvied up somehow.
And as always, the performers think they're on the last end of it and get the least.
And Apple said, since we're going to go three months free trial, we're going to pay 71.5%.
But we're doing even better than that.
Apple said, you guys are forgetting something.
We have 500 customers with their credit cards already on file.
And we're going to put our music system automatically baked in to a new operating system on June 30th, iOS 8.4.
500 million people when they update are going to have it.
And for free, they're going to be able to listen to it.
The theory is, while Spotify has 15 million paying customers, I know what Pandora has.
But Apple's telling the music industry if you just hang with us here, we're going to end up with hundreds and hundreds of millions of customers.
And you're going to be making royalties like you've never dreamed of.
But that has not worked.
Because nobody's confident that many people are going to sign up because nobody's confident Apple's streaming system is going to be any better than what's already out there.
But that is a solid argument.
I mean, it that doesn't, it doesn't, I don't think, cover for the fact that we're going to pay people for three.
Anyway, now the latest is that Taylor Swift and Apple got in bed and created this whole firestorm as a PR stunt that put them both on the map.
Taylor doesn't need to be on the map, but Apple system definitely need to be on the map.
So that's the way I'm up against on time, which is why I'm speaking in staccato here.
Gotta be back after this.
Don't go away.
Can Apple legally pay royalties on a free rollout?
I mean, their competitors don't have the capital to do this.
Pandora can't give their product away three months, and neither can Spotify.
Apple can afford to do it.
But is paying royalties when they're not collecting, is that kosher?
Is that legal?
I don't know.
Were they gonna have to call this maybe an advance in future royal payments, royalty payments?
I don't think this is cut and dried.
It may be, I could be whistling Dixie.
Oop, oop, oop, oop, boop, no Dixie anymore.
Nope, oop.
One of my whistling.
Sitting on the dock of the bay.
Okay.
Okay, that's it, folks.
We're sadly out of time for today, but there's always tomorrow, and we'll see you then.
Thanks for being with us so much.
▲
Export Selection