All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
May 13, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks.
Great to have you with us as another three hours of broadcast excellence.
Smack dab in front of you.
Great to be with you.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thrilled and delighted to be with you today.
We've learned a little bit more about Barack Obama's visit to Cape Girardeau, Missouri today, my hometown.
We also have the obligatory audio soundbites from Senator McCain's speech on the environment yesterday in Oregon.
Here's, I'm going to torture you with these.
You've got to hear these.
I'm going to tell you something, folks.
When it comes to global warming and the hulks and the fixes for this hoax, the solutions, we do not have one of the three presidential candidates who differs from each other.
We are cooked.
Our goose is cooked on this.
It doesn't matter who you vote for for president.
We're going to get a liberal Democrat approach to fixing something that doesn't exist.
It's going to add up to more taxes.
It's going to add up to the destruction of wealth.
It's going to infuriate people.
When you find out how much this is going to cost you, and after it has cost you what it costs you, when you then learn that it's not going to make a bit of difference in whatever climate changes, if any, are happening, you are going to be fit to be tied, just as they are now in the U.K.
They are revolting against liberals over there because they've had all these carbon tax increases, all these other various tax increases to stop global warming, and yet the news every day brings news of more destruction.
So all these new taxes these people are paying are not mattering a hill of beans, and they are revolting and they're throwing the bums out.
I don't know in the UK, I really don't know if it's enough, if it's accurate to say that the population there is fed up with liberals.
I think they're fed up with the status quo.
And they did install the opposition, the Tories, which are the conservatives, at least the new mayor and a number of seats in Parliament.
We'll get to that in great detail in mere moments.
Barack Obama, we have learned, is meeting in a closed session today at a clothing manufacturing plant in Cape Girardeau called Thorngate.
LTD.
It's on independence.
I have driven by it many times.
It's been there since when I was growing up.
And Thorngate used to manufacture, I don't know what they manufacture now, but Thorngate used to manufacture the men's clothing line Hart Shafter and Marks, which at the time I was growing up is what Johnny Carson wore on the Tonight Show.
And they always had their outlet days, their seconds, where the stuff that had flaws in it, you'd go by.
And a number of poor people in Cape Girardeau would go by there on outlet day and stock up on the stuff.
Yeah, yeah.
They had poor people at Cape Girardo.
There aren't so many poor people at Cape Girardeau anymore.
But yeah, they had, yeah, it's did I know some poor people?
I'm being asked if I knew poor people in Cape Girardo.
Let me think.
Well, I know I saw some.
Let me think.
Yeah, yeah, I did, as a matter of fact.
Yeah, now that I think about it.
No, question about it.
Here's the makeup of Cape Girardeau, by the way.
The racial makeup, Cape Girardeau, white, non-Hispanic is 86.7%.
Blacks are 9.3%.
Mixed races, 1.4%, 1.1% Hispanic, and 0.9% American Indian make up the population.
I don't know if this is the city or if this is the county.
The city of Cape Girardo is 35,000.
The county is around 76 or 72,000.
Obama, ladies and gentlemen, is meeting at this Thorngate place.
Now, I'm told, it does.
It looks exactly like America.
What I'm told is that he's going to Thorngate because it's a union shop.
I don't know if it's a union shop or not, but if it is, and it's really not that big a deal because it's not a surprise that a Democrat would go to a union shop to hold a meeting on the economy.
He's going to go there to learn the strife that these people face.
It's not open to the public.
It's at 6 p.m. Central Time, I think.
I'm not sure if it's Central or Eastern.
But he's going to go in there, closed to the public, meeting with union people.
Now, of course, the great mischaracterization here is that Obama is a man of the people.
But yet, this is like anything else.
It's just politics.
It's nothing more than just politics.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, the drive-by media discussing this last night, WMAQ-TV Chicago, a portion of Mary Anna Hearn's report about Obama's trip to my town.
As the West Virginia Totals come in, Senator Obama is traveling to that all-important swing state for the November contest, Missouri.
Some do believe that he is trying to change the storyline on a night he won't be doing so well in West Virginia by traveling to Cape Girardo, the hometown of radio show host Rush Limbaugh.
Kind of picking a fight, perhaps, with Rush.
I don't know.
We'll see.
But it's getting pretty interesting.
It's getting pretty interesting out there, says Mary Ann Ahern.
That's from WMAQ-TV in Chicago.
Our microphones, I mean, face it, if I own a town, it's Cape Girardeau.
Wow, did you catch that?
Apparently, Obama is driving a tour bus taking people on the 12-stop Rush Limbaugh tour.
And here it is.
This is from the Southeast Missouri Today, the local paper: Obama Visit not open to the public.
He'll take part in an economic town hall meeting at Thorngate Limited.
The clothing manufacturer has had a plant on Independence Street for years.
The event is limited to company employees, invited guests, and the media.
And then they've got all the quotes from some various Thorngate employees who are swooning.
It's okay.
He reminded me of Dad.
But it's not open to the public.
100 employees, invited guests, media, union types, all headed to the Barack Obama non-campaign event today is what it's being called.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen from the New York Times today, this is just too rich.
This is just too good.
Some public health experts.
Hang on, I have to sneeze.
I fought it back.
Some public health experts are questioning why menthol, the most widely used cigarette flavoring and the most popular cigarette choice of African-American smokers, is receiving special protection as Congress tries to regulate tobacco for the first time.
The legislation, which would give the FDA the power to oversee tobacco products, would try to reduce smoking's allure to young people by banning most flavored cigarettes, including clove and cinnamon.
But those new strictures would exempt menthol, even though menthol masks the harsh taste of cigarettes for beginners may make it harder for the addicted to kick the smoking habit.
For years, public health authorities have worried that menthol might be a factor in high cancer rates in African Americans.
Now, the reason, the reason that menthol is seen as politically off limits is that mentholated brands are so crucial to the American cigarette industry.
They make up more than one-fourth of the $70 billion American cigarette market.
They're becoming increasingly important to the industry leader Philip Morris, without whose lobbying support the legislation might have no chance of passage.
Judd Gregg, Republican Senator New Hampshire.
I would have been in favor of banning menthol, but as a practical matter, that simply wasn't doable.
Now, menthol, do you see where this is going, folks?
Have you connected the dots on this already?
Menthol particularly controversial because public health authorities are worried about its health effects on African Americans.
Nearly 75% of black smokers use menthol brands, compared with only about one in four white smokers.
Now, some of you might be saying, why?
Why are they exempting menthol from the ban on flavored cigarettes?
You think about it, folks.
You think about it.
And I'll clue you in when we get back.
Don't go.
Okay, now, Senator McCain was out in Oregon yesterday standing next to a Democrat governor, Ted Kulinowski.
Kulangowski, not sure how he pronounces it.
We have audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
And this, now, I have to say that some of this sounds like, we have a montage here, Senator McCain sounding more like he's trying to position himself as a vice presidential candidate for Obama rather than as a Republican presidential candidate.
We know that greenhouse gases are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change.
We don't know.
And we know that among all greenhouse gases, the worst by far is the carbon dioxide that results from fossil fuel combustion.
Don't year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission.
By 2020, a return to 1990 levels.
And so on, until we have achieved at least a reduction of 60% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
None of that has been proved.
None of it.
None of it, ladies and gentlemen.
Among all greenhouse gases, the worst by far is the carbon dioxide that results from fossil fuel combustion.
That's no different than the carbon dioxide we exhale.
We know that greenhouse gases are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change.
Implicated?
Maybe implicated, maybe suspected, but proven?
No.
And they've been sounding this alarm for over 20 years.
It hasn't gotten warmer in the last eight or maybe 10.
And even now, it's predicted that temperatures are going to cool through 2012 because of La Niña and other variables such as ocean currents in the Atlantic.
Now, this is the portion of the speech where Senator McCain wants to let the free market handle things.
For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction toward machines, methods, and industries that used oil and gas.
Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built.
But there were costs that we weren't counting and often hardly noticed.
And these terrible costs have added up now in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world.
They're no longer sustainable or defensible or tenable.
What is happening?
And what better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction?
Under the cap and trade system, this can happen.
And in all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.
Oh, man.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm really conflicted here.
I've not faced this situation before.
I have not faced a situation where a major Republican presidential candidate sounds just like a liberal Democrat.
And I know of no other thing to do here than to tell you the truth about this.
This is embarrassing and it is frightening.
The Wall Street Journal today has a piece about this very cap and trade thing, which let me read you two paragraphs in the journal, and I think this will put this in perspective.
So, cap and trade, as proposed by McCain, as proposed by Obama, as proposed by Hillary, as proposed by Al Gore.
So, a chemical manufacturer, pardon the printer going off, I don't know what the hell is going on back there, but nevertheless, so a chemical manufacturer, say, would pay an industry not covered by the program, most notably agriculture, to reduce its emissions.
Chemical manufacturer pay an industry to reduce its emissions, or it could pay a coal plant in China for plucking low-hanging efficiency fruit, like installing smokestack scrubbers.
In other words, U.S. consumers would be paying higher prices for energy in return for making Chinese industries more efficient and more competitive.
Europe's in the midst of that experience now under the Kyoto Protocol, and most of its reductions so far have been illusory.
The compliance bookkeeping for this new market, this new free market is vastly complex.
And a McCain administration would create a public-private climate change credit corporation to oversee it all.
This new regulatory body is likely to morph over time into an energy Fed, similar to the one that Warner Lieberman would create, and such an agency would set the price of energy indirectly by fiddling with carbon levels and levies, which would undoubtedly lead to economy-wide distortions.
Let me translate this for you.
Explain the program.
Let's say you have a nuclear, not a nuclear, but a coal-fired power plant or some industry somewhere, and the federal government, some arbitrary federal agency is going to announce, is going to proclaim what its permissible carbon emissions are on a yearly basis, daily basis.
I don't know how they're going to do it, monthly, probably yearly.
If they exceed those emissions, then they will be taxed.
They will be punished.
However, what they can do is they can go out and they can find another industry that is not using up all of its allowed carbon emissions and buy them and thereby stay legal in the eyes of friendly big government.
In either case, whether the original business exceeds its emissions, in both cases it exceeds its emissions, it's going to pay somebody for it.
It's either going to pay itself or it's going to pay somebody else.
In any case, it's going to raise prices.
And these prices are not just going to be absorbed.
They are going to be passed on, as always, to the end of the line, which is the user, the consumer.
And this is going to result in you, and you will have nothing to say about these carbon emissions that these industries are engaging in, but you are going to end up paying for it.
All of us are.
Under a false premise, under a false premise that this is going to refuse, revert whatever climate change is supposedly happening out there.
And none of this has been established.
Now here's where it really gets bad.
Roy Spencer, our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, wrote a piece at National Review Online today.
He says this, what worries me is the widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth.
To be sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in new energy technologies, but so does a price tag of $126 for a barrel of oil.
Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth is not a very good first step toward that goal.
When the public finds out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost them, and that really cuts it to the nub.
We are going to penalize people for energy use.
And at the end of the line, you pay for it.
And when you find out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost you, with no guarantee that anything we'll do will have a measurable impact on future climate, there will be a revolt just like the one now materializing in the UK and the European Union.
At some point, as you are faced with the stark reality that mankind's requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence, you are going to be again asking yourself, just how sure are we that humans are causing global warming?
And this is where the science establishment has, in my view, betrayed the public's trust.
But McCain has made it clear that the science really doesn't matter anyway.
Because even if humans are not to blame for global warming, stopping carbon dioxide emissions is the right thing to do, he says.
And if we had another choice for most of our energy needs, Roy Spencer says he might be willing to accept such a claim as harmless enough, but carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth.
And I have a difficult time calling something so fundamentally important a pollutant.
Maybe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it's been in hundreds of thousands of years.
So what?
I'm increasingly convinced that its influence on climate pales in comparison to the influence of natural climate events like El Niño and the Pacific Decatal Oscillation.
The effect they have on regional climate.
Indeed, most of the warming we've seen in the last century might well be due to these natural modes of climate variability alone.
The trouble is that no one's been funded by the government to investigate this possibility, and the mandate for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to address man-made climate change, not natural climate change.
So here we have bad science ready to support bad policy leading to big increases in the cost of energy, which is going to lead to the production of less.
Okay, have you had enough time here to think about, ladies and gentlemen, why indeed the U.S. Congress is going to exempt menthol flavoring from the ban on flavored cigarettes, especially when you find out that 75% of menthol cigarettes are purchased by African Americans.
Can you imagine what's going to happen when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright finds out about this?
When the Reverend Jeremiah Wright finds out that 75% of blacks smoke menthol-flavored cigarettes and that menthol is the only flavoring that's not going to be banned, what do you think he's going to charge?
He's going to say that this is a planned genocide against African Americans who smoke by the U.S. government in this country.
And would he be wrong?
May I speak boldly here.
We keep hearing and we have heard for years and years and years that cigarette smoking kills, that tobacco kills.
During these years, during these decades, what have we done?
We have not banned the product, have we?
No, we have banned places it can be used, but we have not banned the product.
In fact, we have increased taxes on the product.
And we use the taxes on the sale of tobacco products, let's talk cigarettes here, for example, to fund health care programs and other wasteful government spending.
In fact, the tobacco settlements were all about socializing tobacco company profits.
Governments routinely have looted these piles of money that states collected in the tobacco settlement plan.
They will not ban the program.
They will not ban the product, even though the product kills.
They keep restricting how it can be used, but they keep adding taxes to it to fund government programs.
If it kills, if it is this deadly, and if it raises health care costs and all these things, then why are only the cigarettes smoked by blacks going to continue to be made?
Hmm.
It kills.
Now, some of you might be saying, no, Rush, you're wrong, and Jeremiah Wright would be wrong.
They're just afraid of reaction from the black population.
They need the black votes, and they're not going to disturb anything, upset the black.
Okay, let's go with that theory.
I don't care which theory you use.
I don't care which answer you use.
It still proves that those in government say they're out to save lives are lying to us.
They're not about saving lives.
They're about raising taxes.
It's about increasing government revenue.
It's about keeping people addicted to these things.
And once again, once again, here are the superdelegates all concerned that if they took the nomination away from Obama, that it would cause a fissure, a permanent fissure in the Democrat Party, and the Democrats would lose the support of blacks every four years during a presidential race.
And I kept saying, no, to the superdelegates.
You have nothing to worry about.
You have done far worse than that to the black population.
You have destroyed the black family with your welfare programs and a great society and the war on poverty.
You have done far more damage to the black population of this country than you would by pulling a nomination from Obama.
And here's another example.
They're going to ban all the flavorings in cigarettes except menfall because 75% of blacks smoke menfall.
You just have to laugh because these people will show us who they are each and every day.
Now back to McCain.
I don't know, you people at the GOP and the RNC, I don't, do you have any idea what you've done here?
Do you have the slightest idea what you've done here?
Here's McCain taking his swipe at Bush yesterday.
I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears.
I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.
And I got to tell you something, I've never heard him so fired up.
He's more fired up about this than he's fired up about anything I've heard him speak about.
He's actually got some energy in this, which sounds like this is something he actually cares about.
Takes that swipe at Bush.
We're not going to shirk our responsibility for eight years anymore.
So he's done it all in one package here.
He's embraced hardcore liberalism, including their disgust and dislike for George W. Bush.
So he's made the break clean here.
And he has made it possible so that there's no difference between himself and Obama or Hillary or anybody else on the left in terms of what to do about global warming.
New York Times all excited about this, folks.
Headline today, story, Elizabeth Bueh Miller and John Broder.
McCain differs with Bush on climate change.
New York Times all excited because the three candidates left all embrace the hoax.
Mr. McCain's break with the Bush administration means the three main presidential candidates have embraced swifter action to fight global warming.
The reason the Times is excited is because what that really means is that they've embraced swifter action to raise taxes and grow government and limit individual freedom.
They quote McCain from his speech yesterday.
Instead of idly debating the price, the precise extent of global warming, instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.
He made this speech at a Vesta's wind turbine manufacturing plant in Oregon, where the environment's a central issue there for voters.
We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.
I go back and parse this quote.
Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming.
Now, wait a second.
Isn't that somewhat important?
Isn't the precise extent of global warming somewhat crucial here when massive new policy changes that restrict liberty, grow government and raise taxes are concerned?
We must, instead of idly debating the precise timeline of global, doesn't that kind of matter?
Doesn't this kind of you know why he's saying, let's not debate the precise extent, the precise time?
Because nobody can tell him.
And nobody can tell you.
Nobody can tell anybody when all of this destruction is going to happen.
They cannot prove it.
And so, of course, we cast that aside.
That's right, Limbo.
We're not.
We're not going to waste time on all that.
Texas arrays.
We need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures.
Senator, my God, you know, I'm very proud of my brain, folks.
I want to be very honest.
I'm very proud of my brain, and I'm proud and honest with you, but time I spent learning things and becoming educated and informed.
But I'll be damned.
It offends me that a man running for the president of the United States knows 10% of what I know about this.
It offends me.
So I don't know, in the case of Obama and Hillary, they know what they're spewing is a bunch of BS.
They know they're spouting lies.
I don't know what McCain is doing here.
But if he honestly believes this, then it is offensive.
I'm not supposed to be smarter than a guy running for president.
Neither are you.
We're not supposed to be able to know as much as those people do about things.
We don't have access to intelligence reports, all kinds of things that they do.
They get to talk to far many more people than we do.
And the people they're talking to are just as politicized and agenda-oriented as they happen to be.
But this is pure common sense.
It can't be proved.
Temperatures are not rising.
Water levels, what is it?
Rising temperatures, rising waters?
Waters are not rising.
They are not rising.
Antarctic ice is not melting.
We had the story last week.
Everybody's shocked and stunned.
Isn't happening.
All the endless troubles that global warming will bring, who's to say?
Who's to say that right now, right here, right now, is the ideal temperature for this planet?
What kind of vanity do we have?
The human beings who are but mere specks of indistinguishable dust compared to the lifespan of this planet.
Who the hell do we think we are to say that right now, right here, when we are alive, this is what's ideal?
Do you realize, you remember the Vikings?
The Vikings came and they gave us Minnesota.
Well, they gave us the people of Minnesota.
Do you realize they would not have been able to make that trip in today's climate?
You know why?
Because it's too cold.
It is too cold today.
The Atlantic Ocean is too rough.
They couldn't make it today.
They came when Greenland was green and had thriving civilizations because it was warmer then than it is now.
The Vikings could not make it across the Atlantic in the same ships that they did back then today because it's too cold.
Much colder than what it was when they made it.
The endless troubles?
Tell that to the people who lived in Greenland and thrived, that the Earth went warmer than it is today.
And tell them now when we're finding relics of their civilization under ice.
Tell them.
Tell them that it's better today.
Who the hell are we to assume that this is ideal?
I would submit to you that the climate on this planet changes every day, that it's not the same from one day to the next.
But one thing I do know, I'm 57 years old, and every winter that I've been alive, it's been cold.
And every spring when I've been alive, the leaves on the trees and the sprouts and the bushes and so forth grew.
And ever since I've been alive, every summer, I have sweated myself silly outside in high humidity and high temperatures.
Every fall since 1950, since I've been alive for 57 years, I've seen leaves fall off the trees after turning brown.
And every winter I have seen snowstorms and ice storms.
And I have seen it hotter in the past than it is today.
I've seen it colder in the past than it is today.
I've looked at weather records and I've seen record cold in 1921 and record heat in 1908.
I've seen stronger hurricanes, records of stronger hurricanes and tornadoes 50 years ago than we see today.
It is embarrassing as it is as frustrating as it can be that people running for the presidency of the United States are less informed than I am and most of you on something that is crucial.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, Cutting-Edge Societal Evolution.
Nice to have you with us.
Go back to this McCain quote in the New York Times.
Instead of idly debating the personality, you don't even want to debate this.
You know, this is typical of the global warming crisis.
No, there's no debate.
We don't have time to debate.
They refuse to debate.
Al Gore will not debate.
He won't debate because he can't.
And McCain doesn't want to debate now.
And of course, Obama doesn't want to debate.
This is Obama-esque.
Obama says if you nitpick anything, if you disagree with anything about what he says or does, why, it's a distraction.
And McCain's essentially saying the same thing here.
And then, at the end of the story, Mr. McCain's proposal in his prepared remarks to impose tariffs on industrializing countries like China and India is also made in the Lieberman-Warner bill and reflects concerns by both industry and labor in the U.S.
And elsewhere in the industrialized world.
It would mandate punitive duties on products from any country that did not participate in a global carbon reduction system to balance the lower cost of producing goods using dirty energy sources.
Well, I guess this is a market-based feature.
This is this is a free market-based feature where you're going to demand that companies around the world do all this sort.
You think the Chikoms are going to sit still for this.
Punitive duties on products from any country that didn't participate, like China and India?
Who do we think we are these that we might have been able to have get away with this kind of stuff years ago, but after so many years of liberal dominance or running around like we're embarrassed of ourselves, they're just going to laugh at us because we don't have the guts to back up any of this stuff.
We're too interested in what the THICOMs think of us.
The minute they object, McCain or somebody's, oh, oh, oh, oh, okay, sorry, didn't mean to offend you.
We'll go back to the drawing board.
Same thing with India.
Same thing with anybody.
We're going to dictate to these people.
I thought we couldn't do that.
Maybe, oh, I know.
We're going to restore our reputation in the world.
That's right.
We're going to restore our reputation in the world by doing everything the socialist liberal countries in the world are doing.
That's how we're going to do it.
I see now we're going to get our reputation restored by becoming just like those little pansy countries who couldn't defend themselves if their lives depended on it.
But we're going to become like them.
That's how we're going to get our respect back.
And the Republican Party is behind this effort.
Sorry to pound on the desk.
I know it irritates some of you people, but the more I think about this, the more outraged and angry I become.
All on a basis of no science.
None whatsoever.
By the way, I'm getting, and I expected this.
I expected this.
I'm getting emails, not from subscribers, but from the public email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com, from the libs.
What is this, you hypocrite recommending this new Toyota, or this new Tahoe from GM that's a hybrid?
What do you mean, Limbo?
You're no different than McCain.
You're out there telling people don't buy hybrids, have nothing to do with global warming and so forth.
I knew this is going to happen.
This is an SUV, an SUV hybrid, a hog hybrid, fine and dandy with me.
We've got one here.
Dawn's been driving around.
Snerdley's been driving it.
Dawn loves this thing because it's got this little gauge in it that tells you when you're on hybrid, when you're on a battery, and when you are on gasoline.
And the guy that drove it down here for us from Orlando, when he delivered it, the GM guys, oh, this is cool.
Only, what, a quarter tank of gas from Orlando?
Just a quarter.
And it's a huge SUV.
It's a toy.
Tahoe.
It is a General Motors product, and it says hybrid right along the side.
Snerdley's been driving a fine car.
It's solid.
There's nothing chintzy about it.
There's nothing, you know, white wine and brie about this thing.
This is a car.
Dawn came in.
He also says it's a man magnet.
So he's been driving it around to the walls and so forth.
And these guys, of course, and the fact that it's an SUV hybrid, that's cool, folks.
We're not asking people to drive around on these little matchbox things that are hybrids.
This is a car.
In fact, Snerdley said, even when you turn the thing off, you can hear it clicking.
Something's going on in this.
It's just a car reporting in its usage to Algore.
But you really ought to go check this thing out.
I knew people were going to give me grief about this.
I knew it, but I was prepared.
I mean, I told you, I've met with Bob Lutz.
I've met with, in fact, I saw this.
I saw the mock-up of this car last spring when I was there.
And Bob Lutz explained to me, look, this is what customers want this.
And we're in the business of giving our customers what they want.
So we decided we would go SUV hybrid in the Tahoe.
And from our experience so far, it does use a lot less gasoline.
And it gets around at the same speeds.
And it attracts men just as much as any other car does if you're a woman driving this thing.
Go to gm.com backslash explore.
Check it out.
The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
It is a mean machine.
Here's another question for you.
President Bush is going to go to Saudi Arabia this week to ask King Abdullah to increase oil production.
I want you to think about something before we come back.
What's wrong with that?
Because there's something really wrong with it.
▲
Export Selection