Pelosi Demands Private Jet For Travel

[T-Bor]

Give it up...he is brainwashed. Go look at all of this posts and he never says one bad thing about the republicans. Everything is and always has been just peachy in republican land for this guy. Seriously this guy is the most brainwashed person on this board. He actually thinks his party is honest and truthful and always has been throughout history. Even when the republicans fall flat on their face and fail he is there to defend them.. Its so damn funny.

 

[red states rule]

Give it up...he is brainwashed. Go look at all of this posts and he never says one bad thing about the republicans. Everything is and always has been just peachy in republican land for this guy. Seriously this guy is the most brainwashed person on this board. He actually thinks his party is honest and truthful and always has been throughout history. Even when the republicans fall flat on their face and fail he is there to defend them.. Its so damn funny.

Not as funny as your delusional rants. Much like your days on the Perspectives board, you still drink many gallons of Kool Aid for the Dems

As far as Queen Nancy, if it was not for talk radio and Fox News, her demands would never have seen the light of day

 

[maineman]

ahem.... I say again....

so....you didn't answer my question... are you suggesting that when the sargeant at arms said it was his decision and not Pelosi's he was LYING.... is that right?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not as funny as your delusional rants. Much like your days on the Perspectives board, you still drink many gallons of Kool Aid for the Dems

As far as Queen Nancy, if it was not for talk radio and Fox News, her demands would never have seen the light of day

Who is drinking the kool-aide here? Methinks thou dost protest too much. Aside from one article in the GOP equivalent of <i>Pravda</i>, the <i>Washington Times</i> whose only sources were "...those in Congress and in the administration..." offered no documentation to support their claims. But what else is new there.

FOX Noise, and other elements of the right-wing noise machine, simply treated the piece as news, never bothering to verify the veracity of the claims. It should be noted that the <i>Washington Times</i> is part of the same conglomerate which launched the now debunked Barak Obama/ madrassa schooling episode.

So, monkey boy, I think it is you that needs to stop drinking the kool-aid. Grow up.

And, by the way, was the House Sergeant-at-Arms LYING?

 

[red states rule]

Libs bellowed how Pelosi (like Shrillery) is such a strong women - now the twit is playing the victim card


"I am happy to ride commercial coast to coast," Pelosi said, sounding not very happy as she went on to suggest that she was being denied the same privileges provided her predecessor.

"I'm not saying that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman," she said. "I'm just saying as the first woman speaker, I have no intention of having less respect for the office I hold than all of the other speakers that have come before me."

She sniped at Republicans who have spent several days accusing her of excess, saying they "have nothing to say to the American people about the war, the economy, global warming and the rest. So they have this game they're playing."

She then suggested the Defense Department had deliberately mischaracterized her request for clarification of the rules on the use of military jets as a request for a big plane.

"Why are they feeding the flames?" Pelosi asked.

She offered an answer: payback for her vocal criticism that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mishandled the Iraq war.

On the House floor, Republicans took a bill about alternative fuel and turned it into a debate on Pelosi's transportation arrangements, by introducing an amendment that included the word "aircraft." That was enough to provide conservative members an opportunity to characterize her as the Leona Helmsley of Capitol Hill.



Now, it is another right wing conspiracy. Hey Pelosi, if you would check your huge ego at the door this never would have happened. Take Shrillery's broom and save the taxpayers some money.

I thought these huge jets were causing "global warming". I am willing to give Pelosi a bike to use to go back to SF. This is the mode of transportation libs tell us to use

 

[red states rule]

Pelosi One encounters turbulence
By Dale McFeatters
Sunday, February 11, 2007

New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is nothing if not combative.

Even as she was being elected speaker, she unsuccessfully tried to oust her No. 2, the current House Democratic leader, Steny Hoyer, in favor of her own candidate. She forced her fellow Californian, Jane Harman, off the House Intelligence Committee, where Harman was in line to become chairman. Then she got into a fight with the powerful and senior-most House Democrat, John Dingell, by trying to carve out a chunk of turf from his Energy and Commerce Committee.

These fights could perhaps be excused as necessary for Pelosi to exert control over her unruly charges and, as one of her predecessors as speaker, Tip O’Neill, once said, politics ain’t beanbag.

But now Pelosi has picked a fight that can only embarrass her and gladden the hearts of House Republicans.

She is demanding - and, given her style, “demand” is the correct verb - that the Pentagon supply her with an airliner-size jet, the military version of a Boeing 757, to fly her to and from her San Francisco district. Gleeful Republican critics are calling it “Pelosi One.”

For security reasons, the Pentagon provides the speaker, the third in line to the presidency, secure transportation to and from the home district. It did so for the former speaker, Republican Dennis Hastert.

But the Pentagon, as with Hastert, is offering commuter jets with space for no more than 10 passengers. Republicans charge that Pelosi wants the larger aircraft so she can load it up with family members and political donors, but the speaker’s office says it’s a matter of security because a smaller jet has to stop to refuel en route.

One Republican-allied group weighed in, decrying the “42 leather business-class seats, a fully enclosed stateroom for Nancy Pelosi, stewards who serve meals and tend an open bar, and other such luxuries aboard.”

Maybe that’s a little overwrought, but Pelosi should know from what happened to the House Republicans last November that voters resent what they saw as the GOP’s overweening sense of entitlement and privilege. Indeed, one of her first acts as speaker was to push through a ban on the cherished perk of lawmakers accepting rides on corporate jets.

Fly the commuter jet, Madame Speaker, and just be glad that you don’t have to stand in long lines, endure long delays and get crammed in coach like, well, like the voters.
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=182247&srvc=home

 

[Bullypulpit]

Libs bellowed how Pelosi (like Shrillery) is such a strong women - now the twit is playing the victim card


"I am happy to ride commercial coast to coast," Pelosi said, sounding not very happy as she went on to suggest that she was being denied the same privileges provided her predecessor.

"I'm not saying that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman," she said. "I'm just saying as the first woman speaker, I have no intention of having less respect for the office I hold than all of the other speakers that have come before me."

She sniped at Republicans who have spent several days accusing her of excess, saying they "have nothing to say to the American people about the war, the economy, global warming and the rest. So they have this game they're playing."

She then suggested the Defense Department had deliberately mischaracterized her request for clarification of the rules on the use of military jets as a request for a big plane.

"Why are they feeding the flames?" Pelosi asked.

She offered an answer: payback for her vocal criticism that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mishandled the Iraq war.

On the House floor, Republicans took a bill about alternative fuel and turned it into a debate on Pelosi's transportation arrangements, by introducing an amendment that included the word "aircraft." That was enough to provide conservative members an opportunity to characterize her as the Leona Helmsley of Capitol Hill.



Now, it is another right wing conspiracy. Hey Pelosi, if you would check your huge ego at the door this never would have happened. Take Shrillery's broom and save the taxpayers some money.

I thought these huge jets were causing "global warming". I am willing to give Pelosi a bike to use to go back to SF. This is the mode of transportation libs tell us to use

She is not playing the victim. When one is confronted by lies, innuendo, slander and outright libel, it is only appropriate to respond, and forcefully at that. Your remark about strong women leads me to believe you feel so threatened by strong women that your penis shrivels and your testicles crawl back into your belly.

 

[red states rule]

She is not playing the victim. When one is confronted by lies, innuendo, slander and outright libel, it is only appropriate to respond, and forcefully at that. Your remark about strong women leads me to believe you feel so threatened by strong women that your penis shrivels and your testicles crawl back into your belly.

Then why do all the "strong" women fall back and play the defenseless women card when they are called on what they say and do?

You now have Motor Mouth Murtha threatening the Pentgon if they don't come up with a jet Queen Nancy likes. Is this the Queen's way of making them an offer they can't refuse?

As usual, libs blame everyone else except who is to blame (in this case it is Queen Nancy)

 

[red states rule]

AIR PELOSI
SPEAKER OPTS FOR WASTE AND ARROGANCE

By RICHARD MINITER
Demanding perks: Pelosi (left) with her "enforcer" pal, Rep. Jack Murtha.February 10, 2007 -- THURSDAY morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped out of her Georgetown home and into a government-owned black Chevy Tahoe SUV. That gas-guzzler truck took her directly to the Rayburn House Office Building - where she was the lead witness at a Science and Technology Committee hearing on global warming.

This, the day after word broke of Pelosi's request for regular use of a U.S. Air Force C-32 - the same plane that flies the vice president and first lady.

She wants to travel in luxury. The Air Force jet is the same size and airframe as the Boeing 757-200, which carries about 300 passengers. The C-32 boasts 42 business-class seats - plus a wood-paneled state room, big-screen TV, full-size bed and crew of 16, including uniformed stewards who bring drinks and meals on request. Oh, and an open bar.

Cost to taxpayers? Some $15,000 an hour.

A round-trip to Rep. Pelosi's home in San Francisco could easily run $300,000. Meanwhile, the same flight on a commercial jet can run less than $300.

Pelosi campaigned on the promise that she would clean up the GOP's waste and abuse of taxpayer's dollars. So why doesn't she use the little commuter jet that the Air Force lent to Dennis Hastert, the previous speaker?

She said it was "not big enough" to accommodate her staff, supporters and other members of the California delegation. Also, it would have to stop to refuel. "There's a certain amount of inefficiency and risk involved in stopping and having to refuel," a Pelosi spokesman said.

Pelosi doesn't understand why the vice president and first lady rate a bigger plane than she does, when she is two heartbeats away from the presidency.

Maybe she just doesn't want to fly like the rest of us, enduring long lines and security hassles. On Pelosi's "Air Force Three," there'll be no waiting, no metal detectors, no searches - and the plane leaves when she says it does.

If anything, the Democratic speaker has the Republicans beat on both wasteful spending and elitism. And that takes some doing.

Then there's the speaker's concerns about global warming. In flight, the C-32 pumps out 10,000-plus pounds an hour of CO2, the main pollutant that greens finger in global warming. A single round-trip to San Francisco would produce more than 50 tons of pollutants. How can she have her plane and complain about global warming too?

Recently, Pelosi requested a military plane to fly her to a Democratic Party retreat in Williamsburg, Va. - just a two-hour drive from the nation's capitol. The Defense Department said no. (No word if she took her taxpayer-subsidized SUV instead.)

But it may prove politically risky for the Bush administration to keep saying no. Pelosi ally Jack Murtha chairs the subcommittee that controls the Pentagon's money. The Washington Times reports that Murtha has telephoned Bush officials, demanding that they give her the plane.

Worse, one source tells me, is what Democrats are reporting of that conversation - the implied threat that Murtha made: You want money for the Iraq war? You better give the speaker her plane.

Republicans were quick to point out that, in the same week that Pelosi endorsed a resolution that the president's troop surge is "not in the national interest of the United States," she asked that military resources be diverted to her personal travel. What's her concept of national interest?

This issue is larger than party politics. Congress should live under the laws it makes for the rest of us - gas taxes, plane travel and all. If Congress' leaders find these too onerous, they can change them for all of us.

Congress could learn a lesson from Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. On their last visit to America, they flew commercial.

Richard Miniter is a bestselling author and fellow at the Hudson Institute
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0210200...osi_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm?page=0

 

[Bullypulpit]

Then why do all the "strong" women fall back and play the defenseless women card when they are called on what they say and do?

You now have Motor Mouth Murtha threatening the Pentgon if they don't come up with a jet Queen Nancy likes. Is this the Queen's way of making them an offer they can't refuse?

As usual, libs blame everyone else except who is to blame (in this case it is Queen Nancy)

My wife would take exception to that, as I think would the current objects of your ire.

As to the assertion you make in your second and third paragraphs, are you simply parroting the right-wing noise machine...? Or can you actually substantiate your claims...? Didn't think so. Dismissed.

 

[red states rule]

My wife would take exception to that, as I think would the current objects of your ire.

As to the assertion you make in your second and third paragraphs, are you simply parroting the right-wing noise machine...? Or can you actually substantiate your claims...? Didn't think so. Dismissed.

Translation: Stop with the facts - my heads hurts!

 

[T-Bor]

As usual, libs blame everyone else except who is to blame (in this case it is Queen Nancy)

Now THERE is the pot calling the kettle black. This from the guy that never puts one ounce of blame on ANYTHING to the republican party. As far as IRAQ is concerned in Red States eyes, if it wasnt for the dems IRAQ would be a bed of roses and women would be walking around in Bikinis all day..

What a joke this guy is... LOL..

 

[red states rule]

Now THERE is the pot calling the kettle black. This from the guy that never puts one ounce of blame on ANYTHING to the republican party. As far as IRAQ is concerned in Red States eyes, if it wasnt for the dems IRAQ would be a bed of roses and women would be walking around in Bikinis all day if it wasnt for the dems..

What a joke this guy is... LOL..

This should get T-bor off and ranting..........




Nancy Pelosi Wants Bedroom on Jet

Critics charge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is abusing the perks of power by asking for a jumbo military jet with sleeping accommodations for her flights across the country.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.

Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her San Francisco district without stopping to refuel.


Some sources are claiming that Pelosi demanded access to the C-32, which seats 45 and has a stateroom for the primary passenger, a conference facility, an entertainment system and three convertible beds.

But the Los Angeles Times reports that the military passenger plane that can make a cross-country flight in any weather and also provide the communications needed to stay in contact with the White House is the C-40, which is described by the Air Force as an "office in the sky.”

Derived from the Boeing 737-700C, it can seat up to 120 passengers and has beds and two galleys.

Pelosi’s spokesman Brendan Daly acknowledged that the speaker has asked if family and friends can fly with her on business travel.

Some Republicans are raising a stink over Pelosi’s moves. "Flying Lincoln bedroom,” Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said in story appearing in the Washington Times.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/8/155333.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2D27-1

 

[red states rule]

Nancy Pelosi: Come Fly with Me
Politics Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
February 9, 2007

The hoopla over whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have access to an Air Force commuter jet or to a larger, more amenity-laden, 757-styled jet just goes to prove that anything in Washington DC can be politicized. Quite frankly, with Ms. Pelosi’s penchant for taking pot-shots at the president, I would have thought her request would have been for a C-130 gunship.

Traditionally, members of congress have had to requisition the use of Air Force transportation through the Executive Branch. The allocation of a personal aircraft to the Speaker of the House only began after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and then it was only because the Speaker of the House was second in the line of succession to the presidency.

As the story goes, Speaker Pelosi’s people wanted to upgrade the aircraft used to transport her because the aircraft that had been allocated for this task while Illinois Representative Dennis Hastert was speaker can’t make it non-stop from Washington to California. The word that should be scrutinized in the last sentence is “non-stop.”

While traveling aboard an aircraft that has to refuel during the journey may be an annoyance, it certainly isn’t anything to turn one’s nose up at, especially when someone else is footing the bill as the American taxpayers are in this case.

Early on in this pathetic excuse for political confrontation, Speaker Pelosi exclaimed, “It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance. We want an aircraft that can reach California."

Here’s a newsflash for Speaker Pelosi, a millionaire in her own right who can afford to pay her way as far as airfare is concerned: All airplanes can make it from Washington to California; some just have to refuel in order to complete the trip.

Some would opine that landing to refuel would present a security risk for Ms. Pelosi, an opportunity for terrorist malcontents to lay siege to her aircraft. This is a hollow and uneducated argument. Any Air Force transport jet that would be shuttling Ms. Pelosi would undoubtedly land to refuel at military installations of which there are many between Washington DC and California. Security, with regard to landing for the purpose of refueling, is not an issue.

It is more likely that Ms. Pelosi simply doesn’t want to be inconvenienced by a task as mundane as having her all expenses paid government issued private jet refueled while she is ferried back and forth to Washington on the taxpayers’ nickel, her staff and family in tow. The request for such an extravagant upgrade leads me to ponder whether Ms. Pelosi is attempting to elevate the stature of the speaker’s office to a status equal to that of the presidency.

Further, I can’t help but wonder whether or not we should brace ourselves for another scathing column from William Arkin of the Washington Post. Arkin recently took our soldiers stationed in Iraq to task for the “obscene amenities” afforded to them. One would think he would have a field day with Ms. Pelosi’s request given the amenities offered on the Air Force C-32, a modified version of Boeing’s 757 commercial intercontinental aircraft, which boasts:

&#9642; Room for 45 passengers with business class accommodations

&#9642; A crew of 16

&#9642; A communications center

&#9642; A fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger

&#9642; A changing area

&#9642; A conference area

&#9642; An entertainment system

&#9642; And a divan that not only seats three but converts into a fold-out bed

This impressive aircraft – operated at an approximate cost of $22,000 an hour – is typically reserved for the First Lady, the Vice President and cabinet members and members of congress upon and subject to request. The Air Force has never made transportation of this caliber available to members of congress on a regular basis, Speaker of the House or not.

The Pentagon has informed the speaker’s office that Ms. Pelosi would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that a non-stop flight could not be guaranteed. While I suppose this is a fair response to an unreasonable request, I believe there is a way for Ms. Pelosi to travel non-stop in safety without bilking the taxpayers out of $22,000 per hour each time she flies from her district to The District.

If Ms. Pelosi were assigned additional Secret Service protection each time she engaged in air travel to or from Washington to California, she would not only be afforded the non-stop flight service she so desperately desires but the flights would be made safer for all the passengers, including the taxpaying cattle in coach. Even flying first-class with her staff, this travel arrangement would be more fiscally responsible than operating a government jet at $22,000 per hour.

Aside from whether or not the utilization of a modified Boeing 757 at such an extravagant cost is in line with Ms Pelosi’s campaign trail rhetoric regarding fiscal responsibility – especially when the express purpose of doing so is only to achieve a non-stop flight – one has to ask: Madam Speaker, what about global warming?
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/politics/02092007.htm

 

[T-Bor]

Way to completely ignore my statement. Now I know that I was 100% correct. You are biased and I proved it in my last statement. Thanks Red States.. Good Job...

 

[red states rule]

Way to completely ignore my statement. Now I know that I was 100% correct. You are biased and I proved it in my last statement. Thanks Red States.. Good Job...

What statement?

I am biased as far as pointing out the facts about Nancy's demand for a very costly private jet.

Of course, libs never care about who is paying the bill, as long as it is not them

 

[T-Bor]

What statement?

I am biased as far as pointing out the facts about Nancy's demand for a very costly private jet.

Of course, libs never care about who is paying the bill, as long as it is not them

No you are biased because you never point out the faults of your own party. Therefore your opinion basically sucks and is skewed.

 

[red states rule]

No you are biased because you never point out the faults of your own party. Therefore your opinion basically sucks and is skewed.

Even on Perspectives, I have voiced disagreement with pres Bush on spending, border security, and Republicans in Congress walking away from Ronald Reagan conservatism

Unlike you, I call them as I see them.

Here, the liberal arrogrance of Pelosi has come up and bit her on her ever expanding ass

 

[T-Bor]

Good..Im glad it bothers you. Makes my day. Way to piss Red States off Nancy. Keep up the good work.

 

[red states rule]

Good..Im glad it bothers you. Makes my day. Way to piss Red States off Nancy. Keep up the good work.

It does not bother me T bor. Knowing everytime libs are in power they find a way to screw it up, is refreshing. Their ego and arrogrance oozes to the surface. Libs have this addiction to bigger government and higer taxes. I say let the libs go, and give them all the rope they need to hang themselfs.