Pelosi's big bird: Flying the speaker

Watch the right jump on this article. Remember Hastert flew all over the Country in the 2006 run on Military tranport.

It won't be long before she's flying in Air Force 1.She needs the larger plane for security reasons.Fat Denny used the smaller plane because of all the stops they made at buffets!!!

She wants a plane that has 42 business class seats, a stateroom, an entertainment center, a bedroom and a crew of 16. Who can justify that? And why didn't you mention this in the article??

The DOD has promised the new speaker a bigger and better ride. Oh my gosh, I actually agree with Tony Snowjob here. "Extravagance of power the taxpayers won't swallow". Hmmm, Mr. Republican Congressman from Florida, that's opening a big can of worms. Pelosi is #3 in line to become President. Bush flies Air Force One everyday at the taxpayers expense. Cheney flies Air Force 2 everyday at the taxpayers expense. And fat J. Dennis Hastert flew all over the country and world at the taxpayers expense.

One word: California. She cannot have a plane that is smaller than other Celebrity people in CA! Let's get real people!!!!!

If Tony Snow himself says that this is a silly story and unfair to the Speaker, why is there a "controversy?"
Would anyone like to ask Rep. Putnam and other GOP critics if they objected to Bush flying Air Force 1 all over the US last fall to campaign for their elections? Who paid for those campaign trips anyways? Was it the GOP warchest or taxpayers?

Ah the Bozo Left shines!! Hastert didn't fly "all over the country," Dale. Plus, he used a 12-seater. Nancy wants to use the plane that military personnel use. She doesn't want to have to make any stops on her way back to California or wherever she might want to go. Nancy truly wants to keep fly-over country, fly-over country, costing U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. Let he fly in a remote-controlled plane!

Democrat or Republican - it's all an abuse of power and a waste of our tax payers dollars. It's just amazing how blatant it is.

It didn't take this babe long to fall into the power pool did it!
Coming from CA you would think she would prefer a Prius over a gas-guzzler like the 757.

I think all issues like this need to be addressed
and investigated. But don't stop here. Let's look at "all" the waste in spending. Lets not make these political issues. Case in point is KB
who says she asked for all these other things when in this thread it is a matter of a non-stop flight. Keep the rhetoric out of it and put the hammer down on all waste. When issues come up like this and coruption, we start tit for tat about dems and repubs, while the real issue eludes us.

What a piece of work Ms. Pelosi is! There are several other passenger transports in the USAF inventory suitable for her nonstop ride to the left coast. She's requested the nicest ride on the taxpayers dime. Culture of corruption, indeed. If she's perfectly amenable to flying commercial, and enduring it's inevitable delays (as it's been reported in other places) why the stink about the occaisional stop for fuel? The Gulfstream, Hastert's ride, will make it save for a strong headwind.

The D.O.D. will call her plane, Left Wing One.
This just another story about how the democrats just love to spend our tax dollars on frivolity.
Paulo

John D how come you didn't tell us you where running for President LOL. By the way Hastert flew Military tranport to every dinner to raise funds for the right and you. Go watch the you tube I posted its you

"...costing U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars."

John D: You of course don't have the actual figures, but it's established that we borrow "millions and millions of dollars" every ten minutes for your beloved war (albeit a war you're too chicken to fight in). My guess is a year's worth of the speaker's use of the "big" plane represents a cost difference compared to use of the "small" plane of less than a day in your favorite quagmire.

If even Tony Snowjob can let this one go, maybe you should borrow a brain for once and let this one go too.

Let's be clear here, none of the reports have stated that Pelosi or her staff specifically requested the 757. They requested a plane that could make the trip non-stop, and the 757 is one of the options on the table.

This is so insane! Another national leader up in the air? No! Wait! The President and Vice should fly, they need that means of transport. But the Speaker, our No. 3 Ace in the Hole Card, the Speaker should travel via a well armed, ultra modern train car, with a Marine Band. She (in our current case) shouldn't be risking her life like the other two; she should be well protected and moving around the country on the ground. Think about it! Please! We dare not risk her life, or anyone else's in the line of succession, No.4 through 99 should all travel buy other transport! And in'cognito, too! Can't be too careful these days, ya' know?

This is the same person (Pelosi) who turned over the Presido to a trust controlled by her real-estate mogule husband and his buddies for pennies on the dollar.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/190376.php

[quote]
She wants a plane that has 42 business class seats, a stateroom, an entertainment center, a bedroom and a crew of 16. Who can justify that? And why didn't you mention this in the article??
Posted by: KB | Feb 8, 2007 9:31:13 AM
[/quote]

KB:

I saw no such references to "stateroom", "entertainment center", or "bedroom" in this article or in several I've read online this morning. Do you have a link to a story that actually mentions these alleged demands?

She wants to be like Gore - lecture the "sheeple" on global warming from her 757 jet liner that she gets all to herself. Oh, by the way, a stretch Hummer limo picks her up at the airport and her entourage all drives their own Suburban's. Do what I say, not what I do.

Give her a big plane. Maybe a military cargo plane of that size which will make it to California without refueling but doesn't have any ammenties other then a bathroom. I am sure she is not asking for the luxuries, just a plane to get her to and fro.

[quote]
The D.O.D. will call her plane, Left Wing One.
This just another story about how the democrats just love to spend our tax dollars on frivolity.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 8, 2007 10:16:18 AM
[/quote]

Paulo:

Where was your indignation when pResident Doogie Howser was flying around the country campaigning for Republicans in the election of 2006 - all at taxpayer expense? Where was your indignation when Vice pResident Cheney was flying around the country campaigning for Republicans in the election of 2006 - all at taxpayer expense?

Your hypocrasy is showing.

P.S. - you STILL haven't told us what YOUR middle name is.

Maybe Hastert's plane will work for Pelosi given that it won't have to endure all the extra weight. That's gotta be a drag on MPG.

I WAS against Pelosi's using a bigger, better plane for all the reasons given by the observant right. It wasn't until I saw the reference to the need for improved security that I came up with the slightest argument in favor of her having a plane that would make it to the coast without refueling (does a refuel stop really involve that much more security risk?).

Hey Paulo no comment on your face on the swamp

Yes,Fat Denny flew all over the country.Rumor has it he hit every KFC,Burger King,White Castle,and Big Mac in every state in the union.

Now,the fat arse is in the Minority,he has to ride Amtrak home,with his little happy meal.

And Nancy rides the "Big" plane eating quiche and sipping fine wines.Madam Speaker,live like a queen!

I mistakenly posted over "john d" in response to the real john d's inanity. Sorry about that, real john D -- although you're still wrong.

for BC

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90

I am truly upset at the egomania that has replaced common sense in Pelosi's request. I suspect she has been ill advised by some who would like to see her fall from her perch. She would have been wise to consider the repercussion this request would cause. Doesn't she know that there are 400 plus capable individuals in the house of reps. that could easily take her place if she were a little late getting back to D.C. Let's get real!

Hey, Pelosi, Al Gore's gonna be mad at you! Don't you know that flying that great big plane from one end of the country to the other contributes to .....(cue scary background music).........GLOBAL WARMING?!!!!

Actually, now that it's been brought up, let's think about this logically. Who is more in need of a government provided plane, the Speaker of the House, or the Vice President of the United States?

The Speaker presides over the House of Representatives and is also the representative of their district, so they cast a vote evrrytime there is one. They are 3rd in order of Prseidential succession.

The VP, however, has only one official duty other than being in the line of succession, and that is to preside over the Senate. However, as opposed to the Speaker, the VP only votes if there is a tie, which is very rare. He represents no constituancy.

I think there is a very simple solution. Give Pelosi Cheney's plane, and let Cheney take the Gulfstream.

Opps talking points over for the right. White House just defended her right to use Military Transport. Saying she is number three in the line for President and after 9/11 she needs to be protected

Left Wing Loon Alert!! You earthscum are really running amok on this one. And John E., even posts an item, using my name! Geez, how many times has John E done that?
Face it, Nancy doesn't need a big plane -- security or no security. And for you Loons moaning and groaning about the campaigning Bush did, well Clinton, Carter and all the presidents have done that. But let's look at Slick Willie's trip to Africa in late 1990s. For that trip, he flew more than 200 of his best friends with him on several different planes -- all at taxpayer expense. That trip alone cost U.S. taxpayers BILLION of dollars -- all for a few photo ops.
Maybe we can check with the Boy Crooked County Board President to see how many of his relatives he can get high-paying jobs with in the federal government in addition to those county jobs.
Really, you Left Wing Loons have no legs to stand on.

After reading numerous articles and depending on what lean was given, who knows if she asked for the c-32 or just a plane that could reach California non-stop.

Pelosi should just request this plane and there will be no problems. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=91

Why MUST everything be broken down by Dem or Repub? It has been reported she DID NOT ask for such a plane...just that the one Hastert is using is too small for her to fly non-stop back to CA. Hastert got his plane because they thought security wise, the person second in line to the president, shouldn't be schlepping through airports. Makes sense to me even though I don't like the guy. SECURITY wise it makes sense she shouldn't have to make fuel stops. God forbid there is an event where she would have to get from one place to another quickly and not be able to do so for such a stupid reason.

Meanwhile, Gates is getting rubber stamped into his next position. Things are pretty messed up in Iraq since he was commander there...let's see what he does in DC.

She wants to be like Gore - lecture the "sheeple" on global warming from her 757 jet liner that she gets all to herself. Oh, by the way, a stretch Hummer limo picks her up at the airport and her entourage all drives their own Suburban's. Do what I say, not what I do.

Posted by: marc | Feb 8, 2007 10:34:47 AM

I think we'd love to see this Hummer limo.

And what do you say about Dennis Hastert being picked up in a hybrid vehicle after lecturing the "sheeple" at an energy news conference, then swapped cars after a couple of blocks and was whisked away in a Suburban driven by a member of his entourage?

This all came about because the Republicans in the Whitehouse thought it was a good idea to fly Fat Hastert around in a military jet.

Speaker Pelosi weighs alot less than Corrupt Denny did,so we are saving on jet fuel costs because of Nancy.

Jake: What you say makes a lot of sense. My only question would be regarding the cost. It could actually be that the larger plane may be older and cheaper to buy, if not cheaper to fly.

For all those carping about 'abuse of power' because the Speaker of the House wants a plane that can cross the country in one hop, get a life! She's third in line to the Presidency and the DOD has determined that as such she requires secure transport!

For that trip, he flew more than 200 of his best friends with him on several different planes -- all at taxpayer expense. That trip alone cost U.S. taxpayers BILLION of dollars -- all for a few photo ops.

Posted by: John D | Feb 8, 2007 11:13:11 AM

A billion, or billionS? Or perhaps did you confuse the "M" key with the "B" key. Either way, please link us. Something tells me this would have been a big story if it was true, no matter what the earthscum left wing loon media was up to at that time.

Are you starting to see that POWER is her only desire? Pelosi has done nothing for our nation and will continue to do nothing, all the while blaming the left.
This, unfortuantely, is true of many of the liberal democrat leadership. Take all the power, money and fame you can...promise to help the poor, old and
abused...take their votes but give nothing.
Watch the news closely...you will see many more signs of this...implosion has begun.
And when it all blows up in their faces, it will be a "right wing conspiracy"...yeah right...is anyone goning to fall for that again?

CONSERVATIVE MOTOR MOUTHS HAVE NO CREDIBILITY ON WASTED TAX DOLLARS AFTER YOUR PARTY FLUSHED 12 BILLION DOWN THE CRAPPER IN IRAQ!

Left Wing Loon Alert!! You earthscum are really running amok on this one. And John E., even posts an item, using my name! Geez, how many times has John E done that?
Face it, Nancy doesn't need a big plane -- security or no security. And for you Loons moaning and groaning about the campaigning Bush did, well Clinton, Carter and all the presidents have done that.Posted by: John D | Feb 8, 2007 11:13:11 AM

I grow tired of the tit for tat. You guys don't want to solve these problems, you just want something new to rant about. We have John D. starting his posts with "earthscum" and playing tit for tat all the way back to Carter. You don't have any outrage over this, you just want to rant. There is plenty of waste on "both" sides of the aisle. But you don't care about that, just who you can hate more. I have very little hope for this country when it becomes more important to complain than it does to solve it. These are important issues and you will never solve them because your 15 minutes of fame on these threads are more important. I can say there is waste of money on the democrats side, can John D. admit there is waste from the republicans? Could we agree that a united front on these issues is better than the mud slinging that happens here? Ahhhh what the hell..it's just a "waste" of time.

If Pelosi were offered a 12-seater capable of flying to SF, she'd take it.

So why won't they give her the same thing Hastert had (and he flew all over picking up people at taxpayer expense)?

Oh, because it doesn't exist. Quit complaining about it, then.

Apparently the Right is stuck in a pre-911 mindset.

How is this a bigger story than the dozen plus truckloads of cash that the CPA simply lost - as in "misplaced" - as in "we don't know what happened to it - in Iraq?

How many billions of dollars can this administration waste before it becomes a story?

I've read that a cross country flight pollutes the air at the equivalant of a month's worth of driving a large SUV for each passenger. I expect this 200 passenger size jet to then pollute the equivalent of 200 SUVs running for a month. Talk about global warming! Hastert's smaller plane caused significant less polution. They should all us small planes and cut down on travel if they are serious about this global warming thing. Al Gore probably causes more polution in a month flying arround talking about it than my car would produce in my lifetime.

Let's agree that NO ONE is doubting her need for military transport, just the size of her plane. And what kind of "security threat" would she face if she got *stuck* with the smaller Gulfstream and had to land to refuel? If she landed at one of the many Air National Guard bases she would be under no threat. That's right, NO threat whatsoever. This isn't about a phantom security threat in her mind, it's all about wanting a bigger plane to feel important and ferry all her pals around. Plain and simple.

Memo:
To: All right wingers b*tching about Speaker Pelosi's request.

That MORON you elected wants hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for that war he lied us into.

Quit wetting your pants about a few million dollars well spent.

The real OUTRAGE is that Ms. Pelosi is third in line to become President. If the President and Vice-President were killed or otherwise incapicated, this terrorist appeasing left wing loonie would be president. SCARY.

So much for caring about conserving fuel. So much for "healing the country". Geez, this old witch can't stand the thought of having to stay on the tarmac in St. Louis for 45 minutes. You'd think she'd welcome the opportunity to meet some real Americans. She's a complete fraud.

Air Force Three. I am sure that Pelosi will have her jet in no time at the expense of US taxpayers. Forget about "raising" minimum wage. If the big politicians would just give up some of their perks... Seriously, the Republicans and Democrats in politics are all the same.

The next item she'll want is a helocopter to take her kids to school !!!!

A gulfstream IV has a range of 4770 miles and seats 10 comfortably. That should be more than enough, and is a LOT less expensive to fly and maintain than a 757.

What a stupid thing to be worrying about.

Tony Snow got it right.

War, health care, social security, global warming, port security, alternative fuels, balanced budget, North Korea, Iran, Darfur, insider trading, ... I mean, what isn't more important?

I am a former airline employee who used to travel "stand-by" for pleasure trips. (Meaning that if there was an available seat anywhere on the plane, I was eligible for it.) Once at Chicago's O'Hare, I was awarded a seat and was in it ready to take off when the customer service agent came and told me that I'd have to get off the plane because "some big VIP showed up and we have to give the seat to him." That "big VIP" who took my seat and ruined my trip was Dennis Hastert. (I guess he sometimes flew commercial planes.)

Anyway, I say give Nancy the plane she wants! It may help to keep airline employees in their seats!

all the airplane nonsense aside why dosn't she move to washington or the east coast, the speaker of the house is still just a job and thats what you do when you get a job on the other side of the country you switch coasts.

There are 2 reasons I would be concerned about the speaker having a smaller (short range) jet and not getting a larger one:

1. The time it takes for a refueling stop (I want the speaker to have plenty of time to work in DC and at home).

2. The fuel (and so the recurring cost). Maybe the larger, longer range jet is actually much more efficient than the smaller, shorter range craft. It might fly higher or get some other economy of scale to give it better mpg over a 2000-mile flight.

I don't think that she needs a Boeing 757 for the trip. A Gulfstream 550 could do that flight just fine, and it still has a bathroom, stateroom and a meeting space. Personally I think that if the airlines are supposed to be as safe as they are, there is nothing wrong with her flying commercial (even if it is first class). Prince Charles flew on British Airways on his last trip here and it didn't hurt him one bit.

Maybe someone will keep track of the 'greenhouse gas" emissions of Pelosi's airplane as she flies around the country denouncing "greenhouse gas" emissions.

Pelosi's request is valid. End of story.

I find it interesting that none of you Faux news watchers bothered to listen/read to what Pelosi said about this:

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert’s practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

“I said well, that’s fine, I’m going commercial,” she told Fox News. “I’m not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you’re going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I’m going home to my family.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721

Raving Loon,

Only 12 Billion was spent on the Iraq war?

That has to be a drop in the bucket compared to all the money we have blown on the looney lefts worthless social programs.

If she doesn't like the plane the comes with the job, then maybe she shouldn't have the job. I don't have a problem with the tax payers paying for her flights and security, but if she wants to use a plane other than the one provided, she should pay the difference. As Speaker of the House she not only works for the people from her district, but all Americans.

First, I understand when the preseident uses Air Force One for campaigning trips, the Republicn Party picks up the tab. Now, to Peliso's request, why should taspayers pay to haul her family and friends. The next thing, do people realize the cost of operating a plane this size? With a crew of 16, thier pay, plus flight pay, fuel, maintenance, wear and tear, the hourly cost would run in the neighborhood of $3500 to $5000 and HOUR. Let's face it, all city, county, state and federal officials are employees of WE THE PEOPLE and they should remember that, that we are the ones who pay their salaries, and can fire them at the next election. I admit, we have too many who are in power that do not take it serious about running our country, but abide by the desires of their respective party. Enopugh said. CWO3-USA (Ret)

Hmmm, I'm curious...

What kind of plane does Laura Bush fly in when she's not traveling with her husband...

And exactly what is her role in the presidential succession, should something happen to the president and vice president...

"Only 12 Billion was spent on the Iraq war?"

No, Bob GH, that's how much money is missing and unaccounted for that was supposed to be spent on Iraq.

We've spent roughly $365 Billion in Iraq and counting.

Pelosi's request is valid. End of story.

I find it interesting that none of you Faux news watchers bothered to listen/read to what Pelosi said about this:

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert’s practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

“I said well, that’s fine, I’m going commercial,” she told Fox News. “I’m not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you’re going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I’m going home to my family.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721

You people all neeed to shut it and realize what idiots you all are! All the compassionate Left Wingers are complaining about Dennis Hasterts' weight and the war budget. Not sure why his weight is of such concern and how about the thousands of kids that have died being a concern instead of the wealthiest country in the worl spending to much of our money helping another country. As for the Right Wingers, relax it's a freaking airplane and it's for the #3 in charge of our country, I'm pretty sure that regardless of what it costs, she's earned it. To all of you half-wits would you all be happy if we put a bum with no personal assets in charge and give him a 89' Saturn for business trips. I'm sure you would then complain about what a disgrace they are. At least they have dedicated their life to making changes in the country, even if they are not sharing your same views, what have you done to change the countries politics? I'm sure nothing, after all why do something when you can sit back let someone else do it and then complain about the manner in which they go about it. SHUT UP!

How can Tony Snow stay out of this? Didn't the White House leak the "story" in the first place? What a putz.

The Imperial speaker needs a sprawling military aircraft at her beck and call 24 hours a day, yet somehow Dennis Hastert got by with a 12-seater since 2002. Be real people, there's no defense for that.

She needs a non-stop ride to the west coast? Let her fly backseat in an F15. Way cheaper, way faster.

Speaker Pelosi didn't ask for the transport at all. In fact, she said that she'd have no problem flying commercial. the House Sgt-at-arms office, citing the national security implications, told her that she'd need to fly on military transport. She agreed and the first time she flew back home on a VC-20 (mil equivalent of a commuter jet), they had to stop and refuel. This, to her, was unacceptable, and she said that she'd rather fly commercial than have to stop. that's when the DOD brought out the 757.

This should be a non-story. The right is crying because they lost - as my republican father-in law said to me when i was whining about the 2004 election - get over it!

Re. "Turkey One". Once we get past the Prez and VP who were elected to executive office, it really doesn't matter which elected official ends up in charge. Can you say Red Herring. It sounds like it's really just a bribe to get her to play nice.

The rational for this boondoggle keeps changing. At first it was security, now it is a non-stop flight. The security issue was bogus to begin with since it is a military aircraft. The non-stop issue is nothing short of narcissism and an inflated sense of entiltlment. I like flying non-stop as well, but since it costs more in many instances I normally fly across the country with at least one stop and often two or three. If the Speaker puts such a premium on non-stop service she should pay for it.

Can we please get this right?

Madame Pelosi is SECOND in line to succeed the President, not third, as many of the previous posters claim.

The VP is first in line to succeed the POTUS, the Speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the POTUS.

Incidentally, the president pro tempore of the Senate is third in succession, followed by the Secretary of State. The remainder of the cabinet officers follow in line, according to the date their offices were created.

Can't we just put extra fuel on the 12 seater in open containers in the rest of the seats?

Maybe some candles to soften the mood?

Bob

The prime minister of Great Britain flies British Airways. There are are lot of airlines that fly out of Washington, so why can't we just buy prepaid air flights (such as American's Airpass) for Pelosi and a bodyguard? If that's not feasible, then why can't the government use a shared private jet service, the way some companies do instead of buying corporate jets for their CEOs?

As for political events, regardless of whose traveling, the parties should be reimbursing the government for the expense.

a blinkin'/john d,

I'd suggest that John D isn't too chicken to fight in Iraq, he's too old. If he was assigned to write an editorial endorsing Walter Mondale for his college newspaper in 1984, he's got to be at least in his forties. If he went down to his local friendly recruiter, they'd say, "Sorry, Gramps, can't use you. Back to your rocking chair!"

Perhaps you'd rather see her accepting plane rides from lobbyists like your favorite GOP stars do? Take John Boehner, for example:

From: The Center for Public Integrity
Since Boehner came to Washington D.C., in 1991 from West Chester, Ohio, he has frequently traveled on private jets owned by corporations with a financial stake in congressional affairs. According to Center for Public Integrity research, Boehner flew at least 45 times on corporate planes from June 2001 through September 2005. The companies on whose jets he flew include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco (15 times), UST Inc. (seven), Swisher International Inc. (seven), FedEx (five), and Sallie Mae (four).

Travel by corporate jet is luxurious and very costly, but no matter how much the actual expense, members of Congress are required by law to pay only first-class commercial rates for these private flights. In addition, they are not required to disclose who accompanied them, even if it is a lobbyist or company official.

In the new majority leader's case, the trips were paid for by the same Boehner campaign and leadership PAC funds to which R.J. Reynolds, Sallie Mae and other corporations contributed. According to Federal Election Commission records, from 2001 to 2005, R.J. Reynolds' PAC and company vice president John Fish donated more than a combined $30,000 to Freedom Project. Over the same period, Freedom Project paid R.J. Reynolds more than $11,000 for use of the company's jet, while reporting additional "in-kind contributions" from RJR totaling more than $14,000, ranging from $171.34 to $2,738.79 a trip.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=789

Why should we spend any money on an additional airplane to get her home sooner. Why don't we spend money on what our troops need and how to get them home sooner. Some priorities are a bit confused.

I love the fact that Nancy made it to the top and routed for her all the way, but even I can see the extravagance of this request. While it's completely understandable that she wants a plane that can make the DC - CA trip nonstop, she does not need a 42 passenger jet. Hopefully someone will find a more realistic solution that she will surely embrace since she is so practical and effective in every other aspect of gov't.

Why don't she shift her home to Washington? That will save a lot of Tax payers money. Give her a big royal home in Washington. That will be 1/100000 of the cost incurred for that plane and maintainig it. lol

she should fly commercial. so too should the president.

ostensibly, there's no security issue, right? that's why we spend a buhzillion dollars on TSA.

Also, BC, you must be hard of reading. Here's an LA Times story that'll set you straight:

jumbo-size military jet with a "distinguished visitor compartment with sleep accommodations." (read bedroom)

"The military passenger plane that can make the flight in any weather and also provide the communications necessary to stay in contact with the White House is the bigger and costlier C-40 — described by the Air Force as an "office in the sky" with beds, two galleys and business-class seating."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi8feb08,0,5618946.story?coll=la-home-headlines

After all, we wouldn't want her highness to have to stop to refuel in flyover land now would we?

Posted by: Bob R. | Feb 8, 2007 12:43:40 PM

It sounds like you're threatening the life of an elected official in Congress to me.

Damn, where is the NSA when you need them...

Tony,

Thanks for the informing of the correct amount that we have spent in Iraq.

It's still a drop in the bucket compared to all the money spent on B.S social programs.

Once again the Republican lie and slander crew is at work.

Let's all get this straight...she did NOT request the plane. DID NOT. Period.

Oh my GOD!!! The tree huggers in Northern CA will have a fit. Look at all the pollution she is adding to Global Warming. I bet this plane will be carrying her daughter and friends around for vacation before long. Just like Al Bore. Claiming we should all cut back, then he flies coast to coast for several days plugging for Dem cronies.

Yes, Dave, I am too old. I am in my mid 40s and with considerable spinal problems that would prevent me from being a member of the military and fighting in Iraq.
The Loony Left love to tell those who support the action in Iraq that they should join the military and fight. Course, I don't remember them suggesting that when we were bombing Kosovo for 46 straight days, in a war that did not have UN sanction and in conducting regime change, and in a situation that is and was a civil war too. Course, it was an easy war since the other side had no military to speak of, but we did bomb a country for 46 straight days, killing thousands of innocent people too.

To pile onto the "yeah, well, what about this" bandwagon: what about the multimillion dollar yacht the taxpayers paid for for Bush a few years back?? At least there is a veneer of legitimate purpose to this.

The speaker needs the jet 'in case of catastrophe'. So how does that justify a non-stop requirement?
The ONLY people that should have access to a jet that big is the Pres. and Vice-Pres.
Everyone else in the Congressional arena is a paid public employee representing (in theory) the district that elected them. They should be required to keep their travel expenses to a minimum, including flying coach like the vast majority of the people they represent. The more perks you give these people, the more holier-then-thou they become. Sorry if the truth hurts, but thats a fact. Used to be, politics in Washington was a duty, to be done with the best effort and purpose. That being said, you did your time, er' term, and came home, returning to your friends and local countrymen to help your local community with the wisdom you gained. NOW it's a career in which keeping in power is the only real goal. They would all have you think that they are 'special', gifted with the ability to rule mankind, when in fact, they would barely suffice as late-night-tv used car salesmen.
They are NOT heads of state, they are NOT global policy decision makers, they are NOT critical to the survival of the nation. They ARE you and me. And THEY and YOU and I need to remember that. I have to pay my bills to travel. Nancy wanted to go to Washington. She's there. Why does she need special transport for an entire office staff plus all their friends and pets to go home. She can go home when the Congress is in recess like everyone else- on public or even chartered transport. She has NO business being anywhere but in Washington unless there is a fact finding mission somewhere (DURING A RECESS) or a national emergency. And why, in a nation emergency, would she need to fly home? For a change of clothes? The Democrats promised a change. A return to sanity. Let Nancy step up to the plate like she wants everyone else to. The best way to begin trimming a bloated federal budget is to set the example. Rulers rule from the top baby, set the stage and let your shining goodness roll downhill. Unless, of course, it was all just a show, and none of the Dems really meant to follow through with their supposed platform to begin with. If that's the case, there shouldn't be any howling from anybody -on either side. 2 cents worth.

What the Heck!!

There are dozens of capable aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_V
for example. Designated C-37A in U.S. Air Force service, the Gulfstream V fulfills worldwide special air missions for high-ranking government and Defense Department officials and could easily do the job & caries 14 or more passengers.

Can’t someone in the government just ask what is the safest most economical way to solve the problem and find a solution.

Oh I did say "government" didn’t I?

If the plane weren't bad enough, check out the awesome 15-mile-per-gallon SUV Pelosi tools around Washington in. Remember liberal sheeple, it's do as I SAY, not as I do.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/lalapelosi_you_are_what_you_dr.php

(Especially) for Terry

And just how many trips did bush/cheney make using Air Force One/Two for fundraisers for the republican party (that ALL of us taxpayers had to foot the bill for, regardless of party affiliation)?

And what about all those plane trips to rush republicans back to DC for very important votes like when bush had to return for the Terri Schiavo vote (but not for Katrina) or when Hastert used military aircraft to fly Shimkus, the Foley page scandal figure to Washington. (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/LynnSweet/020807.html)

Jeff C., did mean Millions, not billions. That African trip cost American taxpayers in excess of $50 MILLION. And, yes, more than 200 of Slick Willie's best friends got to tag along on this 2-week journey paid for by the American taxpayer.

What I've noticed hin reading all these pots is the vehemence with which all the left-sided posters attack the right-leaning posts. Regardless of the war, or the plane, it seems like left-leaners are a group of unhappy, miserable people who will attack viciously anyone who does not agree with them. Free speech is great, according to liberals, as long as it agrees with them.

Why does she need to see her family and friends so often during the year anyway? Like most of us who do not make a lot of money, we may see our family or friends twice a year if they live far away. Once at Thanksgiving and then maybe at Christmas. If they live far, we take a commuter jet. She is losing touch with the common people, you know, like most entertainers already have. The world will not come to an end if she cannot see her family on a frequent basis. Did she really think she would not get flak from this? Come on, get real Nancy.

U are the speaker of the house. Move to Washington D.C.!!! This is ridiculous!!

Hey Jeff Hastert tooled around in the same type of SUV why for protection

Would someone from the right please explain why you feel the Vice President's duties entitle him to a nicer plane that the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

John D:

I'm your age (big Gary Hart supporter in college).
You weren't too old when GWB started this war.

Re Kosovo -- the difference is I did not blindly advocate that action just because Clinton got involved in it (it was a NATO action, BTW, not an unilateral US action), whereas you'd have supported any war that Bush would have started anywhere, for any reason. And still will.

Too bad about your back. Why is it that you wingers always have medical conditions when your country needs you? (e.g., Rush)

I think that Pelosi definetely needs a large plane to get her back to her district. She does not need any extra extravagent things. The plane should get her, her family, and her staff back to California safe and comfortable. I doubt that she is asking for gold plated toilets, but she does need a large and safe air craft.

Christopher - you apparently have forgotten the history lessons from the beginning of this century. The answer as to why the speaker needs a military plane is -- 9/11 -- the most preferred answer for just about every question asked of this administration.

BTW, at least ABC has done a decent job reporting the truth behind this right-wing attempt of creating a scandal where none exists:

"Since 9/11, the speaker of the House — second in line behind the vice president to succeed the president — has received what the Air Force refers to as "shuttle service," the use of military planes to travel for security reasons."

--snip--
Reardon recalls that "shuttle service" began when as a result of 9/11 all commercial airports were closed. "It was a time of great uncertainty, so right after 9/11, Speaker Hastert requested from the Department of Defense airlift support because of airport closures and his position" in presidential succession.

***
Oh, and BTW, also note this from the ABC article:
There are four types of planes available at the 89th Airlift wing, at nearby Andrews Air Force Base — the C-20 Hastert once used, C-21s which are even smaller than the C-20 and thus not able to fly nonstop to San Francisco, and the fabled C-32.

There is also the C-37A — a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.

tyoical Democratic response - I can do something wrong because you did it first.

i guess when the Democrats complained about government waste and overspending they weren't looking in the mirror.

Take the Greyhound.

A basic U.S. Civics lesson for all those posting "She should move to Washington D.C."

The Speaker of the House of Representatives remains the elected Congressional Representative of their District. As a result they are required to maintain a residence in their home state, as all other Representatives do.

Like all other Representatives the in order to properly represent the views of their Congressional District, they must return to the District with some regularity. Most Representatives return to their district multiple times each month.

I know this'll be difficult for you to comprehend, Dale, but the difference is Hastert isn't going around preaching to the average American that he or she shouldn't drive an SUV because it's environmentally unfriendly and wasteful, and Hastert does not generally spread the gospel of "Earth in the Balance." Pelosi, like Al Gore, does. I, personally, have no problem with the Chevy Tahoe. It's probably a boon to the Speaker whenever it snows in Washington. All we're saying is if Pelosi's going to talk the talk she should walk the walk and drive some sort of Hybrid (maybe a Toyota Pious). Or maybe a bio-fueled bus, like Willie Nelson. Habitually on the campaign Pelosi tells the average American how wasteful he or she is and how she supports policies that help the environment. Say what you want about Denny Hastert and Willie Nelson, they're not hypocrites. The former isn't talking the talk and the latter is certainly walking the walk. Pelosi, one the other hand, is talking out of the left side of her mouth and acting out of the right.

Most of the time I don't even bother with the screaming at each other that goes on in this sort of forum, but something caught my eye this time... Bob GH says only 12 billion spent on the war is OK, 'cause the left has spent more on loony ideas.

Bob, you need to read the news a bit closer. This administration took 12 billion dollars in CASH, shrink wrapped it and put it on a plane to Iraq, where amazingly, it seems to have just....disappeared! Never mind right or left....does that make sense to anybody? This is bad management, (and I suspect war profiteering with a hell bent for business adminIstration giving it a wink and a nod) on a scale we've never EVER seen before! Does this sound like conservative thinking? This sounds like blind, raging greed my friends. There's no politics here...!

May I suggest we rid the house of rats before we discuss whether to paint it red or blue?

I think the third in line for the presidency might be entitled to a plane that can fly non-stop to her home district. I also expect the people never-going-to-be in line for the presidency, or in line for anything other than a Wikipedia entry might jump all over this story.

I'm sorry this blog is wasting time on it though.

A big plane, for a big ego!

All this fuss & feathers about Nancy P. sounds a lot like the "media uproar" raised when Nancy R. suggested that the White House needed a new [complete] set of chinaware for its official dinners. Nancy P. should toss a buck of water on the cackling ala mode of Nancy R's memorable rendition of "Second-hand Rose" smashing a dinner plate in front of the National Press Corps[?] dinner. It gave Ronnie and others a great laugh....

"Le Petite Air Force III" as a nice ring to it....

"I think we'd love to see this Hummer limo. And what do you say about Dennis Hastert being picked up in a hybrid vehicle after lecturing the "sheeple" at an energy news conference, then swapped cars after a couple of blocks and was whisked away in a Suburban driven by a member of his entourage?"

I say nothing. I wasn't talking about Hastert. I don't believe I ever mentioned his name. My point was simply for a liberal, one out of San Francisco at that, I found it odd that flying in such an airplane would even be an option for her. One would expect a Republican to think nothing of it, but not some one like her. She's a civil servant, not a celebrity.

I had a boss (school principal) that used to fair doesn't mean equal. And I think it is more than fair to request a plane that does not need to make any stops to get from your office (DC) to home (CA, IL, NY, GA wherever).

So, is there another type of aircraft that could make that trip other than the one she requested? Does the one she requested need to have so many bells and whistles? Fair is fair... and it sort of is a silly story.

Just like Al Bore. Claiming we should all cut back, then he flies coast to coast for several days plugging for Dem cronies.

Posted by: Terry | Feb 8, 2007 12:57:50 PM

Al Gore flies commmercial airliners. Whether or not he's on the flights, they are going from coast to coast every day.

What is the cost of refueling in Kansas or wherever it is? It might save the tax payers money if she gets a plane that can make the trip without refueling. I believe she does not care about the inside of the plane. She most likely wants to get home ASAP.

Who cares? I mean, really? Enough of the personal attacks on the former speaker and current speaker. I am more to the right than left and I see no issue with her having a plane that can make it from DC to SF non-stop. Heck, I don't make stops either when I fly.

I did hear Todd Stroger is now requesting a military plane as well, as long as his cousin is the pilot.

What everyone is forgetting (or never knew) is that whatever plane and crew are used MUST fly a minimum number of hours per month to stay certified. They may as well take somebody somewhere. Doesn't cost a dime extra.

It was pointed out that military transport is needed due to the 9/11 type threat. Last time I checked, there weren't too many announcements posted anywhere that showed what politician was flying where on what jet or airline. Kind of a risky shot-in-the-dark for a would-be terrorist, eh? Besides, let's see those idiots try to pull that kind of stunt again.

However to concede the fact, there are smaller non-stop capable military transports available then a 757, along with regularly scheduled military hops cross-country out of Andrews or wherever, charter aircraft, or even the frickin' train. Congress never moves very fast on anything anyway, why couldn't she take a few days, rather then using the power trip of snapping her fingers. She might meet some REAL Americans out on the rails. Oh yes, and what I previously said- why is she showing a need to travel with no notice anyway?
The job is in Washington. If she wants to spend time at home, other than during an official recess, she should have turned down to job.

No one is willing to tackle the main problem- why do all these people seem to feel they have the need- no the right- to travel in the style of kings anywhere and anytime they want to at YOUR and MY expense?

It has nothing to do with maintaining the 'dignity' of the office, look at how the majority of them behave. They have no business invoking THAT phrase. Burst the balloon on these people and bring it all back to earth.

Again, I say, come on Nancy -put up or shut up. 4 cents worth.

Does anyone have any statistics on what it would cost to fly from DC to Cali with no fuel stops vs. what it would cost to fly from DC to Cali with fuel stops?

Does stopping require more security personnel to ensure that the gas isn't tampered with, or its container or that someone doesn't try to sneak on, or sneak something onto the plane?

And by the way, if your are a member of the government, your life is lived on the taxpayer dime. Think what would happen to that life if the American public collectively stopped paying taxes.

Typical Democratic spending habits resurface early after they win back Congress, huh? Are you telling me there is no smaller coast-to-coast plane that costs less? Take the difference and give it to the homeless in her district, if you want a productive use of funds.

For gosh sakes, all, calm down.

Did anyone actually READ the article? (The article is internally inconsistent and the title and caption on the illustration are misleading.) If not, do it now, then read the later article up on the Tribune website by the AP's Jim Kuhnhenn. That article reports official statements from the White House (the White House!) that the premise of the original story--that the Speaker is engaged in some sort of vanity act--was simply wrong. Wouldn't be the first "incorrect" story from the Washington Times et al. Remember the one about Senator Obama and the madrassa?

Military planes should be used only to transport soldiers (to an illegal & immoral war) & 364 tons of money on forklift pallets...

The Prime Minister of Great Britain flies British Airways, but this arrogant !@#$% from California needs her own plane? For what, to fly her family on vacations? And why is it that commercial airline service is safe enough for the rest of us under the auspices of the TSA but doesn't provide enough safety for the Speaker of the House, regardless of political party? The President - sure, (s)he needs a plane because of the need to be able to communicate to the world 24/7. But the Speaker? Come on.

Listen to all of this crying from the Wingnut Brigade.

I want to know how much was spent for travel during the last election so that President Rambo and Deadeye Cheney could fly all over America and lie to everyone about Iraq?

The Republic Party didn't pay for it like some clowns on here are suggesting,THE TAX PAYERS FOOTED THE BILL.

I think Speaker Nancy should just go ahead and use Fat Hasterts plane,she can remove the salad bar area that Denny used to "refuel" himself and probably have enough room for a big screen TV and a bed.

This whole deal was leaked by the W. Whitehouse,it's just like the Swiftboat thing.
Leak it,let it fester,then claim that you don't agree with it.

It's time to Impeach the drooling fool in the Whitehouse.
Cheney would then resign...health reasons...

a blinkin, why am I not surprised you were a Gary Hart supporter in college? Explains a lot about ya!

Even at 40 when the Iraq war started, I highly doubt the military would be interested in me. And healthwise, I have medical records dating back to my childhood with spinal problems and have been under medical care and therapy for more than 20 years now.

Also, while Kosovo was a NATO action, 95 percent of the military use was U.S. That war, more than any other, really was a European matter that should have been handled by Europe, not the U.S. But, in the end, the right thing was done just like the right thing was done in regard to Iraq. Also Kosovo and Bosnia had no national security impact on the U.S. in any way, shape or form. Iraq did and does.

The old Republican "change the subject" strategy again. Don't want to let the Senate vote that it agrees with 2/3 of the American people that the Iraq escalation is a bad idea? Let's talk about the Speakers commute! After that, maybe flag burning.

If the D.O.D. really wants to protect the Speaker,make her travel in an M1-Abrams Tank.It has a top speed of 41.5 m.p.h. To go from D.C. to San Francisco would take(with-out re-fueling stops figured in) 72.25 days.
Think of how secure America would be during her commuting times!
Paulo

What a terrible piece of journalism...

What is the current state of the aircraft, what type of improvements is she asking for, and how much is it supposed to cost?

Either the tribune is engaging in Rovian politics on behalf of the Republican party or the Bush administration, or the tribune is engaging in a really low standard of journalism. Totally unprofessional for a front page headline story.

Whoever decided to run this should be held accountable.

Look!

Up in the sky!

It's a bird!

No, it's a plane!

It's Nancy Pelosi! We're safe! We're safe! Thank goodness we're safe!

Hey, it worked for fat boy. I say give her a break. In fact, in the interest of national security, give everyone a tax break. Cookies for everyone.

[quote]
for BC

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90
Posted by: jake | Feb 8, 2007 10:46:58 AM
[/quote]

jake:

Nice link to the stats on a specific plane.

HOWEVER...

NOWHERE have I seen ANYTHING IN PRINT that confirms that Pelosi asked for a plane that has a "stateroom", "entertainment center", or "bedroom", as mentioned by an earlier poster, and nothing confirming that she asked for that specific plane.

BC

JR, that was hilarious!

Seriously though, I think the military should get a cargo plane formerly used for the transportation of livestock, throw in a couple of folding chairs and VIOLA... you're plane is ready for you Madam Speaker. Actually, that should be pennance for any politician on either side of the isle if they get out of hand with requests.

I may be a republican, but frankly, I understand this request. She is #3. Maybe some of the features are excessive, but she needs a plane large enough to... I hate to say this... rule the country from... should that need arise in a state of emergency if air force 1 and 2 are lost. The cynical point out that she'll fly family and friends, but what about staff? As speaker, she's got TONS of staff working under her that might need to make the trip with her. It's expensive, but it is justified. I'm surprised Hastert only used a 12 seater. He must have had two full sets of office staff, one for each office.

Hey Jeff in a way your right. But here is the Kicker Secret Service will only let the Speaker no matter which Party they are from be in a SUV

[quote]
Also, BC, you must be hard of reading. Here's an LA Times story that'll set you straight:

jumbo-size military jet with a "distinguished visitor compartment with sleep accommodations." (read bedroom)

"The military passenger plane that can make the flight in any weather and also provide the communications necessary to stay in contact with the White House is the bigger and costlier C-40 — described by the Air Force as an "office in the sky" with beds, two galleys and business-class seating."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi8feb08,0,5618946.story?coll=la-home-headlines

After all, we wouldn't want her highness to have to stop to refuel in flyover land now would we?
[/quote]

Jeff:

Neither this Swamp story nor the LA Times story in your link provide any evidence that Pelosi REQUESTED a plane that specifically has these accomodations. That is the point I'm making. To fly cross country nonstop, and that's ALL SHE HAS ASKED FOR, there are smaller planes that can do so; one has been linked to up above.

BC

Take the time and find out all of the facts first. Pelosi was fine with flying commercial all the way back home. The White House did not like the idea of the person who is 2nd in line (behind, god forbid if he ever became president Dick Cheney) for the presidency to fly commercial. They(meaning the White House--Republicans) want her to fly on military aircraft. She is really only receptive to the idea if she can fly non-stop. Like commercial aircraft does. She didn't ask for any of the outrageous demands that I've read in some of these other postings. Hastert flew non-stop all the way back to Illinois. I don't think that's too demanding of a request.

Let's get the facts straight and move on from this latest attempt to swiftboat someone.

Pelosi didn't even ask for an airplane or federal transportation. She has been flying non-stop commercial airlines all along & is more than willing to do so.

The House sergeant-at-arms office said she needed to use military transport. The Air Force was consulted and recommended that they provide a plane that has the ability to travel from coast-to-coast without any stops, for security reasons.

It's about distance, not about a damn plane.

OK, can we discuss something really important, like the House debate & vote on the war in Iraq next week ?

the lady is willing to fly commercial so she can get home quicker and perhaps have more time with her family. What's the problem?

any sensible right-winger who so profusely sputters family values should understand her desire to get home to the family sooner than later. Especially when she's more then perfectly willing to abandon a practice begun by Hastert and the Republicans.

Any spin on this is shameful. Unless of course you want to pin blame on the people who began this practice (the GOP)

Also Kosovo and Bosnia had no national security impact on the U.S. in any way, shape or form. Iraq did and does.

Posted by: John D | Feb 8, 2007 2:12:02 PM

John D,
Were you afraid Iraq was going to send remote controlled balsa wood planes carrying WMD that did not exist across the Atlantic? A 3rd world country under 11 years of strict sanctions w/ a badly degraded 5th rate army made you feel threatened?

She wants that big of a plane so SHE can decide who goes on it and who doesn't. It's all about power. (As someone mentioned that the stories haven't said that she specifically asked for a big plane, you are wrong. She asked for a plane with certain specs, especially range, and there are only a few planes that can accommodate her queenly demands.)

You watch, if she doesn't get it now, she'll slip in the money in some appropriations bill.

She is beyond a typical Limousine Liberal as this is really about her absolute power. She will find a way to get her big plane. The military will hate her condescending attitude, but the press will never report it as it won’t fit their template of her (“mother and grandmother who is tough”.) You can see a story about her heating up soup on the plane for the weary press crew.

Like many things “liberal”, things are the opposite of what they and the media portend them to be. Libs like to talk about being “of the people”, but they really have contempt for the people as they use the “little people” for their own power games. She feels a small plane and especially “commercial” is “beneath her.” I don’t have a problem with a small jet like CEO’s use, but a 757 with all of the crew and maintenance requirements is ridiculous. As I said, however, you watch, she’ll find a way.

What a joke.

let the idiot fly coach like the rest of us or have her move to the East coast.

If you would learn to investegate your reports further, like they did in this abcnews.com article, you would see that there is a model of plane in between the smaller c-20 and 757 that she'll probably end up using.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2857672&page=4

I even linked to the last page of hte article for you, just read the last section, the last 4 paragraphs. It's called a C-37A.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=91

Man this is a riot.

First, DC to California could be done in the following:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87

Second, the aircraft is for Pelosi and her security contingent. (If she has any.)

This will give her a non stop trip out with some fuel to spare.

But since she has to fly via an available aircraft, its either the C-32 or the C-20.

She could also fly the C-37A but that appears to be the workhorse for other things.

I do agree that she should be in a military plane for security reasons. However, lets get real.
The C-21 may not have the range....

She is so hot for a 66 year old woman, who cares. I'd fly with her...

Since Sept 11,2001 the military has recommended that the Speaker of the House, second in line to the Presidency, fly military aircraft rather than commercial for security reasons.Dennis Hastert flew in a smaller plan because the distance from DC to Illinois is shorter than to California.That the GOP is making this an issue is no surprise as they are desperate to distract the public from their efforts to block serious debate about the Iraq war. Brave American military personal are dying in greater numbers than ever and this is the Republican's main focus.

That darn liberal media is taking advantage of the "lady" of the house. What a crime ...
How about talking about the cat next door that fell out of a tree thirty feet and landed on its feet.. or the dog that was rescued from a sewer.
Or the bigger storys: the loss of millions of dollars in Iraq, or the elimination of medicare through the new federal budget cuts. Or the
numbers of homes lost through sheriffs sale.
Or Dick Cheneys interest in the Libby trial and in its last throes..

Since Sept 11,2001 the military has recommended that the Speaker of the House, second in line to the Presidency, fly military aircraft rather than commercial for security reasons.Dennis Hastert flew in a smaller plan because the distance from DC to Illinois is shorter than to California.That the GOP is making this an issue is no surprise as they are desperate to distract the public from their efforts to block serious debate about the Iraq war. Brave American military personal are dying in greater numbers than ever and this is the Republican's main focus.

All those critical of Pelosi and her plane (which she didn't request, the security is asking) are just being envious. If you want to be at her level, try doing what it takes to be a speaker.

Now let her have her plane, whatever size, as long as it goes coast-to-coast in one leg.

Paolo and John D. What do you have to say about Dear Leader's press secretary saying that "it's a silly story," that's "unfair to the speaker."? How does that rub with your efforts to make a big deal out of nothing?
What do you have to say about the fact that the White House says that neither they nor Pelosi has been involved with the requests, but rather the House Sargeant and the Pentagon?
Frankly, I'm not sure why this "story" is on the front page of the "Libune" homepage?

Someone more intelligent than I once stated:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I think Grandma Pelosi should use her broomstick to fly back and forth.

TF

Thanks for that, BC, Derek, and Lou. I was about to post essentially the same thing. It would be nice if the media would get all the facts straight on a story like this before flinging acusations around.

The White House called the story silly.

Ten dollars says the White House initiated the story in the first place, all the while realizing that Pelosi wasn't the one who asked for a bigger plane.

This is irresponsible journalism, and a waste of print. She would need to refuel several times and spend time on the ground, which according to the Pentagon is a security risk. This story is why people get sick of politics, it is nothing more than a chance for the right and left to yell at each other. Give her a plane that can reach California for crying out loud!

Why didn't you also write in your article that the taxpayers cost for each flight on this proposed aircraft, suite, state-room, etc., is $300,000?

Much of the “gotcha” mentality of this particular issue has been fueled by the Goebbels of the information age over at Fox News, fed by their cronies in the White House and Congress.

Even during a house debate today (Feb 8, 2007), Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana’s 5th district asked for permission to speak, then said a typical “gotcha” about the request for the Speaker to have military transportation. His remarks were totally out of synch with the ongoing debate. He was probably fed his information from that main stream network Fox News (who in their right frame of mind could ever think that Fox News is a reliable source for information?).

A part of the real issue here is that, like the do-nothing 109th Congress, the 110th Congress will also be do-nothing. Both parties will engage in “gotcha” politics through the November 2008 election, then will further engage in in do-nothingness in the future 111th Congress until the mid-terms in 2010.

It is amazing that this nation has survived this long with the shenanigans taking place in D.C.

Are these people for real? Are they truly representing the interests of the nation as a whole?

If you want change, voters, you had better consider political alternatives to the Demopublicans and the Republicats.

This non-story is put in perspective here:

http://tinyurl.com/ywlghh

I recommend that everyone read it.

-- SCAM

Consider asking for this C-37A plane instead of the C-32. (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=91)

It is a 12 seat passenger plane.
Has a crew of 5 – that’s 11 less than the C-32.
A maximum ceiling of 51,000 feet – 9,000 more than the C-32.
Is capable of flying at a speed of 600 mph – 70 mph faster than the C-32.
Able to travel 6,300 nautical miles – 800 nautical miles further than the C-32.
And emits fewer greenhouse gases and has a lower maintenance cost.
The C-37A uses 54,500 lbs. of fuel to fly 800 miles further than the 92,000 lbs. of fuel required by the C-32.
This translates into the C-37A able to travel more than twice the distance of the C-32 aircraft on a few pounds of fuel than one trip made by the C-32.
This is literally a savings of more than 100% for the tax payers and reduces the total amount of green house gases emitted into the environment.

....and Now NewsMax has confirmed Pelosi wanted her own bedroom on this plane!
What's next...a "jump-zone" for her grandchildren?
Well....they are democrats and they do believe in entitlements!
Paulo

Hey Let her take a bus. she won't be missed. Cliff

Why does Madam Speaker need the big jet when she could fly to and from Frisco on her broom?

Here's the statement from the Sergeant At Arms of the House of Representatives. I won't bother with the comments, but the Tribune, both the writers of this blog and the editors for leaving this post up, should be embarrassed by letting themselves be played by the RNC and FoxNews like this. Colonel McCormack, I suspect, would be proud.
For Immediate Release
February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Let's see -- a C-20 (G-3) can fly 4220 nautical miles non-stop & carry 12 passengers. It's only 2120 NM from DCA to SFO. Seems like the Speaker should be able to make it non-stop. Thus, it's really about using or requesting a bigger aircraft. A C-20 -- or C-21 -- should suffice.

Check it out -- you can see all of the aircraft available plus calculate the NM.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87

http://www.airportcitycodes.com/calcform.aspx

I say , how she gets back and forth to San Fran is her problem , she was elected and took the job in Washington and new that is where she would be working , anyone in the private sector would have to find there own way home , let her take the commercial airlines , like everyone else . I like her but she like to point fingers at goverment waste, so put your money where your mouth is !! she is one, if not thee richest congress electee on the hill !!

Ok so she needs to make it coast to coast non stop?

C-32
Ceiling 45000 ft
range 5500 mi
Speed: 530 mph

C-37A
Ceiling 51000 ft
Range 5500 mi
Speed: 600 mph

If she is worried about getting coast to coast safely, I would go with the C-37A. The cost is less than 1/4 the price of the C-32.

Yes if there is a security issue that requires her to be in the plane for extended amounts of time, fly her and meet up with the bigger plane, but there is no need to spend my money making sure all her friends are comfortable. Her job is not to impress her friends, it is to impress her enemies. The people who dont want her there. She said she would make the members of congress accountable. Change starts with the one in charge.

With the time that she saves by not having to go through airport security she can spend some time at a refueling stop. If she must have the bigger plane make her pay the difference in costs since this is just a convience item for her, not national security to make a stop for fuel.

any sensible right-winger who so profusely sputters family values should understand her desire to get home to the family sooner than later.

Alex

Im a right winger. I believe in those family values.

Political office is civil service. How old is Pelosi? Her family is grown and out of the house aren't they. They have lives of their own. They dont need to see her every weekend. She has a place in DC that we pay for. Expense her husbands trip to DC to visit every weekend on comercial.

Why is politics a career instead of a service and a duty as it began.

I do mean this to all politicians, not just Pelosi.

How long would it take for a smaller plane to make a refueling stop? Also, how many times a week, month, or year would Pelosi need to fly home and back? Anyone know?

yall crazy... get a grip.

I say , how she gets back and forth to San Fran is her problem , she was elected and took the job in Washington and new that is where she would be working , anyone in the private sector would have to find there own way home , let her take the commercial airlines , like everyone else . I like her but she like to point fingers at goverment waste, so put your money where your mouth is !! she is one, if not thee richest congress electee on the hill !!

Posted by: Nick | Feb 8, 2007 4:36:04 PM

Nick, you need to go back to school and retake those civics lessons you slept thru. All members of congress have to maintain residences in the district they got elected from.

Stop being envious, get your facts straight, and then, and only then, exercise your voting rights. If you can't, please stay home on election days.

Who opened the pantry door and let all the fruitcakes out? They don't even know the whole story and yet the parroting followers of Rush Limpbag can't wait to post their hate. They talk about global warming and how dare Pelosi do this and they don't give a rats' butt about the enviroment. It's there to abuse as their fat arses see fit. It's probably because they haven't had much to crow about lately. When the whole truth comes out they'll crawl back into their sad little worlds and wait for their pudgy
leader the limper to set them on some new and wasteful rants. I don't see this many come out to
cheer on this blunder of a war. The war they felt so rightious and yet mismanged so bad that there is no way out. I'll tell ya what...fix the huge mess you have made out of Iraq, and I'll fly Pelosi myself to and from.

The White House called the story silly.

Ten dollars says the White House initiated the story in the first place, all the while realizing that Pelosi wasn't the one who asked for a bigger plane.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | Feb 8, 2007 3:48:44 PM

Such a ptifully low wager on what I would characterize as a sure thing.
I'd lay down a hundred greenbacks right behind your
ten.

Hey, give her the big plane. Just think of how many small county airports it won't be able to land at and how many campaign stops in small-town America that she won't bother to make.

It may not be such a bad thing after all.

Amazing how many delusional, divisive people there are who can't accept the facts (even when confirmed by the administration) and, for that matter, the results of a democratic process. Instead, you choose to make issues out of non-issues.

I ask those of you who have endless support for this administration: what would you have to say about this issue if the Speaker of the House was from the Republic Party?

I truly grieve for this country.

Hey, give her the big plane. Just think of how many small county airports it won't be able to land at and how many campaign stops in small-town America that she won't bother to make.

It may not be such a bad thing after all.
Posted by: John Sisson | Feb 8, 2007 5:13:12 PM

Can we find an aircraft much larger than Air Force One for the President, too?

This thread really is rich, bringing out the silliest of the silliest wingers.

John Sisson: I'm pretty sure Nancy's SF House Seat will be hers for a while, so she wouldn't much benefit from "campaign stops in small-town America." Her time would better spent doing crystal meth with pedophile cross-dressers in SF, right?

Mark H:

It's not credible to throw out non-obvious facts without support. Do you happen to have a cite for your assertion that each flight would cost $300k?

You likely don't, but let's plunge ahead for a moment. Do you happen to know how much of that money the government would be spending even if the plane were idle, i.e., the crew salaries and expenses that get spent regardless of where the plane happens to be?

And even if it were 300k per flight (which seems high), and if NP flew twice a week for a year (that's 52 x 2 = 104 for you Republicans who lack sufficient bodily digits to count that high), how many hours of the Iraq war would it take to spend the same money?

Bill R. --

Don't they just make you laugh? I love how they scurry out from behind the woodwork to fling their uninformed screed whenever Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh puts them on the scent. They are really embarrasing themselves this time.

This "story" was leaked by someone in the Pentagon to the Washington Times, that fine flagship news organization of the Rev Sun Myung Moon, edited by that pontificating porker, Tony Blankley. They wouldn't be biased now, would they.

Do you think any of them will read what the Sargeant-at-Arms said? No, I don't think so either.

What a silly waste of time this topic is. I understand that Dan Burton and friends desperately want to distract people from important issues like Iraq, but this is ridiculous.

I did like the suggestion that the Air Force fly her in an F-15, though. With a ride like that, she could just about commute from California every day and she'd save us money by combining her commute with necessary pilot training.

"Now NewsMax has confirmed..."

That is what we call a self-contradicting statement.

-- SCAM

Who are you people who use the argument that "Pelosi flying in a 757 costs less than the Iraq War, so it should be ok."

Have any of you ever had a course in logic or critical thinking. What type of argument is that (and it's not really even an argument). That's called a non sequiter.

Pelosi is a hypocrite. Dick Cheney is a hypocrite. Washington is full of hypocrites. But none of those hypocrites need to fly in a 757 at taxpayer expense. Frankly, I don't even believe that the President and Vice President should fly in a 747 (with the possible exception of overseas trips).

OMG,what will Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi want
to rip us poor old US taxpayers off,for next?..
Say like a full size copy of the White House in
California for her to live in,her own Marine One
helicopter,armored limos,hundreds of Secret
Service Agents for bodyguards,and a brand new
Speaker Nancy Pelosi House Office Building just
for openers?
It is frightening to think this California looney
toons idiot Nancy Pelosi is actual Second in the
Line of Presidential Succession just like having
Vice President Dick Cheney First In Line!
Oh well this kind of arrogance,and greed by
Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi means I will not
be voting for any Democrats in 2008 and I'm an
Independent voter myself,but I will not vote
for candidates or political parties,who waste
our taxpayer dollars on this nonsense like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Private USAF Airline To Jet
Set Around On,At Our Expense! The Democrats had
better wake up and fire Nancy Peolsi,Steny Hoyer
and Harry Reid or learn how to file unemployment
applications in 2008! This nonsense and waste
makes me very very mad at the Democrats!

Holy cow, a second wingnut feeding frenzy in as many weeks! Perpetrated, once again, by unnamed sources at the Moonie times. They sure know how to lead you guys around by the nose don't they?

Libby giving up Darth Cheney to save his own butt? Oh look over there! Obama attended a madrassa!

...And in other troubling reality based events:

Senate Republicans chicken out and vote against their own toothless "bipartisan" measure expressing mild displeasure with the Deciders escallation after a really mean look from him.

Iraqi insurgents get their hands on anti aircraft missiles and take down five choppers.

But hey lookie here! Nancy Pelosi demands her own private jet even though she actually didn't!

Maybe some of you clowns will notice something when your son or daughter gets drafted to fight in WWIII after the Decider bombs Iran into oblivion.

Or maybe you'll be too busy watching FOX News on the TeeVee for the next Moonie update.

Last month, when a right-wing publication smeared Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), CNN helped debunk the report and called out media outlets that ran with the false story. Anderson Cooper told viewers: "That's the difference between talking about news and reporting it. You send a reporter, check the facts, and you decide at home."

Now, the Washington Times (owned by the same entity that published the Obama smear) has launched a series of attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), claiming that Pelosi is "demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters."

As with the Obama smear, the Times story is based entirely on quotes from unnamed sources.

from Crooks and Liars

Paulo, try reading the story before you go on your usual mindless rant.

"This is not my request.,'' Pelosi said today. "This is the sergeant at arms'' of the House requesting a bigger plane for her, she said, maintaining that she'd prefer to travel without any security. "I don't have to go in that plane. I can go commercial.''

Grow up Paula & yer new friend Andy. If you must post anti Speaker comments at lest make them funny like Jay Ewoldt did. That one was good!!!

Very simple solution to the problem:
Recall her and make the Speaker someone hat lives closer to DC.

I really detest these politicians that think they are better than those they represent and vote for them, all of them, including Chicago's aldermen.

Figbash....They don't read...they follow. They listen to their golden idle Rush Limpbag and they follow like good little aryans. They have very little to gloat about since their leaders have fouled the war. When the truth comes out, they will return to their sad little worlds. Until oxycontin learder rears his ugly head and sends them on another mission in the name of insanity. Hypocrits all! They could care less about anything they say. Waste of tax payers money? As billions go to a blunder of epic proportion and lives, they fake genuine concern.
They call themselves religious as they follow nothing that Jesus taught them. They drive their suv's with no concern and feed their fat faces till they bloat, yelling I care...I care...about all the people. Hypocrits all!!!!!

I also find it funny how the right has used fear to have everyone live like it was Sept. 12th until it becomes useful to their purpose. Then it's ....
Sept. 10th again. What hypocrits!!!!

There is a thread about the downing of American choppers, do one of you hypocrits have anything to say about the loss of American lives? Not one of you. Oh but a democrat, in your eyes, spend to much and out you pop like rats from a burning ship. Where is your concern for American lives?
Care to comment on that you cowards? Your fake concern makes me puke!

Here's an idea.. She could publish the date/time of the flights and give returning servicemen a free ride to/from each coast when she does fly. I bet that will give her a true insight to the job our men/women are doing over there.

Doesn't that make sense??

John Krause...I got a better idea. Have her tell YOU the date and times and you fly her back because you are obviously a dingbat!

Its very simple: All politicians are scumbags. They do not relate to the everyday salt of the earth tax payer. Pelosi needs to wake up, get the job done and stop complaining. I do find it ironic that a liberal from San Francisco soon forgets about her values once she makes it big. What a hypocrite. She should lead by example not by waste.

This country is gonna spend 2 to 3 TRILLION dollars in the next FY and you're debating whether or not to pony up for a ride on a big plane for the No.2 person in line for the presidency??

Look at the big picture and get back to work.

Bill R...you're paranoid. Get over it.

"She has a place in DC that we pay for. "

While we do pay her salary, its hardly fair to suggest that we are directly paying for it. We pay for the President's house, but I am unaware of any taxpayer-sponsored Speaker of the House party chateau.

As for anyone continuing to rip Pelosi for this non-issue: are you simply ignoring the FACT that she did not in fact request anything lavish and that the Sergeant-in-Arms did not want her to fly commercial, as she has in the past?

There is a thread about the downing of American choppers, do one of you hypocrits have anything to say about the loss of American lives? Not one of you. Oh but a democrat, in your eyes, spend to much and out you pop like rats from a burning ship. Where is your concern for American lives?
Care to comment on that you cowards? Your fake concern makes me puke!
Posted by: bill r. | Feb 8, 2007 8:47:13 PM

Nope. Not one of them will ever give a crap unless it was one of their own kids being shot down. And try to get them to think about all the needless Iraqi deaths that they're responsible for in the eyes of the rest of the world. I hear you.

I think Speaker Nancy should get the same treatment as Shrub did.

Fly her around in a Navy Jet,and let her land on aircraft carrier's in California with a band playing and a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner greeting her upon her landings.

Nancy is the hottest 66 yr old in America.

If the plane doesn't fit....

With all the other more important things going on in the world.. it's no wonder nothing seems to get done in Washington since they spend their time fighting over petty things. It's a plane, she needs to be mobile to get back and forth to her home, it's not that big of a deal. Give her a plane and move on to something else already.

WOW! A 757 US Air Force Jetliner Exclusively at the beck and call of Democrat Ding A Ling Goofy
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,and who must be the New
Democrat Party Queen Of The Culture Of Corruption
in Our Own US Congress! So much for Congressional
Reform with greedy selfish arrogant self seeking
loser Democrat Leaders like Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi,who if she were doing her job,would
have no free time for her to go jet set all over
the place and at taxpayers expense with her
massive rock star entourage in tow!
If Nancy Pelosi is an example of the Best and
the Brightest The Democrats Can Offer,Then We
Are In Deep Trouble,Since Its Clear Pelosi
Is As Power Mad & Arrogant As Republican President
George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheny! So
Please Tell Me Can We Impeach The Speaker Too?

If this travesty of a non-issue is the best Right-Wingers can come up with, it is abundantly clear why they lost in 2006. Where were all of you when Dennis Hastert was using the same services when he was speaker? Where is the outrage at the 12 billion dollars sent on a plane into Iraq without a freakin audit? That remains a bigger waste of tax-payer dollar than this BS ever could be. The House Seargent-at-Arms reccomended Pelosi continue the practice that Hastert started for security reasons. Even the Press Secretary of your glorious leader, President Bush, said it's a non-issue. And yet all I read on the Swamp is whine whine whine.

Please. This is why the Republicans lost: they were busy blowing non-issues way out of proportion (gay marriage, flag-burning) while ignoring the real problems in society.

John Krause that was the most guttless comment I've ever read on here. Your D-Bag leader and his should be convist VP don't have the gut's to look our guys in the face. Blame them you worthless piece of CENSORED, but ya know what the word is. Our brave men & women deserve real leaders not those jerks that put either in the grave or in the hospital because the worst foreign policy blunder EVER!!! Get bent.

There are MANY business jets that fly New York to London which is 3451 miles. New York to San Francisco is 2586 miles. What is the reasoning for a BIGGER plane???

Sorry about the spelling errors. I misspelled CONVICT, as in should be impeached and imprisoned!!! p.s. now that would be honoring the troops. You Neo-con guys will never get it will ya. Military might is only to be used by those who are capable of making the correct decisions. Those fools who are currently dismantling the constitution, are the most reprehensible people ever to hold the public trust which they have abused beyond any thinking persons worst nightmare.

I live in the Bay Area and I agree with Speaker Pelosi. If the Republican Administration provided a military plane for Denny Heastart, it is only fair they do the same for the new speaker. Perhaps, the Prez and Dart Vader should also give up the military planes and fly commercial. It would be a sincere sign of how the Administration is cutting costs and ending America's addiction to oil! Left on Madame Speaker! Coast to coast hops are better on a big plane. In fact, what about moving the Capitol to a more central location in Nebraska?

Thanks for the informing of the correct amount that we have spent in Iraq.

It's still a drop in the bucket compared to all the money spent on B.S social programs.

Posted by: Bob GH | Feb 8, 2007 12:54:41 PM

Really Bob? The Left has spent almost $400 Billion on social programs? Wow...that number seems really high, almost high enough that there would be no poverty, unemployment, health care gap, etc. Please link us to some information about where all that money has been spent.

But if you don't actually have that information, please stop posting uneducated statements like that. The no-bid contracts that the Bush administration has hung their hats on have a far worse (and more expensive) effect on the tax paying public than social aid...unless you got $5 Million to do work in New Orleans that you never even attempted. In that case, you probably think they are great.

Bill R...you're paranoid. Get over it.

Posted by: Dave | Feb 8, 2007 9:20:14 PM

Not paranoid..just pissed! Can see the republican
demon machine reving up just like years ago when Clinton was in the Whouse. Can you say wedge issues all over again? Your party has gotten us into a huge blunder in Iraq and you want to talk
about this? You fake outrage over this but where is the outrage over the huge mistakes that have been made in something a little more important.

All this is is to take minds off the 12B that was squadered, plus all the other millions going into the upper pockets. I don't think she needs a bigger plane, but I also don't think Air Force One should fly from state to state to state for campaigning.........no matter who is running. We are right back to the Gotcha Game & people are sick of it. Get on with some real issues like getting our men and women home and in one piece.

Well, well, well, looks like the military decided what several posters have already suggested here. That Pelosi should get a plane just like Denny Hastert had. 12 seats, nothing luxurious. Glad we solved that.

What I've noticed hin reading all these pots is the vehemence with which all the left-sided posters attack the right-leaning posts. Regardless of the war, or the plane, it seems like left-leaners are a group of unhappy, miserable people who will attack viciously anyone who does not agree with them. Free speech is great, according to liberals, as long as it agrees with them.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 8, 2007 1:10:10 PM

Mike,

Are you some sort of idiot? I'm sorry, I usually try to keep a level head on this forum and try to maintain some semblence of decorum, but this entire worthless topic infuriates me to no end. Let me caps it for you: FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T MEAN FREEDOM FROM CRITISISM. My God! If you're going to dish it out, you'd better be prepared to freakin take it. I thought conservatives were supposed to be the tough guys of politics, but sometimes they're even bigger whiners than they claim liberals to be. If you're going to spew this kind of BS, then someone is going to call you on it. If you can't take that, then you have no business expressing an opinion. That, my friend, is freedom of speech. God bless America.

I never said this topic was about something important Neil, I just jumped in because it certainly wasn't going to die. I agree with you that this is stupid. Tony Snow agrees with you, too.

Is this thread dead now? Did everyone get the whole story? Oh well...back to your dreary lives,
nothing to do but tune into Rush and wait for your next calling. Maybe next time it might be something important.

Wow. This goof-ball story generated over 200 comments? There are so many more important issues to deal with. If this is the kind of thing people obsess over than I can see why our government is such a mess.

bill r. and others...sorry I didn't respond to our discussion a few days ago. I got too busy. I updated my post if you care to go back to the archives.

I think "You know who", should have to take her plane, "SELFISH ONE" to Kurdish Iraq, and greet the incoming Turks.