Fly Pelosi One

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This plane costs $540 million to uphold and maintenance each year without security. That's over $2billion just to Nancy's and all these other important politician's joyrides. This figure is from over a decade ago and before fuel costs more than doubled. This is a rather conservative figure.

It's overboard. There's plenty of other plane choices that would be more practical. One person does not need their own 747.

Maybe Hollywood will chip in and get her one of these:

[Diamond Cross]

Yup.

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by imind

according to the article, he did not do without it.

He had a plane but not one the size of what she is requesting.

[JaJae]

I don't understand how people can complain about the costs of Iraq, bridges to nowhere and all the Republican pork that's been going on, yet defend Pelosi demanding a jumbo jet for herself and her friends.

[Galactic Gigolo]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yup.

When in doubt, make a Hollywood liberal joke.

[Pro Street]

JaJae, the pic posted is AF2, a 757.

a 757 is not a jumbo jet

I get your point, just your terms are off.

[Diamond Cross]

????

No, I was agreeing with the poster that said our government is hopelessy screwed up.

[Pro Street]

GOP bristles at Pelosi plane request

[Stylerod]

Democrats: Give us the plane or we cut Military funding? is that what Murtha just said????

Murtha said House speakers' use of military planes preceded Sept. 11, 2001. He said he had interceded on behalf of former Democratic Speakers Thomas "Tip" O'Neill and Jim Wright on occasion to get them access to military aircraft.

Murtha said he is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking information about the possibility that Pelosi would use large military planes to make her look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them,'' referring to the Pentagon budget.

GOP makes much ado about the size of Pelosi's plane / The House speaker has had the use of a government jet since the Sept. 11 attacks

[motivez]

I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to fly nonstop between Washington and her home district.

I agree with restrictions on who is able to fly with her for obvious reasons, the military should not be a shuttle service for family and friends.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to fly nonstop between Washington and her home district.

Because the plane she gets can't do it. That's all really. No one says she can't have a plane. There is just no justification for her to have a 757 for the sole reason of convenience and an extra hour wait while it refuels.

[tbone]

The smaller commuter type jet Hastert had is simply not capable of making the flight from DC to her home. It doesn't hold enough fuel and FAA regulates the maximum distance it can fly if it were a commerical jet without a mainenance inspection. The smaller planes are rated for a maximum mileage per flight, adding stops to this to refuel is generally not acceptable for commercial flights. Smaller jets also don't fly as fast therefore making her flight several times longer than a commercial direct flight. I agree this should not be for family/friends, but until they make a jet that can make the trip in the same amount of time without having to stop to refuel and be inspected, she should get the larger jet.

[motivez]

An hour is a long time to someone with a busy schedule. If she's going to have to fly back and forth so often, those hours add up. There's no real good reason why she shouldn't be able to do it non stop that I can see. Cost? Eh, Republicans haven't cared about cost for the last 8 years, seems a funny time for them to start now on something so trivial.

I would bet if this was an issue for either of the other last speakers, Republicans would have been fine with it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

An hour is a long time to someone with a busy schedule. If she's going to have to fly back and forth so often, those hours add up. There's no real good reason why she shouldn't be able to do it non stop that I can see. Cost? Eh, Republicans haven't cared about cost for the last 8 years, seems a funny time for them to start now on something so trivial.

I would bet if this was an issue for either of the other last speakers, Republicans would have been fine with it.

They don't have spare 757's laying around. They're saying they don't think they even have one available to give her. This kind of extravagant demand hasn't really been made before.

Even the liberals are calling her on this:
Chris Cuomo: is this about security, or ego? Sounds like a case of 'jet envy.'

This is turning into a ridiculous media scandal. She's already getting called names. Republicans are saying it's more than just efficiency, it's extravagance. And most people agree. This could end up making her and her party look bad. It will be interesting to see if upcoming presidential candidates speak out against Pelosi on this, because I think the popular opinion is that this is overboard.

So far we've had some leading Democrats speak out to defend Pelosi on this, even threatening to blackmail the Republicans... it's getting interesting. All this over a 757 and one egotistical woman. I think all of her flexing and "I'm the most powerful woman in the world" comments are starting to come out with this request. When the request was first made a few days ago it wasn't about refueling it was about space and her wanting more passengers. When the Republicans made a stink about it she changed it to refueling. She's always come off a media whore and self centered. I think this is the last straw in a time when most Americans are sick of the overspending in Washington.

I agree, her being able to make a flight without refueling is nothing strange to ask for. But she's demanding it. And it's surely a luxury and not a right. I think more than anything else it's the way she's coming off on this.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

An hour is a long time to someone with a busy schedule. If she's going to have to fly back and forth so often, those hours add up. There's no real good reason why she shouldn't be able to do it non stop that I can see. Cost? Eh, Republicans haven't cared about cost for the last 8 years, seems a funny time for them to start now on something so trivial.

I would bet if this was an issue for either of the other last speakers, Republicans would have been fine with it.

I'm sure she has access to a phone and laptop while in the plane. She doesn't have to stop working. Hell, she would probably get more done on the plane then in her office if she is like most executives.

The good reason is it's a waste of resources and $.


I would bet if the either of the other last speakers would have requested a 200+ person passenger airliner for personal travel reasons the Democrats would have had a hissy fit (and thrown global warming facts in as well).

[motivez]

It's turning into a media scandal because the right needs something to latch onto in the wake of their massive failures at the polls. It's not going to hurt her or the Democrats because most people see it as a reasonable request for someone who has official business on opposite ends of the country and has to travel between the coasts so often.

I mean, even the White House has been defending her today and saying they feel like she should be able to travel non stop between her home and Washington. When even Tony Snow (and thus Bush) says he thinks Republicans are being unfair to her, you know the whole situation is stupid and being blown out of proportion by the "Hate Nancy First" crowd.

If they don't have a plane then they should come up with another solution that's not an active military aircraft.

Here's a good article: BREITBART.COM - White House Defends Pelosi Plane Request

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

In an interview with Fox News Thursday morning, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House 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 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."

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called Pelosi's desire for a large transport plane "an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won't swallow."

"It's important we see what the specific request was," Putnam said.

But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office _ or the White House.

The guidelines provided by the Pentagon say Pelosi could be accompanied by family members, provided they pay the government coach fare. The plane could not be used for travel to political events. Members of Congress could accompany her on the plane if the travel is cleared by the House ethics committee.

So I mean, she's even willing to fly commercial. The "Hate Nancy First" crowd just needs something to latch onto IMO. This is a non-story, and biter right wingers are even lying about some of the basic facts of the case to make her sound worse than she really is.

Information > Right Wing Rhetoric

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Because the plane she gets can't do it. That's all really. No one says she can't have a plane. There is just no justification for her to have a 757 for the sole reason of convenience and an extra hour wait while it refuels.

safety for #3 in succession seems fine to me.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

safety for #3 in succession seems fine to me.

How much safer is the 757 then the other plane?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

How much safer is the 757 then the other plane?

if it can fly nonstop it's safer.

Considering that she'll take any nonstop plane and would even fly commercial I don't see the issue.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

if it can fly nonstop it's safer.

Considering that she'll take any nonstop plane and would even fly commercial I don't see the issue.

Exactly. It's all a bunch of made up by people who have an agenda to make her look bad.