It's Sexism
Pelosi: It's not fair, they're not being nice to me
By streiff Posted in Archived — Comments (121) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Object of Nancy's Desire
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
Pelosi charged that the Pentagon is treating her request for a military plane differently than that of her predecessor because she is a woman.
The Speaker told gathered reporters, "As a woman, as a woman speaker of the House, I don't want any less of an opportunity than male speakers when they have served here," implying a sexist undertone to the recent criticism.
[UPDATE: Video of Pelosi playing the victim-of-sexism card here courtesy of Newsbusters]
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel then screaming sexism is certainly the last refuge of the hapless.
This fruitcake is not the nation’s mother in law, she’s the nation’s crazy aunt in the attic.
UPDATE (Dan McLaughlin): We all know a male speaker would never get this kind of treatment from the press, right?
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Okay, this is awesome. — Comments (12) »
It's Sexism 121 Comments (0 topical, 121 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
in anutshell, its because Pelosi is second-in-line for the presidency that she is required to take a military plane. I know it is great grist for the mill here, but its not really that unreasonable that she be allowed to use a plane that can go from DC to California without refueling, and in any weather (the latter being the key part).
If not for 9-11 the Speaker would take commercial flights like everyone else.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
its not really that unreasonable that she be allowed to use a plane that can go from DC to California without refueling
Why is it such a problem if her plane stops in Denver to refuel?
because that adds several hours to the trip. it takes 5-7 hours as it is to cross the country. Drop the Denver refuel stop and she stil might be able to meet with people during semi-normal office hours (or not, depending if shes going east or west). She has responsibilities unique to being speaker but she also has the same responsibilities as any other elected official, and it is ok to accomodate her on that, especially given that her security detail post-9-11 is more onerous. shes already stated shed rather just take commercial flights but thats not an option for her.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
She is under no compulsion not to fly commercial.
because that [refuling] adds several hours to the trip
Don't know where you are from, but in this country we can refuel a plane in a lot less than several hours. Try thirty minutes.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Requiring the person who is third in line for presidential succession to take a military aircraft doesn’t seem unreasonable particularly after 9/11 (and FTR it’s asinine to think that she or the majority of Democrats think “nothing has changed” considering how many of them campaign last fall on accusing Republicans of not doing enough to secure the Homeland particularly the ports).
Nor is it unreasonable that she might need a bigger plane to fly cross country without stopping (which isn’t an unreasonable goal rather than delaying a few hours to refuel in the event of an emergency) than previous Speakers who were located quite a bit closer to Washington DC.
But I think a lot of people quit listening as soon as Speaker Pelosi made what appears to many of us to be “playing the sexism card” when she didn’t get her way. Also the gratuitous swipe at former SecDef Rumsfeld and harping on Iraq hurt fueled a lot of the comments you’re seeing.
IMO she may in fact warrant a larger plane with a longer range because she’s located in California but just made it a lot harder for her to get one now that lines have been drawn.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
I thought all this heightened post 9/11 security was nothing more than fear mongering on the part of neocons? I thought according to Pelosi and her ilk, there is no real threat, it’s all exaggerated. So why not lead by example and lead us back to the 9/10 world your crowd insist we live in and save the tax payers a few dollars? Travel like the Speaker did through the first 98 years of flight?
Because Hastert took a military commuter following 9/11 that is now an entitlement of the Speaker with aircraft as big as the Commander in Chief’s from here to the end of the Republic? Is that how this works? Give an inch, take a mile. Give a commuter jet, take a 757.
I thought according to Pelosi and her ilk, there is no real threat, it’s all exaggerated
please furnish a quote by Pelosi where she claims such a thing.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I doubt Pelosi has been dumb enough to have the words come from her mouth, they simply come from the crowd she runs with which is a form of communication in itself. Hence the phrase "Pelosi and her ilk", a.k.a. her constituency. Cite me the quote where she's rebuked one of these claims and defended the Commander in Chief on the matter. Silence is a form of consenence.
But you avoid my larger point for an attempt at a technicality. Many of the defenders of Pelosi on this matter, upgrading Denny's post 9/11 commuter jet to a full blown 757, are the same part of the Democrat base that have been complaining for years the terrorist threat is over exaggerated and a criminal matter.
Just seems to me that this is an opportunity for Pelosi to demilitarize the situation and restore the civilian means of travel that was acceptable during the decades leading up to 9/11, or do you wish to quibble?
than the one suggested.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Tampering with the constitution is a very bad idea. When was the last time 3rd in succession was put in charge anyway?
We all knew that it was going to come down to charges of sexism ultimately, didn't we?
All of Nancy's proposals and initiatives from the time she was elected are about one kind of "-ism" or another. It was inevitable that she'd start throwing the "sexism" card once the temper tantrum started. Elections have consequences.
the race card, the person accused may be unjustly accused, but they generally end up with little defense against the caterwauling of the accusers.
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., used a C-20, the military version of the Gulf Stream 3 business jet.
Nice too!
My brother is a buyer for Gulfstream and yours truly worked there for a stint.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Gulfstream III. Very nice aircraft, but very fuel inefficient. Which is why it cannot consistently make the coast-to-coast flight non-stop.
Is that Nancy just doesn't want to have to land the Gulfstream to refuel. It's too messy, and time consuming, but there aren't any other aircraft in the inventory that can make that trip without refueling, which is why she wants it.
Just for reference, you can look at the range maps of a Gulfstream G550, a much better plane than the one Hastert flew on, which could take Nancy from D.C. all the way to the Horn of Africa at Mach 0.8 and eight passengers without refueling. And it's only about $40 million dollars!! Let's see if she inserts one into the next appropriations bill.
I think it would be fantastic if Nancy Pelosi decided to insert the lease/purchase of a Gulfstream G550 into the next big appropriations bill she comes across, out of spite for the military refusing her request to dedicate an entire 757 for her princessly tuchus.
that the common people fly.
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_75...
Many of them also make a stop in places called hubs and hustle to make connections.
No one is asking Madame Speaker to make a connection. But to have a dedicated B757 is a little...rich.
nowhere was the request for a dedicated aircraft aka Air FForce Three solely for Pelosi's use and her use alone.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
The Speaker has stated her intention to fly to California on a regular basis to visit family (why not?)
The argument is that a plane that has to refuel is inadequate.
Therefore, an alternative plane must be available to fly nonstop.
The only alternative mentioned is the 757.
Thus, one of the four 757's must be allocated for the Speaker's travel plans.
Sounds dedicated to me.
Only the loyal sheep will eat that used fodder.
I wonder what Harry Reid flies when he goes home to cut his land dealsin Las Vegas?
Take a good, long look at the NY DN front-page that Crank was kind enough to provide in the update and then talk to all of us about "non-stories".
Thanks for playing.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Well, that's all I need to hear.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Anything that comes out of the WH just has to be right, eh?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
immigration laws is a non-story.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
They probably will provide the House Impeachement Committee members with limos too and from the hearings.
All of the media outlets in this country are crazy about it: There's the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, CBS Evening News, and many others that are interested in this "non-story", too.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...namely have highly inappropriate internet conversations with pages.
Whereas Michael Acuri... or someone on his staff... dialed the 800 version of a telephone number that he dialed on a weekly basis.
"But Arcuri's campaign released records showing the call two years ago from his New York City hotel room to the 800-number sex line was followed the next minute by a call to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services.
The last seven digits of the two numbers are the same."
I thought he was accused of pedophilia, which was downgraded much later by reality and lack of evidence to "highly inappropriate internet conversations with pages." And wasn't the real narrative about how Republicans were sheltering a pedophile at the expense of "the children"?
Whats the rule ?
An anonymous source can plant a story about a republican on just their say so.
To get the same story about a democrat it needs, the anonymous source and two people on the record who are lifelong democrats.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What you mean is that when a Dem does questionable things is the media makes an effort to bury it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Hopefully with the Taming of the shrew
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It's difficult to see where you're going with it or how a story about the sitting Speaker of the HOR has anything to do with a single congressional race in, what, Ostego County NY during a general election campaign.
And, in fact, I doubt any of us cares.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
But the reason I bring it up is that HERE at Redstate when the Michael Acuri "scandal" hit there were three, four front page stories on it... like there are soon to be three, four or more front page stories on this.
So, if no one cared about THAT, front page stories are a funny way of showing it.
2) if you cannot tell the difference between a sitting Speaker of the HOR possibly demanding lavish transportation for her and her flacks and a petty "phone-sex" diddy, then I cannot help you.
3) I still don't care.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
I had to Goggle his bloggyhorse to have any idea what he was even talking about. I guess I have a bad memory if it was this huge thing that everybody was talking about.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
[blip]
If you want to make a post, do so. Don't copy extended text from other websites, even humorous ones, and paste here. If you can't take the time to make your own arguments don't make them.
--streiff
Is that Pelosi never requested anything. The request was initiated by the House Sergant at Arms, not Pelosi.
“I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert” following 9/11, Livingood wrote, and “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”
And why won't Hastert's plane work for Pelosi? She lives farther away than the former Speaker.
Both the Washington Post and Roll Call have reported that the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.
This information is taken from
here
Forcing the Speaker to travel cross country in a public plane places our security at risk. She needs a larger plane so the trips can be non-stop, and this is what the Army wants as well. This is a non-story, but this blog is using it to make some sort of statement about class or privilege or something, and it just seems out of character.
services.
And why is is it that the previous plane provided by the taxpayer, a rather impressive executive jet, is not adequate for the new Speaker because it may have to stop and refuel? As I mentioned above, millions of travelers make stops in places called hubs. And they have to switch planes, which the Speaker would not be required to do. Is a short stay on the ground within the confines of an executive jet such a trial?
If a 757 transcontinental jet must be kept in reserve because the Speaker hails from California, why not elect Steny (from Baltimore) as Speaker? It could be your party's gesture to the environment!
...does not change the fact that previous Speakers have been provided with planes that get them to and from without stops.
This story ranks right up there in bogosity with the Michael Accuri spent taxpayer money on phone sex scandal that had the effect of... well getting Mr. Accuri elected.
And THIS story, along with other deamonization of "San Fransisco Nancy" seem to be equally as effective, if you look at the most recent Rassmussen polls:
2/2/07 1/4/07 12/13/06
Pelosi
Approve 49 43 39
Disapprove 40 39 46
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Congress...
We'll see how long the honeymoon with America's Mother-in-Law lasts.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Because at the moment I'm LOVING the last bet made by a right wing internet pundit and how THAT one worked out.
By July she'll be at or better where she is now.
Fools and their money, you know.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
...with the insignificant poll numbers. If the average citizen had any idea what Nancy was all about they’d disown the women in a heart beat!
It's not a non story - it’s all over the place get real!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
quote a phrase. So you can try bait-and-switch, but the prospects for success are not promising.
It's the current Speaker who has made stops an issue. I guess a 30 minute layover in an executive jet is too much for her. No one is DENYING her a plane, as it IS necessary for security purposes. She is REFUSING a plane that she deems unacceptable.
The aircraft has only been available to the previous Speaker, that is, just one, not other Speakers as stated in your post.
Who the hell is Michael Accuri and why should we care about his phone sex, and why is it relevant to this discussion?
Two of the polls were taken during the Speaker's January honeymoon, and the last before this story got HOT. Now I don't know if the people really care about this plane thing. Only future polls will tell.
Or are you just making things up?
You:
"It's the current Speaker who has made stops an issue."
Actual New Source:
"In a statement released on Thursday, the House sergeant-at-arms, Wilson Livingood, said he had been behind the call for the long-distance airplane. “The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security reasons,” Mr. Livingood said, adding he regretted that the security concerns had become a political issue."
Good god man.
If the Speaker were a Republican, you'd call that after the fact letter sucking up to the boss.
Security reasons indeed. As if having to land, refuel and take off in a military base somehow makes the flight any less safe than a non-stop flight.
not change the fact that previous Speakers have been provided with planes that get them to and from without stops.
Who aside from Hastert has been provided military aircraft for personal transportation?
Ted Kennedy used to give Tip O'Neil a ride down to Murphy's Bar.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I wonder how much CO2 laughter contributes to AGW ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
infringe on the demoncratic right to wage class warfare, Nancy got busted and we're loving it, that's all.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Forcing the Speaker to travel cross country in a public plane places our security at risk.
I think the Republic could survive losing a Speaker. And as far as targets go, the Speaker doesn't rank particularly high. I suspect a jihadist would rather take out any Senator than a Speaker. And they'd certainly take out any regular congresscritters given the chance. Or any administration official, for that matter. Should we place an order for a few thousand 757s?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I was responding to the assertion that it puts our security at risk. Is the Republic going to dissolve in the extremely unlikely event that the Speaker dies in transit? Did the Republic dissolve when Wellstone died in a plane crash? Maybe he needed a taxpayer financed 757 to tool around in as well. I think this kind of ridiculous transportation expense is disgusting.
You do know that Tony Blair flies commercial, right? Is Pelosi more important to the US than Blair is to the UK? I don't think so.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast."
Air Force determined.
Air Force, not Pelosi.
But I'll let the Air Force know that Pelosi's death is no big deal.
Isn't she in line to be President?
No matter.
Apparently not everyone that counts agrees that she needs a 757 "for security purposes" or she would have one. You really think Pelosi has no say in it? You really think that "security reasons" isn't used as an excuse for extravagant free travel all the freakin' time? It's used often enough just in the business world. How do you think executives justify their Gulfstream IVs? The same way.
Since it's undoubtedly safer for her to be on a commercial flight than sitting inside her San Francisco home, that strikes me as a pretty pathetic excuse. Commercial airlines are hard targets. If I wanted to "take out" Pelosi, I certainly won't try to get at her on-board an aircraft.
It's a novel idea, but how about applying some common sense to the situation?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Please see below.
This was started by the Sergeant at Arms and is about security and security alone.
The whole "supporters" thing was made up whole-cloth by the Washington Times.
(Just like they made up, "Hillary is spready rumors that Obama was taught at a Madrassa.")
Is this capitol police officer a paragon of common sense? Is it his overriding duty to protect taxpayer's money from being wasted on frivolous expenses like this? Do you think he doesn't do whatever the speaker asks?
Maybe you accept security as an excuse for any kind of crazy expenditure, but I don't. I can look at it logically and see that Pelosi is as much greater risk of getting killed crossing the street or appearing at a fundraiser than she is on a commercial flight from DC.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...little to none of it has to do with the Speaker herself, since she didn't start this nothingness (the Sergeant at Arms did) not do much to perpetuate it (the Air Force had the security issues) and NEVER EVER said anything even approximating, "I want a dedicated 747 for me and my supporters" as is being alleged by the utterly unsourced Washington Times.
You don’t think it’s a legitimate expense, great!
I might even agree with you.
But stop pretending to be aghast at Pelosi.
It is pretty naive to think that this guy came up with it himself without the prodding of Pelosi, who clearly would rather not have to stop and refuel... I mean who takes a direct (1 stop) flight over a nonstop flight? I do everything I can to go nonstop without paying through the nose for it.
Here's how I think it went down: Pelosi hates having to make stops so she tells the Sergeant at Arms to do something about it. He comes up with a rationale he thinks might work (security is always a good one) and sends it off the the appropriate place. It is rejected as unnecessary.
It is naive in the extreme to just assume that this guy is just going around making requests for things the speaker doesn't want. These guys know their primary job is to make congresscritters happy... especially the important ones like Pelosi. If they plan to keep their job, anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that the Air Force said that the non-stops were a safety need.
If true, then it's hard to see how this whole thing got started.
I suspect it is not true as the Air Force can't have such a poor view of its piloting skills that a stop is a safety issue. Civilian airliners make many stops each day.
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.
THAT'S how it got started.
And no, the Air Force is not worried about pilots crashing planes they are worried about PEOPLE crashing planes, hence all the 9-11 refrences.
The Sergeant at Arms is a glorified police officer, and certainly not "the Air Force," right?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sergeant at Arms TELLS Pelosi about security risks and plane then contacts the Air Force.
Where's the comprehension issue?
Well, maybe your other personality didn't tell your current ones about this post that he just made upthread:
"‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast."
Air Force determined.
Air Force, not Pelosi.
But I'll let the Air Force know that Pelosi's death is no big deal.
Your evidence of this is that a capitol policeman says that it is necessary. Somehow that proves that the Air Force thinks it is necessary. Yeah... okay.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sergeant at Arms informs Pelosi that after 9-11 she is entitled to an airplane based on the Air Force's security for the person second in line to the President.
Sergeant at Arms STARTED (not Pelosi).
Security risk determined by Air Force (not Pelosi).
now it's the Sergeant-at-arms, whom I presume serves at the pleasure of the Speaker.
So HE made the call on the nonstop being a security issue, not the Air Force.
So Ms Pelosi is just some poor, clueless woman who must have a MAN do her thinking for her on this very high-profile matter.
I think not.
I do believe the Air Force is confident of its ability to pilot civilian transports, land them at military bases, refuel them and take off again, all without killing the passengers.
Finally, as a leader, Pelosi is accountable for the requests made on her behalf, especially her own travel arrangements.
The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights .... This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.
So the Sergeant at Arms is an Air Force communications expert? I doubt he has any basis for stating a refuel will degrade communications capabilities. I'd like to ask him what forms of communication are acceptable to he and the Speaker; HF, UHF, VHF, cell, Iridium or some other? Sounds like he's got the communications requirements matched up to Air Force capabilities when he makes the request. I find that hard to believe.
Yes, she is in line to be President along with 18 other offices down through the Secretaries of Energy, Education and Veterans Affairs. Condi Rice is number four as Sec of State. Maybe she needs a 757 to get to and from California as well? Number 12 in the current line is Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters who is from Arizona. Guess she needs something that can span the continent too.
Obviously, the Speaker is mortal, but she is 2nd in the succession, and constitutional succession is CRITICAL given the risks of the GWOT (even if unrecognized by the Speaker's party).
So a plane for her security is wise policy.
The constitution does not, however, specify a right to non-stop flights. At least the last time I checked.
Beyond President and Vice President, numbers 2 and 3 (and 4, 5, 6, etc.) aren't terribly important. That is why we have a line of succession that doesn't stop at the Speaker. The biggest security concern beyond VP is when a large group in the line of succession gathers. That doesn't happen on the Speaker's airplane.
a larger plane. She doesn't need a larger plane. Actually our security is at risk when she's in Washington. I'll feel much safer when she's on the ground in Butte, MT refueling.
If you think this is such a waste, leave. Really.
...for this site?
That’s what I thought; maybe you should watch what you post on this site! Hummm...
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
It was only last week that Nancy Pelosi wanted to hop a military plane to the Democratic retreat in Williamsburg. Is that false, too? Did she or didn't she? It's only a two-hour drive in a limo.
method for getting Nancy coast to coast. It also is putting to use one of the "Spoils of War" from the Iraq Crusade.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
This aircraft should be available for lease on very favorable terms, will be favorably viewed by the European elites (always a plus!), and has amenities provided by the last owner that dovetail nicely with the Democratic view of government in general:
Let's outsource it to Halliburton. I bet they have a Gulfstream G550 to do the job at half the cost.
Better yet, let's go competitive bid so we can go with the lowest bidder. We know how Nancy hates no-bid contracts that don't save as much money as possible. Another chance for her to lead by example, walk the talk.
God forbid that Nancy's plane be bigger than Denny's plane.
I come here a lot, even though politically I disagree with most of the posts here. The reason I like to come is because I often get to read thoughtful commentary and ideas about issues being discussed on the news that I would not get elsewhere. Every now and then, I actually change my mind because of what i read here (or at least pause before coming to a conclusion).
So thats why its always dissapointing to me to see this type of non-story getting so much attention, and I think less of you because of it (I know, you don't care).
Please get back to your regular programming to arguing about policy -- I think we will all be better off for it.
ahhh...not really.
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Please get back to your regular programming to arguing about policy -- I think we will all be better off for it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Nancy needs to be kicked around a bit, she has had a free ride everywhere on everything in the MSM. The left can't even see the lie behind "honest and ethical" and being connected to fellow democrats.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
...and her free rides on everything, everywhere...wah! wah! wah! I'm so mad I'm going to throw a tantrum!!!
No one is complaining about her getting free rides. We are complaining about her wasting money and contributing to global warming. Don't you care about the planet? What is Nancy leaving to the children?
The one you've thrown already was quite enough, thanks. The thing about Voltaire's advice is, it really is useful, only not when it comes to admirals...
Sayonara.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
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.
of abject sycophancy and the cowardice that required Pelosi to send this guy out with this crap.
If it was the Sergeant at Arms request, then there was no reason for Pelosi to cry sexism as she wasn't being affronted. We also have to believe that everyone else lied.
So I appreciate a guy doing what he has to do to save his job, but I don't believe him.
is the Sergeant at Arms an Air Force communications expert?
This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.
I'm not aware of any aircraft in the Air Force inventory that don't communicate from the ground. Why not just turn the request over to the Air Force and let them speak to the appropriate communications capabilities, security and logistics? They know their operation a lot better than the Sergeant at Arms does.
It's quite obvious all of this was made up after the fact.
Of a business case for why my department really, really needs 10 licenses for a commercial flying toaster screen saver. Think of the productivity gains, not to mention the increased security.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I thought they were for conservation, do you kno what would happen if every looney-tune had a plane? I mean, seriously though.
I thought they were for conservation, do you kno what would happen if every looney-tune had a plane? I mean, seriously though.
Man, I've never seen so much ink spilled about nothing.
Anyways, if you're interested, the current Sergeant of Arms of the House was first elected by the House in 1994. There have been 36 holders of the office (so the average term is 6 years)
Wilson Livingood is the current Sergeant of Arms of the House - who prior to his current job spent 31 years in the Secret Service. So we should probably assume he knows what he's doing securitywise.
...Wilson Castaway.
http://search.ebay.com/wilson-castaway-volleyball_W0QQfkrZ1QQfnuZ1
is the need for a change in the succession of the Presidency.
We need to make this designatable by the President at the beginning of his term even if we need to do it so that it won't take effect until 20 years from now to prevent bickering.