The Premature Death of Planegate
Memo to the White House, Get Out of the Way
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | The White House — Comments (103) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There’s a thing about Washington scandals. Most are not readily understood by the non-political public. They tend to involve technical violations of arcane regulations that the general public doesn’t have the time or the inclination to understand. A few break through the public’s tendency toward apathy and present themselves as worthy of added attention. Most of these are shrugged off by the public with cynicism. “They all do it.”
A very small handful of the remainder are those that the public understands, can relate to, is interested in, and attach to one particular party. The House Bank and Post Office scandals of the early nineties are good examples, as is the more recent Mark Foley fiasco. Speaker Pelosi’s demand for an airplane that can carry her and a small army of family, staff, donors, and whoever else is one of those scandals. That is why it is so maddeningly frustrating that the White House came to the Speaker’s defense yesterday.
Read on…
I have no problem with the Speaker of the House having access to a military aircraft for security reasons. I tend to think it is a bit of an overreaction in the wake of 9/11, but in deference to the importance of the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, I am prepared to accept it. But a private plane at her disposal is just not good enough for the first woman Speaker. No, Pelosi demanded a plane capable of carrying her to her San Francisco district non-stop. Re-fueling in fly-over country is so undignified.
The Pentagon wisely denied Her Speakership’s request, insisting that Pelosi make due with the same plane that her predecessor put up with, a commuter jet. Congressional Republicans seized the opportunity to score points by introducing an amendment to a bill encouraging the development of alternative fuels and forcing Democrats to defend the Speaker on the floor of the House.
The Congress also finds that in order to lessen United States dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, and decrease demand for petroleum in aircraft, such as passenger planes with 42 business-class seats capable of transcontinental flights, the nation must diversify its fuel supply for aircraft to include domestically produced alternative fuels[.]
This was a well deserved needling of the Speaker by a feisty minority unwilling to roll over and let House Democrats off the hook for her actions. But then the White House came to the Speaker’s aide. At almost the same time that House Republicans were debating their amendment, the White House was busy characterizing the controversy as “silly,” and “unfair.”
Besides just pulling the rug out from members of its own party, the White House’s statement effectively killed the story. Pelosi’s request will now be viewed at best as a misunderstanding and at worst as appropriate. In fact, the White House referred to her request in exactly those terms in its official position.
And I'll just repeat our position, which is as speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport and that the ... the proper arrangements are being made between the sergeant of arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so I -- again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. And so we trust that all sides will get this worked out. (my emphasis)
This is political tone-deafness of the first order. Any barely sentient political being understands that when your opponent is hurting himself, you stay out of his way. Pelosi and the Democrats were well on their way to making complete fools of themselves when the White House threw them this life line. Pelosi had started making television appearances and taking questions about the plane after initially laying low. And she was floundering, badly. She blamed Donald Rumsfeld, of all people, for the initial denial. She whined that she was getting discriminated against because she was a woman. She complained about stopping to re-fuel, as if no person had ever had make a stop or a connection when traveling by air. Rep. John Murtha had chimed in, threatening to cut funds for the Pentagon if the Speaker did not get her plane. They were looking really, really, bad, right up until the White House made all their histrionics seem reasonable.
Planegate would have attached to the newly in charge Democrats an air of snobbery. Pelosi would have been seen, rightly in my view, as an elite self-styled sophisticate; too important and precious to have to stop in fly-over country for a re-fueling and risk being soiled by the nation’s great unwashed middle. Democrats who defended her would have been seen as power hungry hypocrites, eager to spoil themselves at the expense of the taxpayers about whom they claim to be so concerned. People would have understood her demand as motivated by greed and self-importance rather than any of the lame excuses she was peddling. Even the mainstream media was giving the Democrats a grilling over this for goodness sakes.
What is sadder about this, however, is the fact that this act of political charity by the White House will never be repaid. The White House came to the aid of a woman who just three weeks ago accused the president of rushing soldiers to die in Iraq to prevent Democrats from carrying out their political agenda. This is a woman who has called the president a liar, a failure, and incompetent. That is not to say that the White House needs to respond in kind. President Bush is serious about changing the tone in Washington. He has done frustrating things like this before in the name of his can’t-we-all-just-get-along governing style. But that was when Republicans controlled the government. Now that Democrats are in charge, and Republicans on the hill are trying to find a way back into the majority, the least the president could have done for them was to simply stay out of it.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Our Parliament of Whores — Comments (12) »
The Premature Death of Planegate 103 Comments (0 topical, 103 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it became apparent to me, it was not Pelosi by the way, that the Speaker is next in line to be president and therefore has 24/7 secret service protection as it is a constitutional office.
It seems entirely reasonable to me for whoever the speaker is to have access to a plane that can fly from their home district to their workplace without refueling.
I have access to such flights and I would always choose them over flights that stop. Granted, those are commercial flights, but apparently the speaker has a history of access to military planes and has had this access for some time.
The embedded video claims that she asked for a specific plane and my read of the press reports is that there was no request for a specific plane. If there is any evidence that she has requested the plane shown in the video I would be very happy to see it. But if she did not request that particular plane, using it in the video is abusive and the kind of tactic one would expect from Jim Carville.
But this probably is a "scandal" the average person can "understand." I think asking for a plane that can ferry the second person in line to be president non stop across the country is a reasonable request.
She doesn't need a 42 seat, $300,000 dollar a day luxury liner when a commuter sized plane can make the same trip.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
about Bush's pathetic kissy-face appearance at the Democratic House retreat: the president will provide the House Impeachment Committee members with limos to go to and from their proceedings.
No Republican, except on the critical issues of national security and the global war on terror, should lift a finger for a president who not only won't defend himself, but will toss his party underneath the bus.
As distasteful as I find how the WH deals with Democrats, didn't the HR Sergeant-At-Arms make this request for security reasons? I'm glad the WH is staying out of it, too bad they had to cite support to Pelosi personally.
the question is whether he's credible. To believe him we have to believe a lot of other people are not truthful. And we're also left to ponder why Pelosi didn't answer the story by saying "hey, I didn't ask for a luxury airliner, I just wanted to get to California". And, of course, we're left to wonder why Pelosi felt she was a victim of sexism.
Then, of course, there is the issue of who employs the Sergeant at Arms. He doesn't have civil service protection, he serves at the pleasure of the Speaker.
... and expect to be taken seriously.
And you've just been here for ten minutes. You really cannot be this dumb, can you?
The Sergeant at Arms' letter is what would be dismissed as an obvious suck-up to his new boss if Pelosi were a Republican.
Security reasons indeed ... as if landing, refueling and taking off at a military base makes the trip any less dangerous than a non-stop flight.
William Livingood is the current Sergeant at Arms of the House. He was elected to the position in 1994. Before this job, he spent 31 years in the Secret Service. So he should probably be given the benefit of the doubt.
...and how to handle the wrath of the heavy-hittin' hyphens of the CBC, too:
"Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Calif.) contradicted reports that the congresswoman had intervened on McKinney’s behalf with the Capitol Police in an attempt to avert her arrest.
Millender-McDonald, who is the senior Democrat on the House Administration Committee and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), held a conference call with House Sergeant-At-Arms Wilson Livingood on Wednesday to inquire about the status of the inquiry, said her spokeswoman, Denise Mixon. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), chairman of the CBC and a staff member from the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), were also on the call.
“The issue of an arrest was never brought up,” Mixon said. “She asked him what was going on and asked him to keep her posted.”
Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), another CBC member, spoke with Livingood this afternoon, according to a statement read at McKinney’s press conference, but indicated she was merely seeking information.
It would be “inappropriate to intervene in a formal criminal investigation,” she said."
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/033006/mck...
No doubt.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Of course, Bush will have Tony Snow go out and declare us non-persons, but that is the price of the New Tonedeafness.
Pelosi said she'd rather take nonstop commercial flights, so whatever her motivation, desire for a luxury plane doesn't seem to be it.
My first guess would be travel time. If she wants a Monday-Friday workweek in Washington and weekends in her district, that's two cross-country flights each weekend, so taking the most direct route without stopping could make a significant difference.
That's just my guess. I haven't seen any real source for what Pelosi's motivation is. But I think my guess is more plausible than assuming she wanted a large luxury plane for the heck of it, or that she feels revulsion at visiting "flyover states" (which she has in fact visited, voluntarily).
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I'm a former charter pilot and nothing saves time like having the plane at your disposal - it's one of the great benefits of charter. Adding a refueling stop for a small jet at a Class C or even Class D airport probably wouldn't add more than 30 minutes to the total time and certainly not more than 60. Compare this extra time to the time you need to get to the airport ahead of your scheduled departure and you are still way ahead of the game. Then figure in that the plane leaves when you want it to giving you the flexibility to determine the schedule and it's not even close.
Her comment regarding taking Commercial non stop flights was pure damage control.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
Pelosi said she'd rather take nonstop commercial flights, so whatever her motivation, desire for a luxury plane doesn't seem to be it.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!
Whatever you say, sparky ...
Man, how desparate are you people? This is a non-issue.
Pelosi, from "On the Record":
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/hotline_after_d_...
The request for the plane came from the House Sergeant at Arms. You want a scandal, but not a peep about Hastert using his plane to ferry passengers while on his watch? Have you simply given up on any issues-based debates and are now onto the trivial, fantasy-based ones?
I come in here sometimes for good right-wing viewpoints on the issues. This kind of stuff (essentially, spreading demonstratively false information about Pelosi) just makes the site petty.
You have worked out that responses like yours are part of the entertainment, yesno?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Yeah, I have no problem getting into the entertainment, particularly with people who take this non-issue way too seriously.
I've actually posted on some far left blogs about this as well--now THOSE people are taking this even more seriously, as part of a "Rovian exercise" in "supressing the issues." Yikes.
Some days I feel like I'm going around the web, lancing boils all day long.
Honestly, I don't know what we morons would do without you policing the web for us.
Have you ever considered that maybe you are the boil?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I agree wholeheartedly that this is a scandal that the public can relate to and understand. I also agree that when your opponent is hurting herself, you get out of her way. By not jumping on Pelosi, I think the White House was doing just that. Pelosi comes off like a spoiled brat no matter what the White House says. If the White House jumps into the fray, Pelosi will change the subject with "George Bush is just trying to deflect attention from his failed war in Iraq" etc. The Democrats have already shown that they don't have much to offer other than that they don't like Bush, and now the White House has taken that from them.
The WH should not have a position on this. It should have simply said, "this is a matter between the Speaker and the Pentagon," and had no comment beyond that. Instead, it went out of its way to couch her original request in terms that did weigh in in the Speaker's favor.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I agree with you that that would have been the best response. Don't take a position and let Pelosi try to explain it.
I don't understand. WHAT is the scandal, Wd, that is being easily related to by the public? What has Pelosi done to "hurt" herself? What makes her "come off like a spoiled brat"?
Here to explain to us hood-wearing knuckledraggers why this is No Big Deal™ no doubt.
Enjoy your visit.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Docj, why did you just call yourself a "hood-wearing knuckledragger"? That's very insulting (to yourself). You should be offended (at yourself).
Seriously, though, can anyone explain what the scandal is, here?
...and my amusement at comments section smart*ssery is currently quite low. Mostly thanks to your ideological compatriots coming on here and sh*tting on the rugs, so do yourself a favor and spare us.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...in the last 24 hours. Three, at least, that I know about and helped clean up. Attacks that originated on your side of the spectrum.
So kindly SPARE ME this line. This is a moderator talking.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
OK sport, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the 5-minutes it takes to lay this out. Bear in mind however that I really, honestly, truly couldn't care less about this. Clear?
OK. So let me put it this way: let's say Navin Peroso (R-Anaheim) was just elected speaker of the house after running a campaign to clear out the existing Democrat majority on a platform of "draining the swamp", cleaning up the "culture of corruption" yadda yadda yadda. As one of his first acts and only a month after pledging "the highest ethics" and the like -Speaker Peroso ditchs the previous (Deomcrat) speaker's transportation, a nice plane in its own right, for a luxury cruiser that seats 50 - to be ready at his whim, and for use as he sees fit.
Then when Speaker Peroso is called on it he sends out an employee whose job the new speaker controlls (the SGT at Arms) and whines to the media that it's a "race" thing (let's say, just to keep it equivalent, that Peroso is black).
Now you tell me - how many of the news network lead with this story every day from now until a week after the new GOP speaker 1) drops the request and starts using the previous speaker's guldfstream, 2) is forced to resign from congress in disgrace, or 3) both?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
...I'm often disappointed to find my idealogical brethren to be just as capable of emotional rants as are conservatives. But, I'm not responsible for the worst among my kind, just as I assume you aren't for the worst among yours.
On the topic of Nancy Pelosi, did she demand a luxury plane? And did she threaten the Sgt. at Arms?
One of us has been here on this board a little longer than the other. Meaning that one of us has played this game on this field and under these rules with both well-meaners and trolls and the other has not. And the one of us who has been here a while is getting a pretty good sense of where on that spectrum the other falls. Are you understanding me?
OK, I asked a simple question to a reasonable hypothetical based almost precisely on the current situation. I made no other assumptions other than what is known.
So how about this - you answer my very simple question.
Or don't. Really, I couldn't care less. I mean, I don't have the juice required to vaporize your account - nor is that something I even want. So it really, and I mean really, doesn't matter a whit.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
No, I'm not understanding you. What are you trying to say? Yes, I am newly registered to RedState, as was everyone here at one time.
As for your question, right, sorry. I was thinking it was rhetorical. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think you laid out a hypothetical scenario and asked (I paraphrase) if it's scandalous. The answer is, yes, your scenario is scandalous.
My question is this. What has your scenario to do with Pelosi?
Also, you keep saying you couldn't care less about this issue, but obviously you care enough to read about it and write about it, so evidently you could care less.
Here's a hint - I changed the gender of the speaker and reversed the party affiliations. Nothing more.
I have toenails in need of clipping.
Out.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
OK, so you claim that the situation you describe is one that Pelosi is in, except that she's a woman (not a man), and a Democrat (not a Republican).
That's an interesting claim. Is there any evidence that it's true?
Ok, I re-read your question. I guess you're asking, "If a Republican speaker made a scandalous travel request, how vigorously would it be pursued by the media?"
I'll give you my answer, then a comment.
My answer is, I believe a Republican in such a scandalous situation probably would not be covered as vigorously as would a Democrat, though this is not for certain.
My comment is, I see no evidence the scandalous situation you describe has any relation to Nancy Pelosi.
democrats a pass at every turn. At some point they will cover a story, if it snowballs, but for the most part if a democrat does it, the democrat gets a pass.
...is a different topic, for a different time. I don't think it's the topic of this posting. It so happens that I think the media is corporate-friendly, pro-status-quo, self-serving, Republican-friendly on issues of foreign policy and economics, contemptuous of poorer people and minorities, and fools for scandal (see "Al Gore Invented The Internet", "John Kerry Looks French", "Hillary Clinton Called Bill 'Evil & Bad'", etc.). Evidently, you think differently.
All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with this question:
Did Nancy Pelosi demand to be treated with luxury when travelling as Speaker?
display more common sense (the media would go easier on the Republican - guffaw!) and reading comprehension (the situations are mirror image).
Like I said, hopeless.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
docj. But here are some things about a Democrat that the media didn't go easy on:
John Kerry...
"Looks French"
"Windsurfs"
"Plays Guitar"
"Dated Women When He Wasn't A Married Man"
"Flip-Flopped On Iraq Vote"
"Said 'Who Among Us Doesn't Love NASCAR'"
3,4, and 6. I thought I was following the election pretty closely.
I don't recall anyone outside of talk radio making anything of number 1 though. And flip flopped on the Iraq vote was mostly because he kept bringing it up.
______________________________
"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
...that the media did go easy on him about the whole Winter Soldier thing...or maybe you don't remember that, for some reason.
...it's interesting to see how hard-liner conservatives are desperate to make this an issue. Seriously, isn't there a war to win or an economic strategy to tear apart or something?
She wants a bigger and faster one so she can carry herself and 50 of her closest friends anywhere she wants to go without "0 minute refueling stops at a military base.
I do believe a lot of voters would have a lot of problems with that.
Politics ain't beanbag, Pest.
Yes, I'm sure she said "50 of her closest friends anywhere she wants to go". Can you find that quote for me? Do you have something showing that she wants the plane for going anywhere other than Cali?
You mean like her request for a plane to take her the extraordinary distance of 142 miles to the recent Democratic retreat? (It;s in the linked story if you can bring yourself to read it.)
Also, if a 14 seat plane had enough seats, why did she ask for a bigger one. Oh that's right, the re-fueling issue. Too bad the Air Force has a commuter sized plane that can make the trip without re-fueling. It's called the C-37-A. If she didn't want the seats, why not take this one?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
...She asked for _A_ plane to take her to the retreat, correct? Not a giant plane, just a plane. Instead of driving for 3+ hours. What's the matter with that?
Also, if a 14 seat plane had enough seats, why did she ask for a bigger one. Oh that's right, the re-fueling issue. Too bad the Air Force has a commuter sized plane that can make the trip without re-fueling. It's called the C-37-A. If she didn't want the seats, why not take this one?
I don't know. Politicians have staffs, and press often accompany them, so I can imagine more than 14 seats would be needed. That still doesn't supply the requested quote that she asked for "a big plane that can take her and 50 of her closest friends anywhere she wants"...
And you asked for an example that showed she wanted travel provided to destinations other than SanFran. I provided.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Was Hastert going to California?
And I asked for something showing she wanted the big plane in question for going anywhere other than Cali. I'm not talking about some puddle-jumper, and I suspect you know that.
Feel free to have the last word. I have to log off. Enjoy.
Hastert was not going to CA, but that wasn't the issue. You asked for proof she wanted to ferry friends and others. I proved she could have travelled cross country with a smaller plane.
Then you asked for proof she was looking to travel outside of her district. I proved she had requested travel to a destination other than San Francisco.
If you're going to keep moving the goalposts, you should move them far enough away so that I can't keep scoring.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
And not just this topic. My guess is they are Pelosi's grankids.
______________________________
"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
Besides being a rather large jet, the C-32 is most-commonly used as Air Force Two, the Vice-President's primary transport. As such, it has a private-quarters section for the VIP, including a bed and entertainment system, as well as a conference room.
To the public, it sounds like she is griping that her private plane isn't big enough. Surely, you see how that makes her play poorly? It's like the House bank scandal. In that case, no laws were broken, no government funds were wasted, but the public saw it as a sign that the lawmakers were out of touch with the real world.
...then reread the first few words:
"To the public, it sounds like..."
And it's not "her private plane", it's our plane, and we let Denny Hastert borrow it.
BTW, What does Harry Reid fly out to Nevada? Is he gonna want a 757 now, too?
Rep. John Murtha had chimed in, threatening to cut funds for the Pentagon if the Speaker did not get her plane.
He never threatened anyone. He just said he tells the Pentagon what to do, and he said that Pelosi controls the Pentagon's pursestrings. But he never threatened that he was going to cut funding if Nancy didn't get her plane.
If Rumsfeld had said something along those lines, I'm guessing conservative pundits would have greeted the comments with admiration rather than feigned shock.
As for the rest of the post, I have to say, the language used is a good of the political animosity that exists in our country (on both sides).
Really, this plane thing is such a non-issue. If the tables were turned, and the Dems were giving some outcry about some Republican expenditure, you all would be calling them whiners and accusing them of purposely making mountains out of molehills for political gain.
Really, this plane thing is such a non-issue.
Oh give it a rest! The entire Leftosphere has registered trying to convince us that there's "Nothing to see here! Move along!" with stupid talking points.
Really, stop wasting your time here and get back to Kos.
[blah blah blah]
Just because a bunch of libs say it's a non-issue doesn't automatically mean the opposite is true. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine, feel free to disagree. It'd be better if you argued your point, though.
I know the Lefty spiel so I helped you write it in shorthand.
Just because a bunch of libs say it's a non-issue doesn't automatically mean the opposite is true.
Usually it is true and I go with the path of highest probability.
That said, if this is so unimportant, why in the name of all that is Holy are you here on this thread?
I already answered a similar question from zuiko below. I refer you to it. Basically, it's a good point -- I got caught up in this, too.
Usually it is true and I go with the path of highest probability.
Well, I'd like to see the evidence on which you made your probability calculations. Keep in mind that people tend to pay attention only to those things that already support their worldview, ignoring evidence to the contrary. (Everyone does this, not just you and Reps.) So if "highest probability" is based simply on your memories, chances are you're working with a biased sample.
And I'm not a troll. My account was created last year. Trolls are newcomers.
Well, I'd like to see the evidence on which you made your probability calculations.
{laughing} Man, but you do take yourself way too seriously ...
Just trying to fight baseless generalizations and judgments wherever I can, in support of truth, justice, and the American way.
Talking point one - she only want's a plane that can go non-stop from DC to San Francisco.
Reality - the C20B has a range of 4,250 statue miles. Straight line, it's 2,450 miles between DC and San Francisco. Yes, this plane can travel non-stop between the two cities.
Talking point two - nobody complained about Speaker Hastert using a government plane to go home, so why complain about Speaker Pelosi.
Reality - nobody has complained about her taking a government plane, just that she wants to travel on one of the 3 C32 luxery planes just like the vice president uses.
What you are missing is that this isn't about Pelosi using government transport to get back home on weekends. It's about her wanting to use one of the largest passenger transports available to the 89th Transport Wing, rather than the plane that is normally made available to the Speaker.
Talking points are statements that are ambiguous and whose definitions and criteria, when you dig down, are difficult to discern.
All the stuff you mentioned can be supported or contradicted with facts. Hence, they're not generalities, and hence, they're not talking points.
That was my point in the previous message.
It's about her wanting to use one of the largest passenger transports available to the 89th Transport Wing, rather than the plane that is normally made available to the Speaker.
Assuming for argument's sake that that's true, so what? It might be a little prissy if there's no good reason for it, but why is that a big deal?
... why is that a big deal?
Considering that she spent all of the 109th Congress attacking Republicans for being out of touch with the American people, throwing a tantrum and shrieking sexism because she was not given a 50 seat executive jet seems like something of a ... deal ...
I mean, not wanting to settle for a Gulfstream like her predecessor is something the average American can very well relate to, ain't it?
throwing a tantrum and shrieking sexism because she was not given a 50 seat executive jet seems like something of a ... deal ...
I'm thinking that "tantrum" and "shrieking" are something that you're adding to what actually happened. At any rate, again, if she has no good reason (and if she actually made the request, which is in doubt), it's still just a little prissy -- a minor thing.
Personally, I'm not trying to convince you there's "nothing to see here." I'm asking if anyone here can convince me that there IS something to see here. Redstaters, you're the ones making the case that Pelosi's touched off a scandal. Well then, make the case. Argue it. Give us your evidence.
And if you don't have any evidence, then how is it that YOU YOURSELVES became convinced? Did it just sound like a nice thing to believe in? Is it appealing to you to have another reason to hate Nancy Pelosi?
if what Murtha said was not a threat then you simply use a very strained definition of threat that the Mafia would like (gee, I just said something MIGHT happen to him if I didn't get the money, I just said I know where his kids go to school. That wasn't a threat).
Look, it's Friday and I'm tired. I'm not in the mood to deal with numbskullery like this. You don't come into our house and insult our intelligence with this type of nonsense. You just don't.
...insulting anyone's intelligence. Quite the contrary -- I posted here simply because I'm surprised at the uproar over this thing. I usually read some pretty good stuff here. I don't agree with it, but there are some nice arguments.
Stop freakin' posting on the topic to show people just how disinterested you are. There are plenty of other blogs on this site that have nothing to do with the plane controversy. Help yourself. This is about the 500th post from the 50th troll about how uninteresting and unimportant this is, however. So uninteresting and unimportant that lefty trolls are creating two and three new accounts so they can post about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Actually, you're right, I did seem to fall into the fervor myself.
And I'm not a troll. I've been here since earlier last year (or thereabouts -- I forget when I signed up).
You are entitled to your own definitions of words like "troll" or "talking points," but that doesn't mean everyone else has to accept them. Being a troll has nothing to do with how long ago you made the account (which is more like 6 months ago).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...I'd love to hear it. Or if you think my definitions are off, feel free to argue against them.
As for being a troll, that term is generally used for people who come in, snipe, and then leave and never return. Using the term for anyone who simply disagrees with you is just a way of automatically writing off whatever they have to say, thus keeping you from having to consider their arguments.
I have no interest in arguing about the definitions of words with a troll who pops in once every 23 weeks or so to stir things up on a topic that is supposedly just a stupid distraction, and not a real issue we should be discussing anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I, for one, obviously am interested in "Planegate", as I think anyone is who reads and writes here (almost by definition).
Like the bank robber who says he never threatened the teller -- it's not his fault that she assumed his shotgun was meant for her.
Does the word "credulous" ring a bell?
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
their allowance, by your argument you are saying that I am not threatening their allowance.
Sorry your reasoning on this just doesn't fly.
...that your kids and the Pentagon are really equivalent in this case...
Besides, to be more accurate with your analogy (and such a simplification can be only so accurate), you'd be telling your kids that your husband/wife (the Pelosi analogue) controls their allowance. Actually, saying your neighbor controls it might be more accurate. Either way, the analogy only goes so far.
... and if you honestly believe that Murtha was not threatening the Pentagon then you epitomize the very idea of idiocy and there is no hope for you.
John
----------
Liberals: Alchemists who have mastered the ability to transmute Lead into a denser form of Lead
We just went through the same thing, less than a year ago, when William "In His Freezer" Jefferson's office was searched and Republicans in power jumped to his defense. If we could keep this utter stupidity to "only" once per year it would be a big improvement.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am getting tired of how the conservative bloggers and talk radio give the President a pass on his bowing down to the left. He acts like they are his social better that he must not cross. He doesn't mind the Speaker's offensive and paranoid rantings about Donald Rumsfeld. The President doesn't call her on that. No, he calls out members of his own party for their legitimate questioning of the Speaker's desire for an unnessary and costly perk that Dennist Hastert didn't ask for.
Just last week, the President went to the House Democrats' summit and made a gratuitous dig at his own party and the "arrows in his back" he has over immigration. Then he kow-towed to the Democrats again, not mentioning any of their over-the-top and quite offensive attacks at him and his administration, but instead going into a lengthy apology for using the work "Democrat" party.
And then there is the President forcing Tony Snow to apologize to David Gregory for a perfectly legitimate and far-overdue observation that Gregory had asked a question in a partisan way. There is giving Sandy Berger a sweetheart deal on his destroying government documents, basically aiding and abetting a coverup of Clinton administration malfeasance, while he appoints a special prosecutor to go on a witchhunt over "Plamegate." There are his gratuitous, silly and over-the-top self parodies over his own intelligence that he'll put on for the "good folks" on the left. He even derided the efforts of the Swift Boat Veterans, who probably are the only reason the President, with his less-than-stellar political skills, ever got re-elected.
The President also is much less circumspect in his tone when addressing his own supporters. He was silent over attacks at John Ashcroft when they came from the left, but he gave a smack-down to conservatives who dared to question Alberto Gonzalez's suitability for the Supreme Court. His administration called conservative opponents of Harriett Miers' nomination sexists.
I think that the President has a strong desire to be accepted and liked by the dominant culture in Washington, which is the left. They are the "cool" crowd, and he will back down to them, and be subservient to them, and allow them to get away with rhetorical outrages, because they are the "cool" crowd. It is, to say the least, annoying, it is unseemly, and it is starting to be a huge drag on the whole Republican party.
I believe that when the President told conservatives he was one of us, he should had added a qualifier: "but I really wish I could be one of them."
This behavior is also very reminiscent of his father when he was in the White House. I cannot believe how many people are seriously considering his brother as President. We're already up to "fool me twice."
Rank and file Republicans and conservatives, not to mention GOP senators and House members, owe this president nothing. They do owe the country something, and that is to stand with the president on the global war on terror and other security measures. And they can do that by being Republicans. Other than that, they should view the president as the severely lame and potentially backstabbing duck he is.
Snow should have kept his mouth shut. But why should things improve as the final months of this Administration roll along?
I believe that when the President told conservatives he was one of us, he should had added a qualifier: "but I really wish I could be one of them."
I'm starting to believe that he had his fingers crossed when he told us that.
But I don't really see it as harshly as many of you do...
For one the comments from Snow, the media made a big headline out out of what I thought was very little, it was typical Snow, theres nothing here, lets move on kind of talk. Political talk for making nice, how is that making nice with the evil witch? How can Snow and Bush now be laughing hard behind closed doors at the fool she's made of herself for getting caught out. Her own words damned her...
Sexism-
“Look, when I became speaker, the sergeant at arms said the speaker has transportation because of security,” said Ms. Pelosi. “As a woman speaker of the House, I don’t want any less opportunity than male speakers have had.”
Double-talk-
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 Channel's Greta Van Susteren. "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."
Then this one-
Pelosi had asked for access to a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200. It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
What would Freud say about that one? It's not about the "size", it's about getting the job done. I've read enough books about what women want to know the hidden meaning behind this...
The whole white house angle? Yes go ahead knock Bush, it's what we do at Redstate these days.
But, for me he is still fighting the GWOT with the best interest of our country as far as I can tell. At every turn he is turning up the heat on Iran internationally with banking related difficulties for them now, shooting them when they are found or rounding them up in Iraq. He has not turned his back on Israel. Yes congress, a republican congress spent money like democrats wish they could have for six years and he didn't veto the spending, although there are some claims that even with that they did slow the growth of spending.
He led this country during some terrible times and we have so far not only survived, but thrived. Yes I wish things had gone better but we all know it could have been so much worse.
I know it's fair play to tear Bush apart but I do think our time would be better served looking very closely at the other party and perhaps using our voice the way they did the last six+ years to show America what they are really like.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
of where we should devote our energy to (the dems) instead of taking every opportunity to knock Bush for perceived failures?
I did some reading on the left's take on this debacle of San Fran Nans, of course the spin is she's entitled, it's about security etc etc. Then they went on to talk about the right wing media, Time/CNN, CNN as part of the right wing media? NBC, ABC all of them as part of a right wing smear machine, I am unable to even comprehend the perspective one must have to be able to frame an opinion such as that.
One thing that did come up was a reference to "Clinton Rules"... and claims that the MSM specializes in "hit jobs" on democrats!!!
I'm at a loss, can anyone fill in the blanks for me, what are the "Clinton Rules" and in what way can the times and cnn be accused of being a right wing smear machine?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
They work every time they are tried. David Horowitz, in his book "Left Illusions" has a chapter called "How to beat Democrats", and it calls for Republicans to cast issues in stark moral terms like the Dems do. The difference is that the truth is on our side:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/feb/04/obama_democrats_are_o...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/feb/01/bidens_mainstream_cha...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/feb/03/finally_someone_heeds...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The President has crippled himself, and continues to cripple himself, on the GWOT by his constant rhetorical surrender. People need to know what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what is working. To be silent in the face of vicious attacks, to prop up a corrupt and dangerous opposition, to validate their attacks by your silence, and to be more willing to attack your supporters than to stand up to your enemies is incredibly damaging to domestic support for the GWOT. What group did the Republicans lose in 2006? Independents, the marginally informed. The media is a partisan as it has even been, and just to surrender to them is unbelievably bad strategy for waging the GWOT.
Remember the Wisconsin nutcase Democratic Congressman who insulted both Karl Rove and Laura Bush? And then bragged about it to several local newspapers.
The media seeds Kagen sowed started to bloom, and Kagen started to feel some REAL heat. He had no defense. Until...a White House spokesman said that the stories of Kagen's fecklessness--stories which sprang from Kagen's own bragging!--were "ridiculous."
I've come to believe that the Bush White House cares nothing for its image, for rallying public opinion and for helping the rest of the GOP fight the PR war.
Fine, then. I suppose I can find other things to do. I mean, if they don't care to win the PR war, how dare they expect us to fight it?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
To my knowledge, Hastert was the first guy to get a plane. He probably didn't need a plane, but it sounded good 9/11.
Pelosi doesn't need a giant plane. Yes, it would be nice for her to have one that can go non-stop to San Francisco. But it's not necessary. We don't give every Congressman who lives out on the West Coast (or, for heaven's sake, Alaska or Hawaii) a plane. She can do her job just as well without one. If the purpose is only to get her out of harm's way for safety's sake, well, then a small plane can do the same job.
I think it's wasteful. I won't attack her character for it (though I might over other things), but it's wasteful.
Once the Republicans take over again, if the new Speaker is from a Western state, getting a non-stop flight cross-country will not be an issue.
If people complain how much time their representatives spend outside Washington, seems that there should not be too much harangue about getting them there and back efficiently. Seems a plane sitting on a tarmac refueling is a poor choice.
Frankly, the security detail for the Speaker could be a real imposition on other commercial passengers. I would not want her on my flight if I were flying to the Bay Area.
How did former Speaker Foley handle it - he was from Spokane?
You missed completely the point that the current Speaker is female, omitted supposing that the controversy was manufactured by some disgruntled DoD right-winger, and failed to mention the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House altogether.
That's not letting us have any fun at all.
Or perhaps you were saving those points for the coup de gras?
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Seems to trip over itself to help this woman get her way.
And as Hastert learned, and the WH failed to notice, being nice to Nancy is like being nice to a ticked off pitbill.