Air Pelosi update
posted at 10:29 am on February 9, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Howard Kurtz rounds up the latest on Speaker Pelosi’s request for airlift.
The Washington Times broke what seemed a legitimate story: The Pentagon has limited the size of the military planes that the House speaker can use to fly home to California.
Did you know she was entitled to a military plane? Neither did I. But under legislation passed after 9/11, it’s legally mandated for security reasons. Dennis Hastert had such special transport for five years.
Nancy Pelosi asked for a bigger (and far more expensive) plane because the one she was using couldn’t make it to the West Coast without a refueling stop. Hastert didn’t have that problem getting to Illinois.
Pelosi may be right on the substance, but the symbolism is awful. She insists she didn’t ask for the plane, but if a military flight is needed, she wants a nonstop to San Francisco. The average voter will be left wth an image of her flying around on a jumbo jet in the lap of luxury.
She’s not even right on the substance–why does landing on a military base to refuel a military plane constitute enough of a security risk to justify a bigger and far more expensive plane? And as is typical of elites like Pelosi, once she feels a hundredth of the heat she regularly pours on her opponents, she blames the little guy:
Pelosi has gone on the offensive, saying that Pentagon officials leaked the dispute for partisan reasons and that the negotiating was done not by her but by the House sergeant-at-arms.
On whose behalf was the sergeant-at-arms acting? I doubt he just decided to waltz over to the Pentagon and request non-stop air travel for the Speaker.
Now, how important a story is all this? Well, it depends on what she actually asked for. If she asked for the C-37 and that her family plus the entire California congressional delegation be able to use the plane any old time they want, that’s extravagant and arrogant and deserves criticism. If she’s really “happy to fly commercial” then the story may have taken taken an unfair turn.
But.
When you have Jack Murtha out there issuing threats to the Pentagon over this, and Murtha is as all of Washington knows one of Pelosi’s closest confidantes, then there’s probably more to the extravagance angle than Pelosi would like publicly known. She and Murtha may be playing a sort of good cop/bad cop routine.
And what’s with the outrage over the Pentagon leaking details of this silly story, if that’s even what happened? Pelosi is quoted a couple of times saying that that’s what happened, but she hasn’t offered any proof that I’ve seen. And I don’t recall Pelosi or indeed any other Democrat generating much huff when the NY Times has published leak after leak on the way to destroying useful anti-terrorist programs. But they’re all mad as hatters over the Air Pelosi leaks, which have zero national security implications?
Pelosi may be getting a (slightly) bum rap in all of this, but it’s hard to generate much sympathy at this point. She’s been smearing Republicans for years and undermining support for the war since assuming the minority leader post in the House (and her daughter just produced a crockumentary that amounts to a smear of Southern evangelicals, a strong hint of where Pelosi herself is with respect to conservative Christians and Southerners, the latter of whom form a disproportionately large number of the all-volunteer armed forces). The Speaker just came back from a “fact finding” junket to Baghdad during which she never left the Green Zone. It’s awfully hard to see much of the war from inside that vast fortress. I’m sure that for the troops who are over there, it was obvious that she went to the Green Zone to give the appearance of looking at the war close up but with the intent of coming back home saying exactly the same things she has been saying about the war all along. So a little turnabout might be fair play.
More: I’d be remiss to leave out the woman angle–Pelosi has accused her critics of misogyny, essentially, when the issue is the plane not the gender of its chief passenger. She shouldn’t get a pass for that.
FRED BARNES: I’d say . . . she deserves a plane that can fly there nonstop if we’ve decided that the number two person in line, the speaker of the House, needs this kind of security . . .
She’s handled this very, very poorly. I mean, she suggested for one that she’s being discriminated against because she’s a woman. She suggested that Donald Rumsfeld still has a desk at the Pentagon and he’s getting retribution. And then, really very crudely, having Jack Murtha, the congressman and her pal, call the Pentagon and lean on the Pentagon to get her this plane, and then Murtha suggests that maybe the Pentagon should do it because she has such control over Pentagon spending that they shouldn’t be rejecting her request.
She is the first woman Speaker of the House. To stoop to the “they’re picking on me cuz I’m a girl” line is, or ought to be, beneath her. But evidently no behavior is beneath the standards of our political class these days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Still seems like a non-story to me. The crux of is that the Speaker of the House would like a non-stop flight home - seems like a reasonable enough request to me. The whole bureaucracy around it isn’t her fault… other than that she’s a Democrat and usually they are responsible for bureaucracy.
frankj on February 9, 2007 at 10:35 AM
The real question is, will the new plane have a freezer to keep money fresh and a shredder for all those pesky presidential memos?
robblefarian on February 9, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I am not quite as willing as Frank to give Pelosi a pass on this. This kind of thing is symbolic of what the leftist Democrats have become. Blame the little guy and the military all the while pretending to champion the little guy and support the military.
Glynn on February 9, 2007 at 10:39 AM
If they attached little wings to her eyelids, then she could probably just fly herself wherever she wanted to go.
Watcher on February 9, 2007 at 10:41 AM
AP,
Thanks!!
~V5
V5 on February 9, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I do not understand, she is given a plane…a very nice plane from the military and it is not big enough?
She represents (and coddles) an area that is anti-military, thinks they should be dismantled; and she wants the military to provide transportation very excusive transportation? Remember, prior to 9/11 that was not the practice for the speaker. She does not feel that there is any real threat of terrorist activity in the U.S. She thinks the only terror is in Afgan. So what is her security concern? She and her supporters deny that there is a terrorist problem in the U.S. (I repeat myself because I can’t believe her weak argument).
Excuse me conservatives, where are the cajones to put her in her place.
Now she says she will fly commercial, that will be the day. How many people will be bumped off her flights to make room for Queen Pelosi.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 10:43 AM
OOPPPPS That should be:
Bryan,
Thanks!!
~V5
V5 on February 9, 2007 at 10:43 AM
The crux of is that the Speaker of the House would like a non-stop flight home - seems like a reasonable enough request to me.
Yeah, and she can get the United flight out of Dulles, which will provide her with exactly what she needs - non-stop service to SFO, with three convenient morning flights and one afternoon flight.
Lehuster on February 9, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The Gulfstream V can carry eight passengers and a crew of four non-stop distances up to 6,500 nautical miles at speeds up to Mach .88.
How ’bout this model. Does the military own these?
bloviator on February 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM
This is reminding me of the Repub Congress shutting down the govt in 1995–overreach.
Suggest the aircraft the Congress and DOD should be spending time thinking about are our helicopters being shot down in Iraq.
If they don’t want to give her a plane that can go the distance without re-fueling, let her fly commercial. If they don’t want her to fly commercial, give her the plane.
honora on February 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM
The moonbats are saying this is right wing BS because Hastert got a military jet too.
Obviously they don’t get it
Defector01 on February 9, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Why the suprise? Murtha and Pelosi are simply acting out on what Ron Silver once though out loud. These libs have no problem jamming up the military that they so loathe.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 9, 2007 at 10:54 AM
I think you mean godbags.
Matticus Finch on February 9, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Probably not. But I’m sure George Soros or Hugo Chavez would buy her one.
Here’s another compromise; use the smaller jet which needs refueled along the way. Tell her it’s a non-stop flight, don’t refuel and make sure the pilot has a parachute.
TugboatPhil on February 9, 2007 at 10:59 AM
When Queen Pelosi demands a Jumbo Jet, Queen Pelosi better get one or the Pentagon may find itself without a heating budget.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 9, 2007 at 11:03 AM
The crap Murtha is blowing aside, it’s a non story, the Pres and Snow even said so. Does that mean they don’t get it either? Yes her response was silly and overly defensive, but give me a break: She’s not my favorite person in the world but it’s still nitpicking.
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Where’s the outrage at the White House falling all over itself to defend Pelosi. The stupid party (as Snow used to love to call them before he became an integral component) strikes again!
Valiant on February 9, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Madam Speaker also wanted a military plane to fly her to Williamsburg, VA over the weekend. That’s a 2 hour drive from DC. The Pentagon told her, ummmm no ma’am.
KelliD on February 9, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Regardless of who asked for a millitary plane, which I agree she should have, why is it a security risk to stop and refuel at a millitary base? Isn’t that like the safest place in the world to be?
Matticus Finch on February 9, 2007 at 11:07 AM
I’m sorry, but what part of refueling on a MILITARY BASE is insecure?
Perhaps she can fuel the plane with the kinetic energy stored in her over-stretched face-skin.
unamused on February 9, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I believe (think this is right) that after 9/11 the SOTH was asked to use a military plane due to being second in line to succeed the POTUS. I suspect the reason P doesn’t want to stop to re-fuel has to do with the extra time that would take?
honora on February 9, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Oh for the love of Pete, non story. The Murtha business aside, it wouldn’t be an issue if you didn’t hate her. The White House even thinks this is ridiculous. Isn’t their something more important to talk about?
By the way, what does her trip to Baghdad and her daughter’s documentary have to do with this?
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Whoops! Sorry for the double post.
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 11:15 AM
You and I both know that if this were a Republican, and they were still in power, the Dems would be screaming “culture of corruption”. It’s Washington. Getting thrown under the bus is part of everyday life - sometimes you deserve it, sometimes you don’t. You just have to roll with the punches. Welcome back to power, Dems.
Rick on February 9, 2007 at 11:18 AM
C’mon people! Her party represents the little guy. Of course she has the right to fly in non-stop luxury - just like the rest of us.
On another note, I wonder what Pelosi thought when Dennis Hastert started riding in military planes. I’m sure that she was all for it and there is no hypocrisy involved.
jman on February 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I know, she should have a plane. I agree with that part. But “the extra time it would take”? Why would a 30 minute (max) refueling stop be such a big deal?
Honora, that does smack of elitism.
Matticus Finch on February 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM
SouthernDem, are you arguing that we should just take the White House’s marching orders on this story? Coming from a Dem, that’s…odd.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I don’t know if they have those, but I’m pretty sure the military has some smaller jets that can make the trip nonstop. But that’s apparently not good enough for Nancy “Let them eat cake and give me my G– Damn 757″ Pelosi.
Believe me, it’s out there. Once again our appeaser-in-chief is trying to play nice with those who will certainly use that trait against him later.
thirteen28 on February 9, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Finally something we agree on. For Pelosi to take the time to make such a ridiculous request is exasperating. There are much greater things to worry about. This queen bee was elected to worry about what to do in D.C, not what kind of carriage she wants to arrive in.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Even if she does want a non-stop trip, there is a 12-seat Air Force jet at Andrews, the C37A which has a 6,300 mile range. Good enough?
However, I think her statement about flying commercial was a disingenuous red-herring. Flying commercial doesn’t meet the security criterion which is the whole reason for the program in the first place.
eeyore on February 9, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Just how big an entourage does Pelosi need? How often does she HAVE to fly to San Francisco? Can’t she take a smaller plane and fewer staff? Aren’t the Democrats the ones who are constantly telling us we need to leave a smaller carbon footprint?
I don’t begrudge her the plane at all, but come on…does she need such a honking big one?
Ellen on February 9, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Fine; stfu.
Jaibones on February 9, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Queen Nancy is simply vying for a larger plane as an affront to the President. Bush gets big plane then I get a big plane too. She has an overinflated opinion of herself and her position as Speaker and feels the people have anointed her as replacement President.
I just hope that none of the people in her district spit on any of the crew while they are in her district. Her district has booted military recruiters from most schools and ROTC from campuses. Maybe the fact that she and the majority of her district loath the military should be a contributing factor into the decision as to whether we should let the military into her district at all. What’s the exit strategy for the US Military from a region that doesn’t want them there?
pistolero on February 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Isn’t that what you all do? Just kidding!! But I don’t think Tony Snow dismissing this is “marching orders”. Are you saying that the White House is appeasing or capitulating to Pelosi?
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Pelosi has an opportunity here to take the high road.
Now that she has spouted off about commercial flights, the honorable thing for her to do is to refuse the Air Force flights.
My opinion of her would certainly go up a notch or two.
If she takes the high road, then this is a non-story and she earns many brownie points.
If she takes the low road and insists on “special treatment” then she’s just proving herself another politician. And, well, maybe this is a non-story also.
Lawrence on February 9, 2007 at 11:43 AM
No.
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Can’t she just fly her broomstick? It’s enviro-friendly.
Odie on February 9, 2007 at 11:45 AM
That would be the C-37A Andrews AFB has 4 of them according to /Wikipedia
As speaker Pelosi should be provided military transport, however the problem comes when she…
1. Insists on transport that can fly non-stop to SF. (Military can not promise that).
2. Wants an aircraft for non-immediate family members.
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Let me fix that for you:
The Monster on February 9, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I can’t answer for Bryan, to whom your question was addressed … but if you asked me the same question, I’d answer it with an unqualified and emphatic “Yes!”
This WH has a history of appeasement to various groups, democrats among them.
thirteen28 on February 9, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Honestly, I think the WH is positioning itself as above the fray. And as interested in weightier matters than whether or not Pelosi gets a jumbo jet from the military. That second one is probably even true.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Winter-time head winds make guaranteed “non-stop” to San Fran problematic in a C-37. The refuling issue is a red herring. The problem for Ms. Pelosi, as I understand it, is the restriction to 10 passengers.
The Queen, errrr. . . Speaker wants the ability to transport her family and the entire Northern California Congressional contingent.
MCPO Airdale on February 9, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Really? And it’s way more than 30 minutes I think.
honora on February 9, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Less than 30 minutes for VIP re-fueling, however if you have to wait for a hairdresser, as Clinton did, it may take several hours.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Actually 30 min is about right.
If Pelosi (or any VIP) were in a military jet that landed at an AFB for refueling, the personal would most certainly “quick turn” the aircraft so the VIP could be on the way ASAP.
Landing at a military base is much different then a commercial airport.
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I think you’re dead wrong. Ground crews tend to be pretty quick about refueling their planes, especially when there’s a high-maintenance VIP involved. F15Mech or one of you others more familiar with refueling that I am, feel free to chime in here one way or the other, but from what I remember in the AF refueling a plane isn’t an hours-long process. They do train in doing these things quickly, just in case they’re doing it while under attack. The military isn’t just about doctors and being chauffeurs to the Washington elite. Most of it is supposed to be in the business of being ready and able to fight wars that Democrats like Pelosi reflexively oppose and then undermine.
But, it figures. There’s a Democrat getting mild criticism, so other Democrats show up here to defend said Dem. Either of you care to comment on why Pelosi brought the sergeant-at-arms into the discussion? Do you really think she’s being picked on for being a woman?
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 12:21 PM
It’s not a security risk, Pelosi just doesn’t want the “burden” of refueling somewhere, which is why she’s happy to fly commercial. The stories are conflicted in this regard, but when I first heard of this I was to understand she also wanted her entire family, crew, staff, friends, and in some cases California Legislature shuttled around on the Air Force Jumbo Jet too… But I’m not sure that’s true.
If it is true, then it’s another shade of Her Majesty’s “let them eat cake” attitude. Otherwise, the only story here is the oddity of John Murtha pulling a Godfather on the Pentagon…
Lehosh on February 9, 2007 at 12:22 PM
No one should be surprised. Personally, I’d like to see Congressmen cane each other like Roger Griswold did Matthew Lyon. We could put it on PPV to help offset the National Debt.
.
GT on February 9, 2007 at 12:26 PM
United Non Stop flight 297 return flight 294
$525 includes tax. No charge for extraneous eye-blinking.
Wade on February 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I already did ;) but to go into more detail here is the process for an F-15.
The term is called a “quick turn”.
Basically when the plane lands it taxis to a parking spot on the flight line….
1. Refueling trucks are standing by waiting for the plane…
2. The jet is re-fueled
3. Tires are checked for wear/bald spots (caused by the landing)
4. An engine oil sample is taken for later analysis.
5. Aircraft inspected for leaks/damage etc.
6. Jet is ready to go on its way.
Once the plane has taxied to its spot the whole process takes about 20 min. (longer if problems are discovered).
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Winter-time head winds make guaranteed “non-stop” to San Fran problematic in a C-37.
Nah, it flies above most of ‘em.
If it can fly non-stop from Washington to Honolulu or even Tokyo, I think it can handle San Francisco…
Lehuster on February 9, 2007 at 12:37 PM
1) I’m sure there is a very quick method of re-fueling. Well under an hour. The time issue is more the time to descend, land, taxi and then visa versa. Way more than 30 minutes I would think.
2) Not a gender issue at all.
3) The SAA was the one who advised P of the policy from what I have read.
I get a kick out your “it figures” comment. Take a look at some of the knee jerk responses from the lock-step RW crowd and get serious.
honora on February 9, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I thought this was a non-story. Now you’re telling me to get serious. Like SouthernDem trying to browbeat me with the WH talking points on this whole thing. You guys need to find some consistency on this whole thing.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Honora, you know I love you, but would the difference between 30 minutes and 1 hour change things that much?
But you are right, if Pelosi never brought up the “I don’t want to stop and refuel” issue, then this is a tempest in a teapot. If she did, then it’s still a tempest in a teapot, but doesn’t look good.
Matticus Finch on February 9, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Sorry to respond to my own post but in the interests of full disclosure I forgot to include some steps like installing safety pins in the ejection seat/missiles/guns etc.
That being said
Any steps I left out do not effect the time needed to quick turn a jet.
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 12:55 PM
He’s trying to prepare them for ‘08, when he gets the Sec. of Defense post.
Rick on February 9, 2007 at 12:55 PM
How quickly does the speaker and her entourage get through the airport when flying commercial? I can understand the speaker getting through quickly, but her people? And their luggage? seems the one hour-at-most turnaround that Honora speaks of would be a welcomed time saver.
BlueStateBlues on February 9, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Of course it figures: we’re Democrats. Just because it’s “mild criticism” I need not say anything? But I’m being respectful and objective, if you look at my earlier post. I agreed that she’s being overly defensive about nothing.
From what I’ve heard of the sergeant-at-arms thing, he spoke up first. But no, I don’t care to comment on it, as this whole thing is silly.
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 1:11 PM
F15Mech, thank you!
- The “people party” representative could use this time to mingle with the troops “they love and support”, were it not for the wars they fight.
- The post 9/11/01 provision is not for family, strictly for security.
- In her place I would not only fly commercial, to show how secure we are post 9/11/01 and all Congress has done for us, I’d fly coach. What time is more valuable than that spent with the people? Argue against that cohesively (elitist) democrats. And please don’t tell me about how valuable her time is, compared to all others’ time.
The WH was grand because is is gratis, the Pentagon being the “decider”.
Best part is the typical elitism and hypocrisy. “Drink the water sheeple, while we drink the champagne”, and then blame the republicans, the Pentagon and the media…
I really feel for ya, yep, I really do!
Entelechy on February 9, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Sigh. If bringing it up means browbeating, then I’m guilty, I suppose. As far as consistency, where have I erred?
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 1:20 PM
SouthernDem, you are indeed polite, mild and more objective than just about any troll who’s ever visited here. I even feel guilty for calling you a troll. And you’re very welcome :)
Entelechy on February 9, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Not a troll, just new. Crikey, I had to email AP to register.
SouthernDem on February 9, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Full disclosure noted…however, I have to point out that whatever jet they give her will have none of those.
It should also not be lost on anyone that a smaller jet takes less time to refuel. The standard fuel flow rate in the trucks they’d send to refuel it is 600 gpm. You can do the math for yourself, but the end result is that we could turn jets of G-III/IV size in 10-15 minutes.
One more thing that hasn’t been mentioned…they could even ‘hot refuel’ the jet, meaning that they refuel it with one engine still running. This significantly reduces the ground time because the flight crew only has to perform abbreviated preflight/startup checklists.
James on February 9, 2007 at 1:32 PM
According to Liberals like Nancy Pelosi the threat from al-Qaeda is “overblown” by the Bush Administration.
I say let Pelosi have a choice: She can use the Military Plane, already allocated to her, or fly commercial.
Pelosi and Murtha’s grand standing to the Pentagon disgusts me.
angryamerican on February 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Yes, I knew that…
Is this really true? I think Leheuster addressed this. DC to Cali is about 2,700 miles. I’ve heard that the plane Hastert had can go 4,500-please correct me if I’m wrong. As SS goes bust and the dems whine about military spending, I just have to wonder why she would want a plane with a crew of 16 that costs $300,000 per trip (NOT ROUND TRIP). Oh and that $300,000 comes out of our pockets.
NTWR on February 9, 2007 at 1:45 PM
This is ridiculous. Does anyone seriously think she needs a plane with a crew of 16 that costs $300,000 per round trip to SF and back? All of which comes out of the military budget–of which there’s never enough–instead of the Speaker’s budget? Screw her entourage–the flying monkeys will just have to get there under their own power.
On the other hand, I do feel a lot safer with her attention on something like Air Pelousi. If she’s distracted by things like that, it keeps her from doing other things that are even more damaging to our country.
ReubenJCogburn on February 9, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Ahh the irony of it all. Peloser, military hater, wants a bigger military jet to fly to SF, another military hater but its the entire city.
I’m thinking this is all moot, the ‘SF value city’ probably wont let the Air Force plane land anywhere near close enough. Peloser will ultimately have to change planes to fly into SFO.
shooter on February 9, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Here’s a great bumper sticker for you SUV drivers on this subject.
NTWR on February 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Allah likes to mix it up which makes this a great site. Most of our friends on the other side of the aisle are polite and a couple of them have above average intelligence which means they are in the process of being converted on certain issues.
Valiant on February 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Ouch!! That’s gonna leave a mark.
thirteen28 on February 9, 2007 at 2:03 PM
There’s a SNAKES ON A PLANE joke in this somewhere, I just know it.
Mibrilane on February 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Ding, ding, ding! I think we have a winner!
Unless there is a mandate that requires a private plane for Speaker, she could spin this as a winner by declining the service to show how much a enviromental/economic waste the private plane is. She should fight to decline the plane because there is no domestic terrorist threat (according to the Dems).
Will it happen? Hell no. Pretty soon, they’ll have to tether her head to make sure it doesn’t inflate enough to float away.
natesnake on February 9, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Good point, I stand corrected. I think, now, that Pelosi should put together a panel of democratic senators to investigate this—JetGate. Tie up about 8 senators and her for a couple of years.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 2:10 PM
It depends on whether or not she decides to get her hair done while sitting on the tarmac.
.
GT on February 9, 2007 at 2:31 PM
So now the debate is whether Pelosi takes 5 hrs. to fly from coast to coast or 6 hrs. to fly coast to coast. Whether it costs $300,000 for 5 hrs. or $100,000 for 6 hrs. All the time with state of the art communication equiptment, so she is never out of touch with her cronies.
Is it worth $200,000 for each trip to save two hours (one each way)? At 50 trips per year, let me see 50 times 240,000…5 times 20, carry the 6 zeros, place the comma…naw she ain’t worth it.
BTW, the plane she wants has 5,500 range, the plane she could have has a 6,300 mile range.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 2:40 PM
True story: about 10 years ago I was traveling to Europe on business. International travel was always business class or first class which was nice.
On this particular trip, our divisional VP was going with me. Normally he would use one of the company planes but for some reason he couldn’t, so on this occasion so he was slumming with me. You know how in first/business they offer you champagne when you board an international flight? Well, this VP was seriously bent out of shape because the wine was in plastic cups. Poor thing.
People crack me up.
honora on February 9, 2007 at 2:50 PM
The Gulfstream IV or V used by Hastert can easily fly nonstop from DC to San Francisco. The G-V (VC-37) could fly on to Hawaii without breaking a sweat.
Basically her claims are pure bull. Which wouldn’t be so bad if Murtha hadn’t threatened the Pentagon.
What I find particullary pathetic is the MSM’s (and some bloggers) refusal to do some simple research which would have turned up the Gulfstream’s range of 4,200 miles.
Timber Wolf on February 9, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Give her a C-130. She can fly just like the rest of the military that she “supports”.
Guardian on February 9, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Let Kerry fly her butt home!!
gary on February 9, 2007 at 3:41 PM
honora, we might have sat next to each other during those flights :) or spent time in those lounges…the snootiness among the mucky-mucks is always entertaining, especially when one can run circles around them, without letting them know (appearance, titles, money and often no substance, no manners, no culture and sometimes no scruples). Most fun is to just read and observe. To be objective, not all of them…but many.
I will use your ‘plastic cup’ anecdote in a speech to a group of directors soon. Thank you :)
Entelechy on February 9, 2007 at 4:04 PM
What happened, she misplace her broom?
Wade on February 9, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Military version of the Gulfstream V is 6,300 miles. The IV is less, I can’t believe she can’t fly in the V, never have but the IV is awesome, and way more comfortable than any commercial first class, and fast. From ILM, NC to SNA, Cal in less than 5 hrs.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Air Farce 1.
She can put a bumper sticker on her Prius — My other vehicle is a 757.
tommuck on February 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM
right2bright, but the Military Gulfstream would not give her the CiC status, which is so close, were it not for a heart-condition-VP and an impeachment of 2 men in between. Pentagon report made the move one step nearer…dreaming.
Otherwise she’s rich and connected enough to fly privately, I mean not for favors/bribes, just on her own account.
Entelechy on February 9, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Yeah, never favors or bribes.
I would be surpised if her husband, or her husbands partners did not have a Gulfstream.
Besides, the only terrorism in the world is in Afghan according to her. The terrorist threat that initiated Hastert’s jet, has passed.
And she could always move, Hillary did it.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I hope Allah, Bryan, and Ian are planning on using this picture over at your boss’s place in future updates for this story.
thirteen28 on February 9, 2007 at 5:22 PM
That pic is awesome. Although I think it would be even better if someone was to ’shop in tommuck’s ‘Air Farce 1′ on the side of the plane.
ReubenJCogburn on February 9, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Can someone tell me why The Speaker of the House needs a 16 member crew to serve 42 passengers?
Gwillie on February 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM
My guess, and only a guess, the plane would need 4 to fly 4 to handle any extra communication equipment and 4 for security? That’s 12, so that leave enough for 10 people per flight attendant?
Yea ok that’s about right /sarcasm off
Gwillie on February 9, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Gwillie, someone needs to tend to the massaging, manicuring, pedicuring, aromatherapy, hairstyling, and make-up artistry for Madame Speaker!
NTWR on February 9, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I love the People’s Cube!
Glynn on February 9, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Actually, the plane she wants is slower than the plane she could/should have. The C-32/Air Force Two/SanFranNan One cruises at 0.8 Mach, while the C-37 cruises at 0.85 Mach.
steveegg on February 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM
It’s funny how Ms Nancy is playing stop-drop-and-roll with this kerfuffle. Her staff reportedly requested the C-32 (B757) because she wanted to fly family, staff and other members of of the California delegation home with her. DoD told her that this was an abuse of power and referred her to the rules for official travel. However, she and her staff were miffed that they were somehow bound by these rules.
When the story broke and she was embarrassed, they claimed that they only wanted to preclude fuel stops. If that were the case, the C-37 (GV) could easily make the trip from DC to San Fran (so can the C-20 except if there are horrendous headwinds). So why does she still want the C-32? This is the question the MSM should focus on: Why are you demanding a 45 passenger jet when the more economically/ecologically friendly smaller aircraft is sufficient? This wreaks of graft.
cmay on February 9, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Just wondering how long it would take to go to the airport on commercail flight until she lands in SF? A one stop refuel still would be fatser overall. I agree she does need a plane but not a huge one. Her name isn’t Celine……..it’s Pelosi.LOL
bones47 on February 9, 2007 at 9:44 PM
“I say let Pelosi have a choice: She can use the Military Plane, already allocated to her, or fly commercial.”
There IS a 3rd choice.
She’s *RICH* — VERY RICH! Considering her and her husband’s holdings, she’s almost richer than God.
How about doing us poor taxpayers a favor, Nancy, and LEASING or CHARTERING your own ride on YOUR OWN DIME! How about saving the Taxpayers $600,000 each weekend that you jaunt home. You can afford it. And, it’d be TAX DEDUCTABLE as well.
I have no doubt that you could get clearance to land and take off at Andrews, if necessary, for your chartered or leased Gulfstream V. I have no doubt that the Secret Service and/or FBI would clear the flight crew, that YOU HIRE AND PAY FOR, just as you pay for your personal maid and gardener.
So, instead of being the typical lying, *HYPOCRITICAL* *LIBERAL* *DEMOCRAT* *PIG* *WALLOWING* *AT* *THE* *FEDERAL* *TROUGH* why don’t YOU be an example to the rest of your breed, and reinstate the custom of “service to the nation” the way America’s manufacturing executives did during WWII, and pick up your own tab?
georgej on February 10, 2007 at 7:23 AM
I think that includes maint. crew. They are on call 24/7.
right2bright on February 10, 2007 at 9:34 AM