Contact Us


« Roberts and Sebelius -- allies | Main | Race matters »

February 08, 2007


exiled kansan

Environmentalists should take notice of how their Speaker says one thing and does another. The media is ignoring that she supports you and I being inconvenienced and cutting our fuel use but doesn't want to be inconvenienced by needing to refuel on her way back to California in a smaller, more efficient plane. She must believe that fuel savings is a great idea as long as she doesn't have to participate.

Another interesting point in this story is how she sets up the willing NYT to smear Bush. Notice the quote in the NYT "Pelosi responded that he was a victim of 'misrepresentation by the Bush administration and the news media.'" While the Star reports "'This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker,' White House spokesman Tony Snow said." I can see for the next two years that the facelift will blame Bush whenever she gets in little hot water.

Old Drum

On Jonah Goldberg. Do you think the KC Star might change its lineup of columnists, because of Jonah Goldberg's now admitted faulty judgment about Iraq. Two years ago, Goldberg said,

Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to [Juan Cole's] when it comes to the big picture [in Iraq]. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

I have a suggestion. Let's have regular columns by Juan Cole, who actually some expertise on the Mideast.

exiled, do you really read the Moonie Times for your news, why don't you go out and get the facts straight before you come on here and post. Moron. The Moonie Times is the same outfit that said Obama was educated (6 years old no less) as a Muslim. Hmmmmm, how did that story turn out?

exiled kansan

A classic name-calling reactionary post without any rational argument. I have an IQ in the top 2% of the US and somebody makes an incoherent post calling me a moron. To top it off, they're too chicken to post a name.

rational argument? a fictional account from the Moonie Times and I should have to prove its inaccurate? If you have such an IQ you sure don't show it.

post a name? Is "exiled" your first name and "kansan" your last name. Whiner.

taken from
FACT: Pelosi’s use of a military aircraft is about security, not “personal accomodation.” It was House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood who initiated inquiries into the aircraft. “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].”

FACT: 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.

FACT: Pelosi’s office has already said she “will not use the plane for political travel.”

FACT: Pelosi’s office says “it is up to the Air Force to decide what type and size of plane will be required,” and that “she has never asked for a plane or space on a plane to accommodate ’supporters.’”

Asked about the flap, White House spokesman Tony Snow on Wednesday noted that after the 2001 suicide hijackings the Pentagon, with White House consent, agreed to provide military transport to the speaker of the House.

"What is going on is that the Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the speaker about it," he said. "So, Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft, and Speaker Pelosi will, too."

"I have told them," Pelosi said, "I would travel cross-country, nonstop, commercially, as I have done and always done, probably... how many times? A thousand times since I've been in Congress. This would be nothing new for me."

exiled kansan

Name caller, not surprisingly, you left out key information...

"Some Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi has requested. Pelosi, a Democrat, asked for access to a C-32, a military version of the Boeing 757-200, that could fly to her hometown of San Francisco without refueling."

Let me reiterate, SHE REQUESTED the larger plane.

There are a few liberals on this blog that I like to debate. Liberals like Protractor, old drum, jenniferm, etc usually have well structured arguments from a different point of view. You, however, are nothing more than an incoherent name caller. I am done with you.

Old Drum

Exiled in Kansas, Is it unreasonable for Pelosi to have a plane that can fly her to California that can do it without refueling?

We are talking about the second person in line to be President.

Is asking for a plane that can make the flight to California without refueling unreasonable? That is the essential question.

she also said she would fly commercially if they couldn't accommodate the non-stop. what is the problem?


Would it be more environmentally efficient to fly the smaller plane if you have to land to refuel? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I've just always thought that takeoffs and landings consumed much more fuel than coasting. I understand that the larger plane would use more fuel in the air, but do we really know which would come out ahead?

To me, this story exposes the problem with our media. In the New York Post, Pelosi gets blasted with a headline of "AIR-OGANT NANCY" and this first line: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding regular use of the military's 'Lincoln Bedroom' in the sky - a luxurious aircraft of the same type that carries Vice President Dick Cheney and First Lady Laura Bush on official trips, officials said yesterday."

Alternatively, the stories on MSN are basically framed to say that Pelosi is just in the middle of this, she doesn't care how she flies. She'll take commercial flights if necessary.

How can these two outlets be reporting on the same story? Good luck to everyone finding out who's telling the truth.

Today (

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

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

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

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.

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

exiled kansan

"Is it unreasonable for Pelosi to have a plane that can fly her to California that can do it without refueling?"

No, it is not. But then again I don't complain about the fuel consumption of American cars nor do I complain about what that fuel consumption does to our environment. The facelift does and that is what I have a problem with.

"Would it be more environmentally efficient to fly the smaller plane if you have to land to refuel?"

Good question. A plane does consume more fuel taking off than it does cruising (not coasting) at altitude. However, fuel economy is highly related to weight, frontal surface area, drag coefficient, etc. Also note that a large SUV burns more fuel accelerating from a stopsign than a small car does accelerating from two stop signs. We should be able to use costs to operate quoted in the paper, $22,000/hr vs $900/hr, as a relative measure of fuel consumption (although not completely accurate as depreciation of the plane, staff to operate, etc are likely included in the estimate).

Your comments on the newspapers not reporting the same story are noted and I agree with you. This is the problem with the media. They always want to support their agenda.

The $900/hr figure is way off. You can barely operate a Cessna for $900/hr. It must be $9000/hr or greater.

Old Drum

Anon at 11:45. Remember Colbert's observation about FACTS -- they have a well-known liberal bias.

Our good friends on the right know the truth and know that Democrats are never right. We need to be very careful about presenting them with facts. We could be responsible for their heads exploding.


'Ol smartest 2% is back posting again! Guess he's gotten over the Republic party losses this November last, huh? Mr. smartest two percent, the Sargent at Arms of the House of Representatives is responsible for all security matters of the House, and he was the one who requested that a plane that was capable of non-stop DC to SF flight be procured for the Speaker of the House to travel in. He is a career employee of the House, and has worked at the Capitol building for 19 years, 7 as Sargent. Having the second in succession to the Presidency in secure arrangements and in constant contact is a prudent thing, no?
The bigger question is why the Pentagon leaked this request. This was a deliberate act of one or more individuals in the Pentagon, and should be investigated fully.
Now Mr smartest two percent, please go back to complaining how you pay too much in taxes, while the smartest one percent keep climbing the Forbes 400 list, even while paying their taxes. I guess you have to really really smart to accomplish that!

exiled kansan

"FACTS -- they have a well-known liberal bias."

Huh? Facts can not have a liberal or conservative bias. Facts can support or deny the accuracy of a philosophy. For example, it is a FACT that the real standard of living for the bottom 50% of the population increased more during the Reagan years than it did during the Clinton years (3.41%/year vs. 2.96%/year according to the IRS). This data is not biased but it does validate the conservative philosophy.

"Sargent at Arms of the House of Representatives ... was the one who requested that a plane that was capable of non-stop DC to SF flight"

Not according to Pelosi's office. As quoted above, Pelosi's office claims that they requested the plane.

Statement of the House Sergeant at Arms (yesterday)

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.

Pelosi wanted to fly non stop, she can do that commercially. The plane that Haslert flew couldn't; therefore the discussion for a different plane. Once the GOP and their saps twisted it into something it wasn't, the full and accurate story came out.

From the NY Times this morning:

Some Republicans were put off by the flight fight. “This is a bunch of baloney,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, who said he had flown on Mr. Hastert’s military plane.

“Next week,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said, “we are going to steal their mascot and short-sheet their beds.”

I have an IQ in the bottom 2% of the US - I understand exiled kansan perfectly!


exiled, the above was me.

(Assuming you don't know)The facts have a liberal bias is a reference to Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Very satirical Bill O'Reilly type newsman. I enjoy watching his show, sometimes he misses the mark, sometimes he's spot on. He makes me laugh more than some of the writing on this blog, that's for sure.


Wait, the "I have an IQ in the bottom 2% of the US" was not me, the one above that was me. And I have no idea what my IQ is. But (and this is for you jeetz) I did know that Florida was not the wife on The Jeffersons.

exiled kansan

My original post stands....

"Pelosi, a Democrat, asked for access to a C-32, a military version of the Boeing 757-200, that could fly to her hometown of San Francisco without refueling."

The point is that she professes to be a liberal defender of the environment but not at the expense of her convenience. You, the liberals that she has lied to, should be the most upset about this. It does not upset me that she wants to use a gas guzzling SUV of the skies. It upsets me that she is a hypocrite and liberals defend her to the end.

This is the same thing as Bush claiming to be a Reagan Republican and then he increases federal social spending >25%. I'm outraged about his unfiscal discipline. You should be outraged about Pelosi, too.

exiled kansan


You seem to watch quite a bit of TV. I bet you kick butt at trivial pursuit.


exiled, she has not lied to me. Nice attempt at making this an environmental issue rather than a GOP induced smear effort.

If its an environmental issue why do commercial airlines have non stop from Wash to Calif; why does the military feel the need to have such a gas guzzler. If I, in your words, was a "liberal defender of the environment", wouldn't I DEMAND the military to stop making such aircraft? Wouldn't you, as a concerned citizen, support such a move? I don't think so.

Why is this such a BIG DEAL environmental concern of the GOP now? Seriously? This was a made-for-TV pundit sideshow.

I will say this though, the fact that Tony Snow has TWICE said this is not the Speaker's deal nor it it important tells a lot about the status of Bush. I don't think there would have been any statement made in defense of Pelosi a few years ago. Very telling.


Out of character for me, but what the heck it's Friday.

Pelosi should take the plane and use it. She would be appeasing people by not doing so. And she should stop listening to Tony Snow. (Tony Snow's job is well defined.)

For cripes sake, she is second in line to the Presidency and should be protected just as Hastert was after 9/11.


And yes I understand the expense. 2nd in line makes in worth it.

The comments to this entry are closed.