Pelosi's abuse of power continues.

[GG]

No, she wants a plane that can fly from DC to Calif without stopping to refuel. Seems like a reasonable request.

 

Seems like a reasonable request, since there are absolutely no business class jets that can handle the cross country trip

 

Option 1

[Johnny Coli]

The simplified arguments are:

1. No Speaker of the House should have this method of travel, and we should change it starting now.

2. The former Speaker had this method of travel, it was an abuse of power, but no one said anything until now.

3. The former Speaker had this method of travel, but it was OK because he lived in Illinois.

4. This is only an issue because the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.

 

Issue 1 seems like a fair enough argument, but let's not accuse Pelosi of demanding anything she really didn't.

Issue 2 seems like it's par for the course, as the GOP had no inclination to examine any form of abuse of power in the six-plus years they were in a position to do so.

Issue 3 is the assinine reasoning some are using to push this story. If Hastert had lived in California to begin with, this wouldn't even be an issue at all.

Issue 4 seems to be the real underlying problem that those who are shouting loudest have.

[Bungee Jumper]

The simplified arguments are:

1. No Speaker of the House should have this method of travel, and we should change it starting now.

2. The former Speaker had this method of travel, it was an abuse of power, but no one said anything until now.

3. The former Speaker had this method of travel, but it was OK because he lived in Illinois.

4. This is only an issue because the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.

 

Issue 1 seems like a fair enough argument, but let's not accuse Pelosi of demanding anything she really didn't.

Issue 2 seems like it's par for the course, as the GOP had no inclination to examine any form of abuse of power in the six-plus years they were in a position to do so.

Issue 3 is the assinine reasoning some are using to push this story. If Hastert had lived in California to begin with, this wouldn't even be an issue at all.

Issue 4 seems to be the real underlying problem that those who are shouting loudest have.

 

Put me down for 1.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The simplified arguments are:

1. No Speaker of the House should have this method of travel, and we should change it starting now.

2. The former Speaker had this method of travel, it was an abuse of power, but no one said anything until now.

3. The former Speaker had this method of travel, but it was OK because he lived in Illinois.

4. This is only an issue because the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.

 

Issue 1 seems like a fair enough argument, but let's not accuse Pelosi of demanding anything she really didn't.

Issue 2 seems like it's par for the course, as the GOP had no inclination to examine any form of abuse of power in the six-plus years they were in a position to do so.

Issue 3 is the assinine reasoning some are using to push this story. If Hastert had lived in California to begin with, this wouldn't even be an issue at all.

Issue 4 seems to be the real underlying problem that those who are shouting loudest have.

 

That sums it up exactly.

 

I'm sure that Hastert didn't decide to start using an AF plane on his own. The Bush Admin probably ok'd it in the wake of 9/11. Too bad that Hastert didn't decide he felt safe enough to fly commercial prior to losing the Speaker job. That could have ended the perk there and this would be a non-issue.

 

It's sort of hard for the Bush Admin to stop the perk now that a Dem is in the position without it looking like a political decision. The best alternative for the country is for Pelosi to give up the perk and fly commercial. I just wouldn't bet on that happening.

[Bill from NYC]

The simplified arguments are:

1. No Speaker of the House should have this method of travel, and we should change it starting now.

2. The former Speaker had this method of travel, it was an abuse of power, but no one said anything until now.

3. The former Speaker had this method of travel, but it was OK because he lived in Illinois.

4. This is only an issue because the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.

 

Issue 1 seems like a fair enough argument, but let's not accuse Pelosi of demanding anything she really didn't.

Issue 2 seems like it's par for the course, as the GOP had no inclination to examine any form of abuse of power in the six-plus years they were in a position to do so.

Issue 3 is the assinine reasoning some are using to push this story. If Hastert had lived in California to begin with, this wouldn't even be an issue at all.

Issue 4 seems to be the real underlying problem that those who are shouting loudest have.

 

Well, after the minimum wage issue involving Dole and her husband the stockholder, do you think that she is a thief?

 

Could this be issue #5 or no, because she is a phony liberal?

 

PS: Delay was a scumbag imo.

[Johnny Coli]

Well, after the minimum wage issue involving Dole and her husband the stockholder, do you think that she is a thief?

 

Could this be issue #5 or no, because she is a phony liberal?

 

PS: Delay was a scumbag imo.

How is that even relevent to the discussion? Should we include Hastert's pimping of congressional pages in this debate on whether Pelosi should have the use of an AF jet to go to and from California? I didn't think so.

 

Remove the actual names of the past two Speakers from the discussion, Bill. It boils down to whether that particular public official deserves that particular perk, a perk that was given by the White House. Keep your hysterics over Pelosi out of it.

[Bungee Jumper]

That sums it up exactly.

 

I'm sure that Hastert didn't decide to start using an AF plane on his own. The Bush Admin probably ok'd it in the wake of 9/11. Too bad that Hastert didn't decide he felt safe enough to fly commercial prior to losing the Speaker job. That could have ended the perk there and this would be a non-issue.

 

It's sort of hard for the Bush Admin to stop the perk now that a Dem is in the position without it looking like a political decision. The best alternative for the country is for Pelosi to give up the perk and fly commercial. I just wouldn't bet on that happening.

 

Arguably the best thing for Pelosi politically, too: send the message the the Democrat House is committed to cutting spending.

 

"Arguably", because Pelosi flying commercial could also send the message that the administration's security policies have made commercial flying safe again...which may not be politically advisable.

[Bill from NYC]

Keep your hysterics over Pelosi out of it.

 

Here is where you are SO flat out wrong Bro. I am not hysterical over Pelosi. YOU are. You are overcome with glee because she is a phony liberal.

I view her as just another crook, and am not at all shocked by her corrupt, elitist actions. The difference is that you choose to just overlook this and continue on as if she is great.

 

BIG difference, no?

[Bungee Jumper]

Here is where you are SO flat out wrong Bro. I am not hysterical over Pelosi. YOU are. You are overcome with glee because she is a phony liberal.

I view her as just another crook, and am not at all shocked by her corrupt, elitist actions. The difference is that you choose to just overlook this and continue on as if she is great.

 

BIG difference, no?

 

 

Still doesn't clarify why you brought up Dole.

[Johnny Coli]

Here is where you are SO flat out wrong Bro. I am not hysterical over Pelosi. YOU are. You are overcome with glee because she is a phony liberal.

I view her as just another crook, and am not at all shocked by her corrupt, elitist actions. The difference is that you choose to just overlook this and continue on as if she is great.

 

BIG difference, no?

Bill, Bill, Bill...

 

I thought you were capable of having a rational discussion on whether the Speaker of the House should have the use of an Air Force jet for travel, but it was you who reduced it to "But-but-but, Pelosi did this and Pelosi Pelosi Pelosi spptnzxtfptpt-GASP-spppnxztztxtxt!!!!" Clearly you fall into the Issue 4 catagory, where this has nothing to do with what perks the Speaker gets...it's actually about who currently holds the position that sets you off.

[UConn James]

Arguably the best thing for Pelosi politically, too: send the message the the Democrat House is committed to cutting spending.

 

"Arguably", because Pelosi flying commercial could also send the message that the administration's security policies have made commercial flying safe again...which may not be politically advisable.

 

Well, also as a manner of reducing spending.... what about the cost of having a guaranteed increased number of air marshals on every flight she is on? Over the course of a year, is that less than using an AF jet a couple of times a week?

 

Lots of people object to things on their face w/o taking the alternative into consideration. Would that our airlines were safe enough for the third in line, whatever their stripe and whoever it is, but they just aren't. Security has to be considered for everyone with that big a target on their back b/c of the office they hold. If she's crooked, fine, remove her from office. But govt shouldn't be functioning and providing security to high-profile members based on popularity.

 

The mistake was in her staffer doing what a staffer does and not just accepting the fact of life that light airplanes have to refuel every so often. It's not like they can't do work on a plane. I highly doubt Pelosi herself actually wants to waste time with this sh--.

 

Bill, was it 'elitist' when Bush increased the president's pay from 200K to 400K?

[Bill from NYC]

Bill, Bill, Bill...

 

I thought you were capable of having a rational discussion on whether the Speaker of the House should have the use of an Air Force jet for travel, but it was you who reduced it to "But-but-but, Pelosi did this and Pelosi Pelosi Pelosi spptnzxtfptpt-GASP-spppnxztztxtxt!!!!" Clearly you fall into the Issue 4 catagory, where this has nothing to do with what perks the Speaker gets...it's actually about who currently holds the position that sets you off.

 

I don't give much of a !@#$ about her jet. I care about her posing as "for the working person" when she is just another elitist thief.

 

Funny, but I am probably more of a true liberal than you. In my life, I have demonstrated, and walked picket lines for a labor union. For me, it comes down to more than b.s. abstract theory.

What I can't do is pretend she is any better or worse than a crook such as Delay. Pelosi hit the ground running in terms of corruption and elitist demands.

 

Yeah, I AM off topic a bit, but it truly is beyond me how or why you would defend such a phony.

Well......never mind.

[Alaska Darin]

Well, also as a manner of reducing spending.... what about the cost of having a guaranteed increased number of air marshals on every flight she is on? Over the course of a year, is that less than using an AF jet?

No way - by a factor so large it'd make your head spin.

[Johnny Coli]

I don't give much of a !@#$ about her jet. I care about her posing as "for the working person" when she is just another elitist thief.

 

Funny, but I am probably more of a true liberal than you. In my life, I have demonstrated, and walked picket lines for a labor union. For me, it comes down to more than b.s. abstract theory.

What I can't do is pretend she is any better or worse than a crook such as Delay. Pelosi hit the ground running in terms of corruption and elitist demands.

 

Yeah, I AM off topic a bit, but it truly is beyond me how or why you would defend such a phony.

Well......never mind.

So, I'll pencil you in for an "affirmative" for Issue 4, then.

[Bungee Jumper]

Bill, was it 'elitist' when Bush increased the president's pay from 200K to 400K?

 

1) The president can't increase his own pay. It takes an act of Congress at least (I believe it requires a constitutional amendment).

 

2) I though that happened in the middle of Clinton's term, didn't it?

[RkFast]

It doesn’t surprise me that the GOP and their minions would consider this a Page One story, as they certainly haven’t had any experience practicing legitimate oversight in well over seven years, and clearly wouldn’t recognize an actual controversy now. Let them continue to hop up and down and manufacture fact-less drivel to be eaten up and disseminated by their lapdogs in the media, while the Dems practice real oversight, uncover real corruption, uncover real incompetence, and uncover real abuse of power. We'll let the American people decide in two years whether knocking Pelosi for requesting the same service her predecessor had, or uncovering why $12 billion cash was shipped into a war zone have the same controversial weight.

 

Yeah, YOURE not partisan.

[Johnny Coli]

Here's an actual, fact-based story (from the AP, no less) on this crucial story:

 

GOP bristles at Pelosi desire for Air Force plane; Republicans scoff at House speaker’s request, despite precedent for jets

 

Republicans on Wednesday assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request for access to an Air Force transport plane as an extravagance, though former Speaker Dennis Hastert flew in a military jet as well.

 

[...]Neither the Speakers's office nor administration sources has ever specifically said that Pelosi has requested the modified 757.

 

[...]

 

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.

 

Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized jet. Pelosi and her aides say that because her congressional district is in California, her security would require a larger plane that can fly coast to coast without refueling.

 

"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi said Wednesday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."

 

 

[...]

 

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."

 

 

There you go...an egregious abuse of power if there ever was one. How ever will the country survive?

[The Avenger]

To me it boils down to practicality if the Speaker flys commercial or has an Air Force jet.

 

I have no problem with high government officials taking Air Force transport that affords them better security/privacy/work facilities/communications than commercial airlines and probably get them from point A to point B faster (less air traffic delays, etc.). I don't think it is unreasonable to limit the amount of time it should take a high official to travel - stopping for refueling is a waste IMHO.

 

Unfortuantely, all of this comes off looking like a perk, when I don't believe it is - it's simply a practical way to get the most out of high government officials.

 

To me, it's much like why the senior management in my company have offices and they all have nice Blackberrys. Some think they're perks, I see it as a way to ensure the company gets the most out of them by providing the environment they need to do their work. They can work in privacy, hols small meetings and work from home/airport/etc. with an office and a Blackberry. In my previous company the CEO sat at a desk out in the open like everyone else - great in theory, but really impractical. The guy talks about all sorts of sensitive things every day - things most other people shouldn't overhear. As a result, he essentially permanently booked a conference room so that he was available to do his work as needed. So yeah, he didn't have an office and was like the rest of us, but he had to take extra measures just to be able to do his work. All this just so that it didn't appear that he had some sort of "perk" others didn't get.

 

To me, use of an Air Force jet, one that doesn't have to stop for refueling is OK - its not a perk - its being practical. Whether its a Dem or a Republican who sits in that chair is of no consequence - Hasstert should have had it, Pelosi should have it, the next Speaker should have it.

[Bungee Jumper]

Here's an actual, fact-based story (from the AP, no less) on this crucial story:

 

GOP bristles at Pelosi desire for Air Force plane; Republicans scoff at House speaker's request, despite precedent for jets

 

 

 

 

There you go...an egregious abuse of power if there ever was one. How ever will the country survive?

 

I say the solution to this is: have the House buy their own damn Gulfstream V for the speaker. It'll avoid the "Did not!/Did too!" pissing match between the executive and the legislature, at the very least.

[GG]

I say the solution to this is: have the House buy their own damn Gulfstream V for the speaker. It'll avoid the "Did not!/Did too!" pissing match between the executive and the legislature, at the very least.

 

 

Yeah, and by the time they're done the G-V will cost as much as F-35